Advertisement

Introduction: Exploring the Mathematical Education of Teachers Using TEDS-M Data

  • Maria Teresa TattoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

How does teacher education contribute to the learning outcomes of future teachers? Are there programs that are more successful than others in helping teachers learn to teach? How do local and national policy environments contribute to teacher education outcomes? This chapter introduces the book to readers and invites them to explore these questions across a large number of settings. The chapter illustrates why investigating the impact of pre-service teacher education on teachers’ learning outcomes is a necessary component to understanding variation in the quality of teachers who enter the field. The chapter also provides an overview of the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) a cross-national study of primary and secondary mathematics teacher education sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), and funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and participating countries. The book includes original work that explores new facets of the TEDS-M methodology and data, along with results and policy implications; and illustrates the challenges and possibilities in engaging in systematic research on teacher education. Because we lack models to frame research on teacher education processes and outcomes, the book seeks to provide guidance to future research in this area by outlining the methodology followed by the TEDS-M study as well as findings from secondary analyses of the rich TEDS-M database.

References

  1. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  2. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, P. F., Nishio, M., Smith, T. M., Clark, L. M., Conant, D. L., Rust, A. H., … Choi, Y. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers’ perceptions, and student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 419–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldhaber, D., Liddle, S., & Theobald, R. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Koedel, C., Parsons, E., Podgursky, M., & Ehlert, M. (2015). Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: Are there real differences across programs? Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 508–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student achievement: Evidence from within-teacher within-student variation. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 486–496.Google Scholar
  9. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics & Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tatto, M. T. (Ed.). (2013). The Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Technical report. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.Google Scholar
  13. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., … Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Student Achievement.Google Scholar
  14. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Conceptual framework. Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, and IEA.Google Scholar
  15. Wilkins, J. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations