Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Student Achievement: the Influence of Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Statistics

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Statistics is an increasingly important component of the mathematics curriculum. StatSmart was a project intended to influence middle-years students’ learning outcomes in statistics through the provision of appropriate professional learning opportunities and technology to teachers. Participating students in grade 5/6 to grade 9 undertook three tests, a pre-test, a post-test and a longitudinal retention test over a period of 2 years. Their teachers completed a survey that included items measuring pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching statistics. Despite the development of valid instruments to measure both student and teacher content knowledge and teachers’ PCK, linking teachers’ knowledge directly to students’ learning outcomes has proved elusive. Multilevel modelling of results from 789 students for whom there were 3 completed tests and measures from their teachers indicated that students’ outcomes were influenced positively by their initial teacher’s PCK. Extended participation of teachers in the project also appeared to reduce negative effects of changing teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Degrees of freedom based on Welch’s t test

  2. The 70 students who did four tests reported a non-significant increase of 0.05 logits on their last test.

  3. A random slopes model that allows different growth trajectories was also tested but failed to converge.

References

  • Australian Education Council (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). The Australian curriculum. Sydney, Austalia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Guide to understanding ICSEA. Sydney, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_ICSEA.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Bliese, P. (2012). Multilevel modelling in R (2.5). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Available online at http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Bliese_Multilevel.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Callingham, R. (2010). Trajectories of learning in middle years’ students’ statistical development. In C. Reading (Ed.) Data and context in statistics education: Towards an evidence-based society (Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics, Ljubljana, Slovenia, July)[CDRom]. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

  • Callingham, R. & Watson, J.M. (2007). Overcoming research design issues using Rasch measurement: The StatSmart project. In P. Jeffery (Ed.) Proceedings of the AARE annual conference, Fremantle, 2007. Available at http://www.aare.edu.au/07pap/cal07042.pdf.

  • Callingham, R. & Watson, J.M. (2011).Measuring levels of statistical pedagogical content knowledge. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill & C. Reading (Eds.)Teaching statistics in school mathematics—challenges for teaching and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study (pp. 283-293). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

  • Callingham, R., Watson, J. & Burgess, T. (2012). Uncertainty in mathematics education: What to do with statistics? In J. Greenlees, T. Logan, T. Lowrie, A. MacDonald & B. Perry (Eds.), Review of Australasian mathematics education research: 2008-2011. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it so special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batanero, C., Estepa, A., Godino, J. D. & Green, D. R. (1996). Intuitive strategies and preconceptions about association in contingency tables. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batanero, C., Burrill, G. & Reading, C. (2011). Teaching statistics in school mathematics—challenges for teaching and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., ...Yi-Miau, T. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

  • Beswick, K., Callingham, R. & Watson, J.M. (2012). The nature and development of middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(2), 131–157. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9177-9.

  • Cai, J. (1995). Beyond the computational algorithm: Students’ understanding of the arithmetic average concept. In L. Meira & D. Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th psychology of mathematics education conference (Vol. 3, pp. 144–151). São Paulo, Brazil: PME Program Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, J. (1998). Exploring students’ conceptual understanding of the averaging algorithm. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chick, H.L. (2007). Teaching and learning by example. In J. M. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 3–21). Sydney, Australia: MERGA.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedrick, R. F., Ferron, J. M., Hess, M. R., Hogarty, K. Y., Dromrey, J. D., Lang, T. R., ... Lee, R. S. (2009). Multilevel modeling: A review of methodological issues and applications. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 69–102.

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M. & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Even, R. & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students’ mathematical learning. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 219–240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Faraway, J. J. (2006). Extending the linear model with R. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 169(4), 1008.

  • Finzer, W. (2002). Fathom dynamic data software (version 2.1). [computer software]. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

  • Franklin, C., Kader, G., Mewborn, D., Moreno, J., Peck, R., Perry, M. & Scheaffer, R. (2007).Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) report: a Pre-K–12 curriculum framework. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/education/gaise/

  • Green, D. R. (1983). A survey of probability concepts in 3000 pupils aged 11-16 years. In D. R. Grey, P. Holmes, V. Barnett & G. M. Constable (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on teaching statistics (Vol. 2, pp. 766–783). Sheffield, England: Teaching Statistics Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D.R. (1986). Children’s understanding of randomness: Report of a survey of 1600 children aged 7-11 years. In R. Davidson & J. Swift (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 287-291). Victoria, BC: The Organizing Committee, ICOTS2.

  • Green, D. (1991). A longitudinal study of pupils’ probability concepts. In D. Vere-Jones (Ed.)Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Vol. 1.School and general issues (pp. 320–328).Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

  • Groth, R. E. (2007). Toward a conceptualisation of statistical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 427–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P. W. & Rowe, K. J. (1998). Modelling student progress in studies of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 9(3), 310–333. doi:10.1080/0924345980090303.

  • Hill, P. W., Rowe, K. J., Holmes-Smith, P. & Russell, V. J. (1996). The Victorian Quality Schools Project: A study of school and teacher effectiveness. Report to the Australian Research Council (Volume 1 - Report). Melbourne, Austalia: Centre for Applied Educational Research, Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne.

  • Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G. & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Rowan, R. & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M. & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers mathematical knowledge: What knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 111–156). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konold, C. & Higgins, T. L. (2003). Reasoning about data. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 193–215). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konold, C. & Miller, C. D. (2005). Tinkerplots: Dynamic data exploration. [Computer software] Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

  • Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J. M. (2012). Winsteps Rasch measurement 3.75.0 [computer software]. Retrieved from Winsteps.com. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Linacre, J. M. (2013). A users’ guide to Winsteps. Retrieved from http://Winsteps.com. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Makar, K. & Fielding-Wells, J. (2011). Teaching teachers to teach statistical investigations. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics—challenges for teaching and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study (pp. 347–358). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 49, 359–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevarech, Z. (1983). A deep structure model of students’ statistical misconceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Teachers’ content knowledge, teacher education, and their effects on the preparation of elementary teachers in the United States. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 3, 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

  • Ministry of Education. (2007). Draft Mathematics and Statistics Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

  • Mokros, J. & Russell, S. J. (1995). Children’s concepts of average and representativeness. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  • Pierce, R. & Chick, H. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about statistics education. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics—challenges for teaching and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study (pp. 151–162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollatsek, A., Lima, S. & Well, A. D. (1981). Concept or computation: Students’ understanding of the mean. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 27 May 2015.

  • Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Paedogogiske Institut.

  • Rowan, B., Correnti, R. & Miller, R.J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the ‘Prospects’ study of elementary schools. (CPRE Research Report Series RR-051). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Available at http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/rr51.pdf.

  • Shaughnessy, J. M. (2007). Research on statistics learning and reasoning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook on research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 957–1009). Charlotte, CA: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, S. & Bichler, E. (1988). The development of children’s concept of the arithmetic average. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 64–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. L. & Heck, R. H. (2001). Analysis of large-scale secondary data in higher education research: Potential perils associated with complex sampling designs. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 517–540.

  • Watson, J. M. (2001). Profiling teachers’ competence and confidence to teach particular mathematics topics: The case of chance and data. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 305–337.

  • Watson, J. M. (2006). Statistical literacy at school: Growth and goals. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Watson, J. M. & Moritz, J.B. (1999). The beginning of statistical inference: Comparing two data sets. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 145–168.

  • Watson, J. M. & Moritz, J.B. (2000). Developing concepts of sampling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 44–70.

  • Watson, J. M. & Callingham, R. (2003). Statistical literacy: A complex hierarchical construct. Statistics Education Research Journal, 2(2), 3–46.

  • Watson, J. M. & Callingham, R. (2013). Likelihood and sample size: The understandings of students and their teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 32(3), 600–672.

  • Watson, J. M. & Callingham, R. (2014). Two-way tables: Issues at the heart of statistics and probability for students and teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(4), 254–284.

  • Watson, J. M., Callingham, R. & Kelly, B.A. (2007). Students’ appreciation of expectation and variation as a foundation for statistical understanding. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9, 83–130.

  • Watson, J. M., Callingham, R. & Donne, J. (2008). Proportional reasoning: Student knowledge and teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. In M. Goos, R. Brown & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions (Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Brisbane, Vol. 2, pp. 555–562). Adelaide, Australia: MERGA.

  • Watson, J. M., Brown, N., Beswick, K. & Wright, S. (2011). Teacher change in a changing educational environment. In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: Traditions and [new] practices (Proceedings of the AAMT/MERGA conferences, pp. 760–767). Adelaide, Australia: AAMT and MERGA.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by Australian Research Grant No. LP0669106 in collaboration with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Key Curriculum Press and The Baker Centre for School Mathematics, Prince Alfred College, Adelaide, South Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1307, Launceston, TAS, 7250, Australia

    Rosemary Callingham

  2. School of Education, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW, 2640, Australia

    Colin Carmichael

  3. School of Education, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 66, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

    Jane M. Watson

Authors
  1. Rosemary Callingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Carmichael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane M. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosemary Callingham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Callingham, R., Carmichael, C. & Watson, J.M. Explaining Student Achievement: the Influence of Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Statistics. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 14, 1339–1357 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9653-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9653-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation