Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 735–747 | Cite as

Opportunity to learn in the preparation of mathematics teachers: its structure and how it varies across six countries

  • William H. Schmidt
  • Richard T. HouangEmail author
  • Leland Cogan
  • Sigrid Blömeke
  • Maria Teresa Tatto
  • Feng Jui Hsieh
  • Marcella Santillan
  • Kiril Bankov
  • Shin Il Han
  • Tenoch Cedillo
  • John Schwille
  • Lynn Paine
Original article

Abstract

Cross-national research studies such as the Program for International Student Assessment and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) have contributed much to our understandings regarding country differences in student achievement in mathematics, especially at the primary (elementary) and lower secondary (middle school) levels. TIMSS, especially, has demonstrated the central role that the concept of opportunity to learn plays in understanding cross-national differences in achievement Schmidt et al., (Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning  2001). The curricular expectations of a nation and the actual content exposure that is delivered to students by teachers were found to be among the most salient features of schooling related to academic performance. The other feature that emerges in these studies is the importance of the teacher. The professional competence of the teacher which includes substantive knowledge regarding formal mathematics, mathematics pedagogy and general pedagogy is suggested as being significant—not just in understanding cross-national differences but also in other studies as well (Hill et al. in Am Educ Res J 42(2):371–406, 2005). Mathematics Teaching in the 21st Century (MT21) is a small, six-country study that collected data on future lower secondary teachers in their last year of preparation. One of the findings noted in the first report of that study was that the opportunities future teachers experienced as part of their formal education varied across the six countries (Schmidt et al. in The preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries, 2007). This variation in opportunity to learn (OTL) existed in course work related to formal mathematics, mathematics pedagogy and general pedagogy. It appears from these initial results that OTL not only is important in understanding K-12 student learning but it is also likely important in understanding the knowledge base of the teachers who teach them which then has the potential to influence student learning as well. This study using the same MT21 data examines in greater detail the configuration of the educational opportunities future teachers had during their teacher education in some 34 institutions across the six countries.

Keywords

Mathematics teacher education Teacher education curriculum Comparative study of teacher education Opportunities to learn Teacher preparation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant No. 0231886. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Adler, J., Ball, D. L., Rainer, K., Lin, F. -L., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton: CMESG/GCEDM.Google Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 469–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1996). Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing. Boston College: Evaluation and Educational Policy.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, A. J. (1991). Mathematical enculturation. A cultural perspective on mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Blömeke, S. (2002). Universität und Lehrerausbildung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  7. Blömeke, S. (2004). Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerbildung. In S. Blömeke, P. Reinhold, G. Tulodziecki & J. Wildt (Eds.), Handbuch lehrerbildung (pp. 59–91). Bad Heilbrunn/Braunschweig: Klinkhardt/Westermann.Google Scholar
  8. Blömeke, S. (2005). Lehrerausbildung—Lehrerhandeln—Schülerleistungen: Perspektiven nationaler und internationaler empirischer Bildungsforschung. Antrittsvorlesung v. 10. Dezember 2003. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität (=Öffentliche Vorlesungen; 139).Google Scholar
  9. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer. Wissen, Überzeugungen und Lerngelegenheiten deutscher Mathematik-Studierender und-referendare—Erste Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerausbildung. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  10. Blum, W., Neubrand, M., Ehmke, T., Senkbeil, M., Jordan, A., Ulfig, F., et al. (2004). Mathematische Kompetenz. In M. Prenzel, J. Baumert, W. Blum, R. Lehmann, D. Leutner & M. Neubrand et al. (Eds.), PISA 2003. Der bildungsstand der jugendlichen in Deutschland—Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs (pp. 47–92). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  11. Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Zur Psychologie des professionellen Lehrerwissens. Göttingen: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  12. Bromme, R. (1997). Kompetenzen, Funktionen und unterrichtliches Handeln des Lehrers. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Psychologie des unterrichts und der schule (pp. 177–212). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  13. Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Krauss, S., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Dubberke, T., et al. (2006). Welche Zusammenhänge bestehen zwischen dem fachspezifischen Professionswissen von Mathematiklehrkräften und ihrer Ausbildung sowie beruflichen Fortbildung? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education. The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Ferrini-Mundy, J., Schmidt, W. H., Bates, P., Joyner, T., Leroi, G., & Wigent, Ch. (2006). Knowing mathematics: What we can learn from teachers. PROM/SE Research Report Vol. 2. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  16. Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S. (Eds.). (1998). Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  17. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, N.J., and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Helmke, A. (2004). Unterrichtsqualität: Erfassen, Bewerten, Verbessern (3 ed.). Seelze: Kallmeyersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  19. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (NCES 2003–013). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, H. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers. implications for the no child left behind policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houston, R.W. (Eds.) (1990). Handbook of research on teacher education. A project of the association of teacher educators. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I. “Aufgabenkultur” und Unterrichtsgestaltung. In Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Eds.), TIMSS—impulse für schule und Unterricht (pp. 43–57). Bonn: BMBF.Google Scholar
  24. Kaiser, G. (1999). Unterrichtswirklichkeit in England und Deutschland. Vergleichende Untersuchungen am Beispiel des Mathematikunterrichts. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Krauthausen, G., & Scherer, P. (2007). Einführung in die Mathematikdidaktik. München: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Lerman, S. (2001). A review of research perspectives on mathematics teacher education. In F.-L. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 33–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Leung, F. K. S. (1995). The mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong and London. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. 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 US mathematics and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Schmidt, W. H., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Houang, R. T., & Cogan, L. S. (2006). Curriculum insights from PROM/SE. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., et al. (2007). The preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  33. Schwille, J., & Dembele, M. (2007). Global perspectives on teacher learning: Improving policy and practice. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP): Fundamentals of educational planning series. Paris.Google Scholar
  34. Shulman, L. S. (1985). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edn.). (pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Sikula, J., Buttery, Th., & Guyton, E. (Eds.), (1996). Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd edn.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Tatto, M. T., Nielsen, H. D., Cummings, W. C., Kularatna, N. G., & Dharmadasa, D. H. (1993). Comparing the effectiveness and costs of different approaches for educating primary school teachers in Sri Lanka. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Schmidt, W. H., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., et al. (2004). IEA Teacher Education Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Unpublished manuscript: Conceptual Framework.Google Scholar
  38. Weinert, F. E. (1999). Konzepte der Kompetenz. Gutachten zum OECD-Projekt “Definition and Selection of Competencies: Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations (DeSeCo).” Neuchatel: Bundesamt für Statistik.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • William H. Schmidt
    • 1
  • Richard T. Houang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leland Cogan
    • 1
  • Sigrid Blömeke
    • 2
  • Maria Teresa Tatto
    • 1
  • Feng Jui Hsieh
    • 3
  • Marcella Santillan
    • 4
  • Kiril Bankov
    • 5
  • Shin Il Han
    • 6
  • Tenoch Cedillo
    • 4
  • John Schwille
    • 1
  • Lynn Paine
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.University of HumboldtBerlinGermany
  3. 3.National Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.National Pedagogical UniversityMexico CityMexico
  5. 5.University of SofiaSofiaBulgaria
  6. 6.Sungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations