• Sigrid BlömekeEmail author
  • Ute Suhl
  • Martina Döhrmann


The “Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics” assessed the knowledge of primary and lower-secondary teachers at the end of their training. The large-scale assessment represented the common denominator of what constitutes mathematics content knowledge and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge in the 16 participating countries. The country means provided information on the overall teacher performance in these 2 areas. By detecting and explaining differential item functioning (DIF), this paper goes beyond the country means and investigates item-by-item strengths and weaknesses of future teachers. We hypothesized that due to differences in the cultural context, teachers from different countries responded differently to subgroups of test items with certain item characteristics. Content domains, cognitive demands (including item difficulty), and item format represented, in fact, such characteristics: They significantly explained variance in DIF. Country pairs showed similar patterns in the relationship of DIF to the item characteristics. Future teachers from Taiwan and Singapore were particularly strong on mathematics content and constructed-response items. Future teachers from Russia and Poland were particularly strong on items requiring non-standard mathematical operations. The USA and Norway did particularly well on mathematics pedagogical content and data items. Thus, conditional on the countries’ mean performance, the knowledge profiles of the future teachers matched the respective national debates. This result points to the influences of the cultural context on mathematics teacher knowledge.

Key words

cognitive demand content domain cultural context differential item functioning (DIF) international study item difficulty item format large-scale assessment mathematics teacher education teacher knowledge 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Blömeke, S., Houang, R. & Suhl, U. (2011). TEDS-M: Diagnosing teacher knowledge by applying multidimensional item response theory and multi-group models. IERI Monograph Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, 4, 109–126.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., Kaiser, G. & Döhrmann, M. (2012). Family background, entry selectivity and opportunities to learn: What matters in primary teacher education? An international comparison of fifteen countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 44–55.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Franke, M. (2000). Didaktik der Geometrie. Heidelberg, Germany: Spektrum.Google Scholar
  7. Freedle, R. (2003). Correcting the SAT’s ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 1–43.Google Scholar
  8. Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Hsieh, F.-J., Pi-Jen & Wang, T.-Y. (2012). Mathematics-related teaching competence of Taiwanese primary future teachers: Evidence from TEDS-M. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 277–292.Google Scholar
  10. Jurecka, A. (2010). Zum Zusammenhang von Differentiellen Item Funktionen und Testkultur. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktorin der Philosophie (Dr.phil.). Vorgelegt dem Fachbereich Psychologie und Sportwissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe—Universität Frankfurt am Main, 2010.Google Scholar
  11. Klieme, E. & Bos, W. (2000). Mathematikleistung und mathematischer Unterricht in Deutschland und Japan. Triangulation qualitativer und quantitativer Analysen am Beispiel der TIMS-Studie. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(3), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klieme, E. & Baumert, J. (2001). Identifying national cultures of mathematics education: Analysis of cognitive demands and differential item functioning in TIMSS. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kulick, E. & Hu, P. G. (1989). Examining the relationship between differential item functioning and item difficulty (College Board Report No. 89–5; ETS No. RR-89-18). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  14. Leung, F. K. S. (1995). The mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong and London. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, J. & Wisenbaker, J. M. (2008). Research and developments in the teaching and learning of probability and statistics. In M. Niss & E. Emborg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education, 4–11 July 2004. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  16. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  17. Niss, M. (2008). Perspectives on the balance between applications and modelling and ‘pure’ mathematics in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In M. Menghini, F. Furinghetti, L. Giacardi & F. Arzarello (Eds.), The First Century of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (1908–2008): Reflecting and Shaping the World of Mathematics Education. Roma, Italy: Istituto Della Enciclopedia Italiana.Google Scholar
  18. Reusser, K. (1996). From cognitive modeling to the design of pedagogical tools. In S. Vosniadou et al. (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Roussos, L. & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(4), 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rousseeuw, P. J. & Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust regression and outlier detection. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Santelices, M. V. & Wilson, M. (2012). On the relationship between differential item functioning and item difficulty: An issue of methods? Item response theory approach to differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheuneman, J. & Gerritz, K. (1990). Using item differential item functioning procedures to explore sources of item difficulty and group performance characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 109–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S. & Tatto, M. T. (2011). Teacher education matters: A study of the mathematics teacher preparation from six countries. New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt, W. H., Jakwerth, P. M. & McKnight, C. C. (1998). Curriculum sensitive assessment: Content does make a difference. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shepard, L. A. (1982). Definitions of bias. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Handbook of methods for detecting test bias (pp. 9–30). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shulman, L. (1985). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3–36). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Tatsuoka, K. K., Linn, R. L. & Yamamoto, K. (1988). Differential item functioning resulting from use of different solution strategies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tatto, M. T., J. Schwille, S. L. Senk, L. Ingvarson, R. Peck & G. Rowley (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  29. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M., Reckase, M., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G. & Peck, R. (2012). The Teacher Education Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Findings from the IEA Study of the mathematics preparation of future teachers. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IEA.Google Scholar
  30. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J. & Wilson, M. R. (1998). Acer ConQuest. Generalised item response modelling software. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  31. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Science and Mathematics University of VechtaUniversity of VechtaVechtaGermany

Personalised recommendations