Abstract
This article examines the teacher preparation program learning opportunities afforded future lower secondary mathematics teachers and future elementary teachers who may teach mathematics. Data from U.S. participation in the recent international Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics are explored against international profiles to address a critical issue often cited in the teacher education literature: Given the finite time available, what sort of balance is provided for course work across the areas of mathematics content, mathematics pedagogy, and general pedagogy? Results demonstrated major differences for lower secondary preparation programs in both the types of topics or courses covered and the relative emphasis across the three areas in those countries statistically outperforming the United States in comparison to U.S. programs. Similar but less striking differences were noted among elementary programs. These results should provide important empirical evidence relevant to the ongoing policy dialog concerning identifying the specific content of a quality teacher preparation program.
Elements were previously published as “The Role of Opportunity to Learn in Teacher Preparation: An International Context”, Journal of Teacher Education, 62 (2), pp. 138–153. Printed with permission of the Journal of Teacher Education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The rationale for a 2-stage cluster sample drawn with probability proportional to the size of the institutions (TEDS-M ISC, Sample Preparation Manual, 2007) was that with few exceptions, teachers in the participating countries were prepared by identifiable institutions such as universities, colleges, teacher colleges, normal schools, etc. The first stage was to identify and select institutions with probabilities proportional to the size of the institutions. Then a sample was drawn randomly from eligible training programs within each institution.
The desired target population was to have national coverage. For TEDS-M, the target populations included Level 1 (primary/elementary) teachers who are prepared by their teacher education programs and certified by the states to teach mathematics, and Level 2 (lower secondary/middle grades) teachers. In the U.S., Level 1 teachers are prepared by primary or elementary programs (K-5, K-6, K-8, 1–5, etc.). Level 2 teachers are prepared by programs for secondary and/or middle school mathematics. The U.S. TEDS-M sampling frame focused on the 1351 colleges and universities that have teacher preparation programs approved by the U.S. Department of Education. The sampling frame, therefore, excluded teachers prepared under “alternate routes” as these individuals are most often already teaching in classrooms and thus fell outside the definition of “future teachers” which was the population in focus for TEDS-M.
The resulting U.S. sampling frame includes 498 publicly controlled institutions and 853 privately controlled institutions. Based on the sampling frame, publicly controlled institutions represent 37 % of all institutions but they are responsible for 60 % of the total institutional production.
For both organizational and operational reasons, it was necessary to conduct the data collection in two consecutive years in 2008 and 2009. A sampling fraction of 12 % was used to draw the sample. Data collection followed strictly the guidelines and procedures provided by the ISC (Institution Contact and Site Coordinator Manual, 2008).
Because of the complex sampling design, standard errors for any estimators and comparisons had to be estimated using Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) (Dumais and Meinick 2009). Essentially, weights were determined according to the sampling design, adjusted for non-participation and non-response. Replicate samples were then created for computing the desired standard errors.
Finally, because data collection spanned two academic years, a second sample was collected from 8 of participating public institutions in 2009 for comparison. These 8 institutions were selected randomly after the sample of participating public institutions was stratified according to the response rates. The comparison revealed that there were no significant differences between institutional samples from the two years. The two samples were compared on a set of variables relating to the future teachers’ background (high school GPA, highest course taken in mathematics in high school, SAT, and ACT scores), as well as mathematics courses taken in college. The analysis was performed controlling for differences among the institutions. There were no statistically significant differences between data collected from the 2 years.
For further details, see Appendix A of Breaking the Cycle: An International Comparison of U.S. Mathematics Teacher Preparation (The Center for Research in Math and Science Education 2010).
- 2.
Statistical significance for differences between country means was determined using the computed standard errors and employing Bonferroni multiple comparisons which controls the family-wise significance level at 0.05. Countries were then grouped with respect to the U.S. Public institution mean: statistically significantly greater than the U.S. Public mean; no different than the U.S. Public mean; less than the U.S. Public mean. The full distribution of scores for each country including the 95 % confidence interval for the means is included in Appendix C of the report, Breaking the cycle: An international comparison of U.S. mathematics teacher preparation.
- 3.
References
Abell Foundation (2001a). Teacher certification reconsidered: stumbling for quality. Baltimore: Abell. http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/ed_cert_1101.pdf. Accessed 30 September 2003.
Abell Foundation (2001b). Teacher certification reconsidered: stumbling for quality—appendix. Review of research teacher certification and effective teaching. Baltimore: Abell. http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/ed_cert_appendix_1101.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept. 2003.
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.
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (2009). Importing educators: causes and consequences of international teacher recruitment. Washington: AFT.
Blömeke, S. (2004). Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerbildung [Empirical findings for the effectiveness of the teacher formation]. In S. Blömeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki, & J. Wildt (Eds.), Handbuch lehrerbildung [Manual teacher formation] (pp. 59–91). Bad Heilbrunn/Braunschweig: Klinkhardt/Westermann.
Blömeke, S., Felbrich, A., Müller, C., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (2008). Effectiveness of teacher education: state of research, measurement issues and consequences for future studies. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 719–734. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0096-x.
Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (Eds.) (2010). TEDS-M 2008—Professionelle Kompetenz und Lerngelegenheiten angehender Primarstufenlehrkräfte im internationalen Vergleich [TEDS-M 2008—professional competence and opportunities to learn of future primary teachers in an international comparison]. Münster: Waxmann.
Blömeke, 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.
Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, funktionen, und unterrichtliches handeln des lehrers [Authority, functions, and instructional acting of the teacher]. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule [Psychology of instruction and the school] (pp. 177–212). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723–733.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: what does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.
Dumais, J. & Meinck, S. (2009). Estimation weights, participation rates, and sampling error. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Routledge Falmer.
Eurydice (2001). The teaching profession in Europe: profile, trends and concerns. Volume I. Brüssel: Eurydice.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–145.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (1995). Didaktik und/oder curriculum: Grundprobleme einer international vergleichenden didaktik [Didactics and/or curriculum: basic problems of an internationally comparing didactics]. In S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Didaktik und/oder curriculum [Didactics and/or curriculum] (pp. 9–34). Weinheim: Beltz.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment & Support Consortium (INTASC) (1995). Model standards in mathematics for beginning teacher licensing and development: a resource for state dialogue. Washington: Author.
Leithwood, K., Edge, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Educational accountability: the state of the art. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.
McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.
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: ILR Press.
Murray, F. B. (2000). The role of accreditation reform in teacher education. Educational Policy, 14(1), 40–59.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF) (1996). What matters most teaching for America’s future. report of the national commission on teaching & America’s future. Woodbridge: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (2000). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington: Author.
OECD (2004). Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2004. Paris: Author.
OECD (2009). OECD programme for international student assessment. http://www.pisa.oecd.org. Accessed on 12 July 2009.
Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308.
Schmidt, W. H., & Maier, A. (2009). Opportunity to learn. In G. Sykes, B. L. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 541–549). New York: Routledge.
Schmidt, W. H., Jorde, D., Cogan, L. S., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U., et al. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow: an investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. New York: Springer.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R. T. (1999). Facing the consequences: using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: a cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. A., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–529.
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., Cogan, L., Blömeke, S., Tatto, M. T., Hsieh, F. J., Santillan, M., Bankov, K., Han, S., Cedillo, T., Schwille, J., & Paine, L. (2008). Opportunity to learn in the preparation of mathematics teachers: its structure and how it varies across six countries. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(5), 735–747.
Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S., & Tatto, M. T. (2011). Teacher education matters: a study of middle school mathematics teacher preparation in six countries. New York: Teachers College Press.
Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at work: models for superior performance. New York: Wiley.
Taconis, R., Van der Plas, P., & Van der Sanden, J. (2004). The development of professional competencies by educational assistants in school-based teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 215–240.
Tatto, M. T., & Senk, S. (2011). The mathematics education of future primary and secondary teachers: methods and findings from the teacher education and development study in mathematics. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 121–137.
Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher education and development study in mathematics (TEDS-M): policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.
The Center for Research in Math and Science Education (2010). Breaking the cycle: an international comparison of U.S. mathematics teacher preparation. East Lansing: Author.
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center (2009). http://timss.bc.edu/. Accessed 12 July 2009.
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: a conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–66). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research. Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPresp-WFFM-02-2001.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept. 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schmidt, W.H., Cogan, L., Houang, R. (2014). Emphasis and Balance among the Components of Teacher Preparation: The Case of Lower-Secondary Mathematics Teacher Education. In: Blömeke, S., Hsieh, FJ., Kaiser, G., Schmidt, W. (eds) International Perspectives on Teacher Knowledge, Beliefs and Opportunities to Learn. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6437-8_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6437-8_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6436-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6437-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)