Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 249–264 | Cite as

The acquisition of mathematics pedagogical content knowledge in university mathematics education courses: results of a mixed methods study on the effectiveness of teacher education in Germany

  • Nils Frederik Buchholtz
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper reports on a longitudinal mixed methods evaluation study on the acquisition and development of mathematical pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK) of future teachers at several German universities. The study is a German supplementary study to the international comparative TEDS-M 2008 study. Besides the pedagogical content knowledge that was longitudinally surveyed using instruments relating to TEDS-M 2008, the study examined additionally, in qualitatively oriented interviews, what individual perceptions the future teachers have of courses on mathematics education. In the data nine different systematic perceptions could be identified that could be assigned to four different dimensions of courses on mathematics education. Through the integration of the different results the relationship between knowledge acquisition and perceptions is described, as exemplified by the cases of two future teachers. Hereby the future teachers’ explanations provide an interpretive background for the development of their MPCK.

Keywords

MPCK Courses on mathematics education Teacher education Germany Qualitative Content Analysis Mixed methods research TEDS-M 2008 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bauer, J., Drechsel, B., Retelsdorf, J., Sporer, T., Rösler, L., Prenzel, M., & Möller, J. (2010). Panel zum Lehramtsstudium–PaLea: Entwicklungsverläufe zukünftiger Lehrkräfte im Kontext der Reform der Lehrerbildung. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 2, 34–55.Google Scholar
  2. Blömeke, S., Hoth, J., Döhrmann, M., Busse, A., Kaiser, G., & König, J. (2015). Teacher change during induction: Development of beginning primary teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and performance. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 7, pp. 548–556). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bromme, R. (1994). Beyond subject matter: A psychological topology of teachers’ professional knowledge. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Sträßer & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Mathematics didactics as a scientific discipline: The state of the art (pp. 77–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchholtz, N., & Kaiser, G. (2013). Improving mathematics teacher education in Germany: Empirical results from a logitudinal evaluation of innovative programs. International Journal for Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 949–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Eilerts, K. (2009). Kompetenzorientierung in der Mathematik-Lehrerausbildung: empirische Untersuchung zu ihrer Implementierung. Paderborner Beiträge zur Unterrichtsforschung und Lehrerbildung (Vol. 14). Zürich: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heublein, U., Hutzsch, C., Schreiber, J., Sommer, D., & Besuch, G. (2010). Ursachen des Studienabbruchs in Bachelor- und in herkömmlichen Studiengängen. Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung von Exmatrikulierten des Studienjahres 2007/08 (HIS: Forum Hochschule 2). Hannover: HIS.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, H. C., Loewenberg Ball, D., & Schilling, S. G. (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
  13. Hsieh, F.-J., Law, C.-K., Shy, H.-Y., Wang, T.-Y., Hsieh, C.-J., & Tang, S.-J. (2014). A conceptualization of indicators for mathematics teacher education quality for international studies. In S. Blömeke, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Kaiser & W. H. Schmidt (Eds.), International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn (pp. 457–482). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaiser, G., & Buchholtz, N. (2014). Overcoming the gap between university and school mathematics. The impact of an innovative programme in mathematics teacher education at the Justus-Liebig-University in Giessen. In S. Rezat, M. Hattermann & A. Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation–A fundamental idea of mathematics education (pp. 85–105). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelle, U., & Buchholtz, N. (2015). The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods in mathematics education: A “Mixed Methods” study on the development of the professional knowledge of teachers. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, &amp, N. Presmeg & N. (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 321–361). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, F. (1932). Elementary mathematics from an advanced standpoint. Arithmetic, algebra, analysis (translated from the third German edition by E. R. Hedrick, & C. A. Noble). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Leitner, E. (1998). Die Hochschuldidaktik und die Qualität der Hochschullehre. In W. Michl, P. Krupp & Y. Stry (Eds.), Didaktische Profile der Fachhochschulen (pp. 9–24). Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  19. Li, Y. (2014). Learning about and improving teacher preparation for teaching mathematics from an international perspective. In S. Blömeke, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Kaiser & W. H. Schmidt (Eds.), International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn (pp. 49–57). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner Ahsbahs, C. Knipping & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 365–380). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Rindermann, H. (2003). Lehrevaluation an Hochschulen: Schlussfolgerungen aus Forschung und Anwendung für Hochschulunterricht und seine Evaluation. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 3(2), 233–256.Google Scholar
  22. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Research, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M., & Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Findings from the IEA Teacher and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).Google Scholar
  26. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response models. Psychometrika, 54(3), 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  28. Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte Interview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Art. 22. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1132/2519#gcit. Last retrieved 21 Feb 2017.
  29. Wu, M., Adams, R., & Wilson, M. (1998). ACER ConQuest. Generalised item response modelling software. Melbourne: Acer Press.Google Scholar
  30. Zaunbauer, A. C. M., Brouër, B., Schmidt, A., & Möller, J. (2015). Kleine Veränderung – großer Gewinn? Effekte struktureller Veränderungen in der gymnasialen Lehrerausbildung. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 37(4), 36–50.Google Scholar
  31. Zeichner, K. M., & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education. The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 645–735). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hamburg, Faculty of EducationHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options