Central in the frameworks proposed to capture the knowledge needed for teaching mathematics is the assumption that teachers need more than pure subject-matter knowledge. Validation studies exploring this assumption by recruiting contrasting populations are relatively scarce. Drawing on a sample of 644 Greek-Cypriots preservice and inservice elementary school teachers and university students with strong mathematical background, this study explored participants’ knowledge with respect to four teaching practices: providing and evaluating explanations; selecting and using representations; analyzing student errors, misconceptions, and non-conventional solutions; and selecting tasks. Results emerging from an item response theory (IRT) model and non-parametric tests showed significant differences among these groups, largely in the first two practices. Clinical interviews with a voluntary sub-sample of these participants provided insights into the unexpected findings related to the other two practices. The theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of these findings are discussed, and directions for future studies are offered.
AdlerJ.DavisZ. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 270-296. doi:10.2307/30034851
2.
ArcaviA. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215-241. doi:10.1023/A:1024312321077
3.
BallD. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator, 16(2), 14-18, 46-47.
4.
BallD. L. (1993). Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing and using representational contexts in teaching fractions. In CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research (pp. 157-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BallD. L.BassH. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In BoalerJ. (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
6.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. doi:10.1177/0022487108324554
7.
BaumertJ.KunterM.BlumW.BrunnerM.VossT.JordanA.. . . TsaiY. M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180. doi:10.3102/0002831209345157
8.
BellC. A.WilsonS. M.HigginsT.McCoachD. B. (2010). Measuring the effects of professional development on teacher knowledge: The case of developing mathematical ideas. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 479-513. doi:10.2307/41110411
9.
BoltD. M.HareR. D.VitaleJ. E.NewmanJ. P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16(2), 155-168. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.155
10.
BondT. G.FoxC. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
BuschangR. E.ChungG. K. W. K.DelacruzG. C.BakerE. L. (2012). Validating measures of algebra teacher subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (CRESST Report No. 820). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, & Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles.
12.
CaiJ. (2005). U.S. and Chinese teachers’ constructing, knowing, and evaluating representations to teach mathematics. Mathematics Thinking and Learning, 7(2), 135-169. doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0702_3
13.
CharalambousC. Y. (2008). Preservice teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and their performance in selected teaching practices: Exploring a complex relationship (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
14.
CharalambousC. Y.HillH. C.BallD. L. (2011). Prospective teachers’ learning to provide instructional explanations: How does it look and what might it take?Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 441-463. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9182-z
15.
CharalambousC. Y.McGinnD.HillH. C.ChinM. (2014, April). Teacher knowledge and student learning: Bringing together two different conceptualizations of teacher knowledge. In HillH. C. (Chair), Teacher quality, teaching quality, and student outcomes in mathematics: Putting the puzzle together. Symposium conducted at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
16.
ClementsD. H.McMillenS. (1996). Rethinking concrete manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270-279. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41196500
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Core Practice Consortium. (2014, April). Enriching research and innovation through the specification of professional practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
19.
DavisB.RenertM. (2013). Profound understanding of emergent mathematics: Broadening the construct of teachers’ disciplinary knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 245-265. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9424-8
20.
DelaneyS. (2012). A validation study of the use of mathematical knowledge for teaching measures in Ireland. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44, 427-441. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0382-5
21.
DiezmannC. M.EnglishL. D. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for thinking. In CuocoA. A.CurcioF. R. (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (NCTM 2001 Yearbook, pp. 77-89). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
EngelhardG.SullivanR. K. (2007). Re-conceptualizing validity within the context of a new measure of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2-3), 142-156. doi:10.1080/15366360701487468
25.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London, England: SAGE.
26.
GitomerD. H.ZiskR. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers know. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 1-53. doi:10.3102/0091732X14557001
27.
GrossmanP. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 10-23. doi:10.1177/0022487107310748
28.
GrossmanP.HammernessK.McDonaldM. (2009). Redefining teaching: Re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-290. doi:10.1080/13540600902875340
29.
HambletonR. K.SwaminathanH.RogersH. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
30.
HarrisD. (1989). Comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3-parameter IRT models. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8, 35-41.
31.
HillH. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513-545. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41110412
32.
HillH. C.BallD. L.SchillingS. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372-400. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539304
33.
HillH. C.BlunkM.CharalambousC. Y.LewisJ.PhelpsG. C.SleepL.BallD. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430-511. doi:10.1080/07370000802177235
34.
HillH. C.DeanC.GoffneyI. M. (2007). Assessing elemental and structural validity: Data from teachers, non-teachers, and mathematicians. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2-3), 81-92. doi:10.1080/15366360701486999
35.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406. doi:10.3102/00028312042002371
36.
HulinC. L.DrasgowF.ParsonC. K. (1983). Item response theory: Application to psychological measurement. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
37.
InoueN. (2009). Rehearsing to teach: Content-specific deconstruction of instructional explanations in pre-service teacher training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 47-60. doi:10.1080/02607470802587137
38.
JacksonK.GarrisonA.WilsonJ.GibbonsL.ShahanE. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646-682. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.44.4.0646
39.
KerstingN. B.GivvinK. B.ThompsonB. J.SantagataR.StiglerJ. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568-589. doi:10.3102/0002831212437853
40.
KleickmannT.RichterD.KunterM.ElsnerJ.BesserM.KraussS.BaumertJ. (2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90-106. doi:10.1177/0022487112460398
41.
KolenM. J.BrennanR. L. (2014). Test equating, scaling, and linking (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
42.
KraussS.BaumertJ.BlumW. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(5), 873-892. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0141-9
43.
KraussS.BrunnerM.KunterM.BaumertJ.BlumW.NeubrandM.JordanA. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716-725. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.716
44.
LampertM. (2001). Teaching with problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
LampertM. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean?Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21-34. doi:10.1177/0022487109347321
46.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. doi:10.2307/2529310
47.
LeinhardtG. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook for research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 333-357). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
48.
LeinhardtG.SteeleM. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 87-163. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_4
49.
MaykutP.MorehouseR. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London, England: The Falmer Press.
50.
MeiraL. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121-142. doi:10.2307/749895
51.
MitchellR.CharalambousC. Y.HillC. H. (2014). Examining the task and knowledge demands needed to teach with representations. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 37-60. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9253-4
52.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
53.
PallantJ. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS (3rd ed.). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
54.
PhelpsG.WerenB.CroftA.GitomerD. (2014). Developing content knowledge for teaching assessments for the Measures of Effective Teaching study. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(2), 1-92. doi:10.1002/ets2.12031
55.
RemillardJ. T.BryansM. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352-388.
56.
Rittle-JohnsonB.SaylorM.SwygertK. E. (2008). Learning from explaining: Does it matter if mom is listening?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100(3), 215-224. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.002
57.
RowlandT.HuckstepP.ThwaitesA. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The Knowledge Quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255-281. doi:10.1007/s10857-005-0853-5
58.
SadlerP. M.SonnertG.CoyleH. P.Cook-SmithN.MillerJ. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020-1049. doi:10.3102/0002831213477680
59.
ShecthmanN.HaertelG.RoschelleJ.KnudsenJ.SingletonC. (2013). Development of student and teacher assessments in the scaling up SimCalc Project. In HegedusS. J.RoschelleJ. (Eds.), The SimCalc vision and contributions (pp. 167-181). London, England: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5696-0_10
60.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
61.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
62.
SonJ. W.CrespoS. (2009). Prospective teachers’ reasoning and response to a student’s non-traditional strategy when dividing fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 235-261. doi:10.1007/s10857-009-9112-5
63.
SteeleM. D.HillenA. F.SmithM. S. (2013). Developing mathematical knowledge for teaching in a methods course: The case of function. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(6), 451-482. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9243-6
TattoM. T.SchwilleJ.SenkS. L.BankovK.RodriguezM.ReckaseM.. . . PeckR. (2012). The Teacher Education Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics (Findings from the IEA Study of the mathematics preparation of future teachers). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
66.
ThompsonP. W.ThompsonA. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher’s struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279-303.
67.
WilsonP. H.MojicaG. F.ConfreyJ. (2013). Learning trajectories in teacher education: Supporting teachers’ understandings of students’ mathematical thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 103-121. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.12.003
68.
WittwerJ.RenklA. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49-64. doi:10.1080/00461520701756420
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
