ZDM

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 415–426 | Cite as

Assessing elemental validity: the transfer and use of mathematical knowledge for teaching measures in Ghana

Original Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

This paper reports on a validation study that investigates the utility of US-developed mathematical knowledge for teaching measures in Ghana. Using three teachers as cases this study examines the relationship between teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching responses and their reasoning about their responses. Preliminary findings indicate that although the measures could be used in Ghana with adaptation to determine teachers with high mathematical knowledge, the validity of the findings are influenced by other issues such as the cultural incongruence of the item contexts.

Keywords

Mathematical Knowledge Teacher Knowledge Difficult Item Survey Score Student Explanation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander, R. J. (2001). Border crossings: Towards a comparative pedagogy. Comparative Education, 37, 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anamuah-Mensah, J., Mereku, D. K., & Asabere-Ameyaw, A. (2004). Ghanaian junior secondary school students’ achievement in mathematics and science: Results from Ghana’s participation in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Accra: Ministry of Education Youth and Sports.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward a practice-based theory of professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Skyes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning professional: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematics knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Charalambous, C. Y. (2008). Preservice teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and their performance in selected teaching practices: Exploring a complex relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, Y. A. (2011). Mathematical knowledge for teaching: Exploring its transferability and measurement in Ghana. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  9. Delaney, S. (2008). Adapting and Using U.S. Measures to study Irish teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  10. Delaney, S., Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Zopf, D. (2008). “Mathematical knowledge for teaching”: Adapting US measures for use in Ireland. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., et al. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill, H. C., Dean, C., & Goffney, I. M. (2007). Assessing elemental and structural validity: Data from teachers, non-teachers, and mathematicians. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 5, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 873–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Ministry of Education. (2001). Teaching syllabus for mathematics (primary school). Accra, Ghana: Curriculum Research and Development Division.Google Scholar
  20. Mosvold, R., & Fauskanger, J. (2009). Challenges of translating and adapting the MKT measures for Norway. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Boston, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement, Boston College.Google Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  23. Ng, D. (2009). Translating and adapting the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) geometry measures for Indonesia. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). Teaching mathematics: Italian lessons from a cross-cultural perspective. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schilling, S. G., & Hill, H. C. (2007). Assessing measures of mathematical knowledge for teaching: A validity argument approach. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  28. Stigler, J. W., & Baranes, R. (1988). Culture and mathematics learning. Review of Research in Education, 15, 253–306.Google Scholar
  29. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher education and development study in mathematics (TEDS-M). East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  32. Tooley, J., Dixon, P., & Amuah, I. (2007). Private and public schooling in Ghana: A census and comparative survey. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue internationale l’éducation, 35(4), 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. UNESCO. (2006). Teachers and educational quality: Monitoring global needs for 2015. Montreal: UNESCO Institute of Statistics.Google Scholar
  35. Wilmot, E. M. (2008). An investigation into the profile of Ghanaian high school mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching algebra and its relationship with student performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  36. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Designs and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Yin, R. (2006). Case study methods. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary research methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (2003). Bilog-MG 3.0; Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models for multiple groups. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations