• Ting-Ying WangEmail author
  • Shu-Jyh Tang


This study used the data set from the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics to identify the profiles of opportunities to learn (OTL) regarding topics studied in teacher preparation programs by future secondary mathematics teachers from 15 participating countries. The topics of inquiry covered tertiary-level mathematics, school-level mathematics, mathematics education, and general education. Dominating OTL profiles across and within countries were identified and compared with those examined by Blömeke & Kaiser (ZDM 44(3):249–264, 2012) at the primary level. Our results show that, for tertiary-level mathematics, the secondary level demands intensive and extensive coverage of topics, whereas the primary level appears to have a two-peak phenomenon compared to the secondary level. The preparation philosophies in mathematics education are homogeneous at both school levels, although the secondary level placed more emphasis on facilitating students’ cognitive understanding and cultivating students’ mathematical abilities. Regarding general education, two philosophies prevailed at the secondary level: (a) comprehensive coverage or (b) only focusing on the OTL that are related to school practice; however, at the primary level, only the first philosophy prevailed.

Key words

international comparison OTL secondary mathematics teacher education TEDS-M 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Re f erences

  1. Adler, J. & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 270–296.Google Scholar
  2. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A. & Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benken, B. M. & Brown, N. (2008). Moving beyond the barriers: A re-defined, multi-leveled partnership approach to mathematics teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 63–82.Google Scholar
  4. Blömeke, S. (2012). Content, professional preparation, and teaching methods: How diverse is teacher education across countries? Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 684–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blömeke, S. & Kaiser, G. (2012). Homogeneity or heterogeneity? Profiles of opportunities to learn in primary teacher education and their relationship to cultural context and outcomes. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 249–264. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0378-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boscardin, C. K., Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Stoker, G., Kim, J., Kim, M. & Lee, J. (2005). Relationship between opportunity to learn and student performance on English and algebra assessments. Educational Assessment, 10(4), 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, S. & Muthén, B. (2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis. Retrieved from
  8. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 20–24). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  10. Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D. & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B. & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hsieh, F.-J. (2012). 中學數學職前教師之數學教學知能 [Mathematics teaching competence of future secondary mathematics teachers]. In F.-J. Hsieh (Ed.), 臺灣數學師資培育跨國研究 Taiwan TEDS-M 2008 (pp. 119–142). Taipei: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar
  13. Hsieh, F.-J., Law, C.-K., Shy, H.-Y., Wang, T.-Y., Hsieh, C.-J. & Tang, S.-J. (2011). Mathematics teacher education quality in TEDS-M—Globalizing the views of future teachers and teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 172–187. doi: 10.1177/0022487110390819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsieh, F.-J., Yang, C.-C. & Shy, H.-Y. (2012). 中學數學職前教師在師資培育課程之學習機會 [Opportunities to learn in teacher preparation courses of future secondary mathematics teachers]. In F.-J. Hsieh (Ed.), 臺灣數學師資培育跨國研究 Taiwan TEDS-M 2008 (pp. 143–169). Taipei: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar
  15. Hsieh, F.-J. & Wang, T.-Y. (2012). 中學數學職前教師之數學知能 [Mathematics competence of future secondary mathematics teachers]. In F.-J. Hsieh (Ed.), 臺灣數學師資培育跨國研究 Taiwan TEDS-M 2008 (pp. 93–117). Taipei: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar
  16. Hsieh, F.-J., Wang, T.-Y., Hsieh, C.-J., Tang, S.-J., Chao, G.-H., & Law C.-K. (2010). A milestone of an international study in Taiwan teacher education—An international comparison of Taiwan mathematics teacher (Taiwan TEDS-M 2008). Retrieved from
  17. Hsieh, F.-J., Wu, P.-C., & Wang, T.-Y. (2013). MCK and MPCK of primary and lower secondary teachers at the end of teacher education in Taiwan: Hot topics and pressing issues. In S. Blömeke, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Kaiser, & W. H. Schmidt (Eds.), Teacher knowledge, teacher beliefs and opportunities to learn in 16 countriesFindings from the IEA TEDS-M study on primary and lower secondary teacher education. New York: Springer. (In press)Google Scholar
  18. Kim, R. Y., Ham, S.-H. & Paine, L. W. (2011). Knowledge expectations in mathematics teacher preparation programs in South Korea and the United States: Towards international dialogue. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCutcheon, A. L. (2002). Latent class analysis (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 07-064). Newberry Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.Google Scholar
  21. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O’Sullivan, C. Y. & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill: Boston College.Google Scholar
  22. Muthén, B. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Muthén, B., Huang, L.-C., Jo, B., Khoo, S.-T., Goff, G. N., Novak, J. R. & Shih, J. C. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn effects on achievement: Analytical aspects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 371–403.Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S., Tatto, M. T., Hsieh, F.-J., Cogan, L., Houang, R. T. & Schwille, J. (2011a). Teacher education matters: A study of middle school mathematics teacher preparation in six countries. New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. & Houang, R. T. (2011b). The role of opportunity to learn in teacher preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmidt, W. H. & Houang, R. T. (2012). Preparing primary teachers in the United States: Balancing selection and preparation. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 265–276. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0372-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., Cogan, L., Blömeke, S., Tatto, M. T., Hsieh, F.-J. & Paine, L. (2008). Opportunity to learn in the preparation of mathematics teachers: Its structure and how it varies across six countries. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(5), 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R. & Holdgreve-Resendez, R. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Amsterdam: Multicopy.Google Scholar
  29. Vuong, Q. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations