Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of teacher education programs on future elementary mathematics teachers’ knowledge: a five-country analysis using TEDS-M data

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

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of how opportunities to learn in teacher education programs influence future elementary mathematics teachers’ knowledge. This study used data collected for the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). TEDS-M measured the mathematics content knowledge (MCK) and the mathematics pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK) of future teachers in their final year in teacher preparation programs. The purpose of this study is to explore whether elementary teaching candidates’ MCK and MPCK are associated with their opportunities to learn in mathematics courses and mathematics methods courses in five countries. The results showed that opportunities to learn in some teacher preparation components are more important than in other components.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are 17 countries in the TEDS-M study. Figure 1 does not include Canada because in Canada, education is the responsibility of each province and TEDS-M was only conducted in four Canadian jurisdictions. At the same time, Fig. 1 includes data from US private institutions, which are not part of the TEDS-M study.

  2. Lower secondary level refers to middle school, usually serving kids whose age is around 11–14.

  3. The upper grade limit for “primary mathematics specialists” depends on how each country defines the grade level for primary school. For example, if a country defines grade 1–6 as primary school, then primary mathematics specialists can teach up to grade 6.

  4. Because the exclusion rate was greater than 5 % for the Philippines, we did not include the Philippines in our analysis.

  5. Nineteen university-level mathematic topics include Foundations of geometry or axiomatic geometry, Analytic/coordinate geometry, Non-euclidean geometry, Differential geometry, Topology, Linear algebra, Set theory, Abstract algebra, Number theory, Beginning calculus, Calculus, Multivariate calculus, Advanced calculus or real analysis or measure theory, Differential equations, Theory of real functions and theory of complex functions or functional analysis, Discrete mathematics, graph theory, game theory, combinatorics, or Boolean algebra, Probability, Theoretical or applied statistics, and Mathematical logic.

  6. In order to exclude the possibility that this may be related to the variance of MCK/MPCK in these countries, we have checked the relationships between the variance (standard deviation) of MCK/MPCK and the number of significant associations between teacher preparation components and MCK/MPCK. We found that there is no relationship between them. Table 12 lists the result.

References

  • Akiba, M., LeTendre, G., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries around the world. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED479051

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey of the empirical literature. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloemeke, S. (2004). Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerbildung [Empirical findings for the effectiveness of the teacher formation]. In S. Bloemeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki, & J. Wildt (Eds.), Handbuch lehrerbildung [Manual teacher formation] (pp. 59–91). Bad Heilbrunn/Braunschweig: Klinkhardt/Westermann.

  • Bloemeke, S., Suhl, U., & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: Quality and equity of future primary teachers’ mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 154–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brese, F., & Tatto, M. T. (Eds.). (2012). User guide for the TEDS-M international database. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe, C., & Stout, D. (1996). Integrating mathematics and science through problem centered learning in methods courses: Effects on prospective teachers’ understanding of problem solving. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(2), 66–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 309–424). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: National Research Council, The National Academies. Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882

  • Croninger, R. G., Rice, J. K., Rathbun, A., & Nishio, M. (2007). Teacher qualifications and early learning: Effects of certification, degree, and experience on first-grade student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 26(3), 312–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://ncctq.learningpt.org/publications/LinkBetweenTQandStudentOutcomes.pdf

  • Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. J. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996 (pp. 197–210). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & 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 (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 111–155). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education courses on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, L. S., & Owings, W. A. (2001). Teacher quality and student achievement: Recommendations for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. K., & Sharp, J. (2000). Investigating and measuring preservice elementary mathematics teachers’ decision about lesson planning after experiencing technology-enhanced methods instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(4), 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langrall, C. W., Thornton, C. A., Jones, G. A., & Malone, J. A. (1996). Enhanced pedagogical knowledge and reflective analysis in elementary mathematics teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mewborn, D. S. (1999). Reflective thinking among preservice elementary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(3), 316–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary math and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monk, D. H., & King, J. A. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The case of teacher subject-matter preparation. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education (pp. 29–58). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullens, J. E., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (1996). The contribution of training and subject matter knowledge to teaching effectiveness: A multilevel analysis of longitudinal evidence from Belize. Comparative Education Review, 40(2), 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. Woodbridge, VA: Author.

  • Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, B., Chiang, B. F., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H., Bloemeke, S., & Tatto, M. T. (2011a). Teacher education matters: A study of middle school mathematics teacher preparation in six countries. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L., & Houang, R. (2011b). The role of opportunity to learn in teacher preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwille, J., Ingvarson, L., & Holdgreve-Resendez, R. (Eds.). (2013). TEDS-M Encyclopedia: A guide to teacher education context, structure, and quality assurance in seventeen TEDS-M countries. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., et al. (2012). Policy, Practice, and Readiness to Teach Primary and Secondary Mathematics in 17 Countries. East Lansing: Teacher Education International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ changing beliefs and instructional use of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122.

  • Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf

  • Youngs, P., & Qian, H. (2013). The influence of university courses and field experiences on Chinese Elementary candidates’ mathematicsematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 244–261.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Council of State Boards of Nursing, 111 E.Wacker Drive, Suite 2900, Chicago, IL, 60601-4277, USA

    Hong Qian

  2. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Peter Youngs

Authors
  1. Hong Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Youngs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong Qian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qian, H., Youngs, P. The effect of teacher education programs on future elementary mathematics teachers’ knowledge: a five-country analysis using TEDS-M data. J Math Teacher Educ 19, 371–396 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9297-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9297-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation