Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examination of Lower Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Content Knowledge and Its Connection to Students’ Performance

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

Abstract

This mixed methods study examined an association between cognitive types of teachers’ mathematical content knowledge and students’ performance in lower secondary schools (grades 5 through 9). Teachers (N  =  90) completed the Teacher Content Knowledge Survey (TCKS), which consisted of items measuring different cognitive types of teacher knowledge. The first cognitive type (T1) assessed participants’ knowledge of basic facts and procedures. The second cognitive type (T2) measured teachers’ understanding of concepts and connections. The third cognitive type (T3) gauged teachers’ knowledge of mathematical models and generalizations. The study comprised two levels of quantitative data analysis. First, we explored each cognitive type of teachers’ content knowledge and the overall TCKS score as they related to student performance. Second, we studied the correlation between each cognitive type of teacher content knowledge to deepen the understanding of content associations. Results of the study show a statistically significant correlation between cognitive types T1 and T2 of teacher content knowledge and student performance (p  <  .05). The correlation between cognitive type T3 and student performance was not significant (p  =  .0678). The most substantial finding was the correlation between teachers’ total score on the TCKS and student performance (Pearson’s r  =  .2903, p  =  .0055  <  .01). These results suggest that teachers’ content knowledge plays an important role in student performance at the lower secondary school. The qualitative phase included structured interviews with two of the teacher participants in order to further elaborate on the nature of the quantitative results of the study.

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

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, A., Mellin-Olsen, S. & van Dormolen, J. (1991). Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn (expandedth ed.). Washington: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of the tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B. & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 293–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E. & Loef-Franke, M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–165). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D. & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A. & Lee, C. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and able to do (pp. 201–231). San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henningsen, M. A. & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., Ball, D. & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G. & Smith, D. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 241–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. & Senk, S. (2012). Knowledge of algebra for teaching: A framework of knowledge and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation (2000). Federal education standards in special fields. Federal education standards for higher professional education in the field “Mathematics”. Qualification: Teacher of mathematics. Moscow, Russia: Ministry of Education and Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation (2004). Federal component of the general education standards. Mathematics. Moscow: Ministry of Education and Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P. & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.

  • Murray, M. (2004). Teaching mathematics vocabulary in context: windows, doors, and secret passageways. Portsmouth, England: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: Report of the task group on teachers and teacher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.

  • Resnick, L. & Zuravsky, C. (2006). Do the math: Cognitive demand makes a difference. Research Points: Essential Information for Educational Policy, 4(2), 1–4.

  • Rowland, T., Huckstep, P. & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 255–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saderholm, J., Ronau, R., Brown, E. & Collins, G. (2010). Validation of the diagnostics teacher assessment of mathematics and science (DTAMS) instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 110(4), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. (2007). The complexities of assessing teacher knowledge. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2–3), 198–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M., Smith, M., Henningsen, M. & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. Foreword by Deborah Ball. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, T., Haymore, J. & Marks, R. (1985). Teacher’s knowledge and structuring content in mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbring, H. (1998). Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 157–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. & Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stylianides, A. & Stylianides, G. (2014). Viewing “mathematics for teaching” as a form of applied mathematics: Implications for the mathematical preparation of teachers. Notices of the AMS, 61(3), 266–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchoshanov, M., Lesser, L. & Salazar, J. (2008). Teacher knowledge and student achievement: Revealing patters. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 13, 39–49.

  • Tchoshanov, M. (2011). Relationship between teacher content knowledge, teaching practice, and student achievement in middle grades mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(2), 141–164.

  • Valverde, Y. & Tchoshanov, M. (2013). Secondary mathematics teachers’ disposition toward challenge and its effect on teaching practice and student performance. Kazan Pedagogical Journal, 3(98), 25–33.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

    Mourat Tchoshanov, Maria D. Cruz & Karla Huereca

  2. Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia

    Kadriya Shakirova, Liliana Shakirova & Elena N. Ibragimova

Authors
  1. Mourat Tchoshanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria D. Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karla Huereca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kadriya Shakirova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liliana Shakirova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elena N. Ibragimova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mourat Tchoshanov.

Appendix

Appendix

Sample Items from the Teacher Content Knowledge Survey

  1. (1)

    What is the rule for fraction division?

    1. A.

      \( \frac{a}{b}\div \frac{c}{d}=\frac{ac}{bd} \)

    2. B.

      \( \frac{a}{b}\div \frac{c}{d}=\frac{ab}{cd} \)

    3. C.

      \( \frac{a}{b}\div \frac{c}{d}=\frac{cd}{ab} \)

    4. D.

      \( \frac{a}{b}\div \frac{c}{d}=\frac{ad}{bc} \)

  2. (2)

    Which of the following word problems below represents the given fraction division \( 1\frac{3}{4}\div \frac{1}{2}=? \)

    1. A.

      Juan has a piece of rope \( 1\frac{3}{4} \) feet long and cuts it in half. At what length should he cut the rope?

    2. B.

      Maria has \( 1\frac{3}{4} \) liters of juice. How many \( \frac{1}{2} \) liter containers can she fill?

    3. C.

      A boat in a river moves \( 1\frac{3}{4} \) miles in 2 h. What is the boat’s speed?

    4. D.

      Daniel divides \( 1\frac{3}{4} \) pounds of coffee evenly between 2 customers. How many pounds of coffee will each customer get?

  3. (3)

    Is the following statement \( \frac{a}{b}\div \frac{c}{d}=\frac{ac}{bd} \) (a, b, c, d – positive integers) ever true?

    1. A.

      The statement is always true

    2. B.

      The statement true if c  =  d

    3. C.

      The statement is never true

    4. D.

      The statement is true if ad  =  bc

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tchoshanov, M., Cruz, M.D., Huereca, K. et al. Examination of Lower Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Content Knowledge and Its Connection to Students’ Performance. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 15, 683–702 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9703-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9703-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation