Opportunities to Learn Mathematics Pedagogy and Connect Classroom Learning to Practice: A Study of Future Teachers in the United States and Singapore

  • Traci Shizu KutakaEmail author
  • Wendy M. Smith
  • Lorraine M. Males


In this study, we conducted secondary analyses using the TEDS-M database to explore future mathematics specialists teachers’ opportunities to learn (OTL) how to teach mathematics. We applied latent class analysis techniques to differentiate among groups of prospective mathematics specialists with potentially different OTL mathematics pedagogy within the United States and Singapore. Within the United States, three subgroups were identified: (a) Comprehensive OTL, (b) Limited OTL, and (c) OTL Mathematics Pedagogy. Within Singapore, four subgroups were identified: (a) Comprehensive OTL, (b) Limited Opportunities to Connect Classroom Learning with Practice, (c) OTL Mathematics Pedagogy, and (d) Basic OTL. Understanding the opportunities different prospective teachers had to learn from and their experiences with different components of instructional practice in university and practicum settings has implications for teacher preparation programs.


  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, J. M. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 647–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, J. M., & Wright, S. E. (2014). Integrating theory and practice in the preservice teacher education field. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 136–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2013). Standards for elementary mathematics specialists: A reference for teacher credentialing and degree programs. San Diego, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berlin, K. S., Williams, N. A., & Parra, G. R. (2013). An introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part I): Overview and cross-sectional latent class and latent profile analyses. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Blömeke, S., Hsieh, F. J., Kaiser, G., & Schmidt, W. (Eds.). (2014). International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn. Dordrecht, England: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in the entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education and Finance Policy, 1(2), 176–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). Who leaves? Teacher attrition and student achievement. Teacher Policy Research. Retrieved from
  12. Boyd, D., Lankford, S., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). The narrowing gap in New York City qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high poverty schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.Google Scholar
  13. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brosnan, P., & Erchick, D. B. (2010). Mathematics coaching and its impact on student achievement. Brief research report. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 6, pp. 1362–1370). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnstein, L. (1993). Studying learning, growth, and instruction cross-nationally: Lessons learned about why and why not to engage in cross-national studies [prologue]. In L. Burnstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp. xxii–xlii). London, UK: Permagon.Google Scholar
  17. Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell, P. F., Ellington, A. J., Haver, W. E., & Inge, V. L. (Eds.). (2013). The elementary mathematics specialist’s handbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 111, 430–454. Scholar
  20. Carr, D. (1992). Practical enquiry, values and the problem of educational theory. Oxford Review of Education, 18(3), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carr, D. (1995). Is understanding the professional knowledge of teachers a theory-practice problem? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29(3), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carr, D. (2003). Making sense of education: An introduction to the philosophy and theory of education and teaching. London, England: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  23. Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2005). Student perceptions of learning and instructional effectiveness in college courses (SIR II Research). Retrieved from
  24. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F. & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter for student achievement? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 12828. Retrieved from
  25. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.Google Scholar
  26. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Providence, RI/Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretations of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(2), 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dalgarno, N., & Colgan, L. (2007). Supporting novice elementary mathematics teachers’ induction in professional communities and providing innovative forms of pedagogical content knowledge through information and communication technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1051–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the evidence. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 28–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Teacher quality definition debates: What is an effective teacher? In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 12–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 42. Retrieved from Scholar
  34. Deng, Z. (2004). The role of theory in teacher preparation: An analysis of the concept of theory application. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social policy report. Society for Research in Child Development, 22(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  36. Goodnow, J. J. (2005). Contexts, diversity, pathways: Advances and next steps. In C. R. Cooper, C. Garcìa Coll, W. T. Bartko, H. M. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental pathways through middle childhood (pp. 295–312). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Goodnow, J. J. (2010). Culture. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  38. Graven, M. (2004). Investigating mathematics teacher learning within an in-service community of practice: The centrality of confidence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 177–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grootenboer, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2008). Identity as a lens to understand learning mathematics: Developing a model. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 243–249). Brisbane, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  40. Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L. (Eds.). (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hartocollis, A. (2005, July 31). Who needs education schools? What colleges teach. What teachers need to know. And why they’re not the same. New York Times Education Supplement (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  42. Henke, R. R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992–93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  43. Hill, H. C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2007). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching: A study of California teachers. Educational Policy, 21, 747–768. Scholar
  44. Hodgen, J., & Askew, M. (2007). Emotion, identity and teacher learning: Becoming a primary mathematics teacher. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 469–487. Retrieved from Scholar
  45. Imre, S. Y., & Akkoç, H. (2012). Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of generalizing number patterns through school practicum. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(3), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on beginning teacher attrition? Research report (#RR-82). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  47. Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy 1. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ingvarson, L., Tatto, M. T., Peck, R., Schwille, J., Rowley, G., & Senk, S. L. (2013). An analysis of teacher education context, structure, and quality-assurance arrangements in TEDS-M countries: Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IEA.Google Scholar
  49. Jerald, C. D. (2002). All talk, no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Retrieved from
  50. Kelly, G. J., Luke, A., & Green, J. (2008). Introduction: What counts as knowledge in educational settings: Disciplinary knowledge, assessment, and curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 32, vii–vix. Scholar
  51. Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Orozco-Lapray, D., Shen, Y., & Murtuza, M. (2013). Does “Tiger Parenting” exist? Parenting profiles of Chinese Americans and adolescent developmental outcomes. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. P. A. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lanza, S. T., Collins, L. M., Lemmon, D. R., & Schafer, J. L. (2007). PROC LCA: A SAS procedure for latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 671–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lanza, S. T., Dziak, J. J., Huang, L., Wagner, A., & Collins, L. M. (2015). PROC LCA & PROC LTA users’ guide (Version 1.3.2). University Park: The Methodology Center, Penn State. Retrieved from
  57. Lerman, S. (2012). Mapping the effects of policy on mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics. Springer On-Line.
  58. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis (No. 64). London, United Kingdom: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meyers, H., & Harris, D. (2008, April). Evaluation of the VMI through 2008. Retrieved from
  63. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  64. Muthén, B. (2003). Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling: Comment on Bauer and Curren (2003). Psychological Methods, 8, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers; User’s guide; [Version 1.0]. Los Angeles, CA: Authors.Google Scholar
  66. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.Google Scholar
  67. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  68. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  69. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  70. Neugarten, L. (1979). Time, age, and the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136(7), 887–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ramaswamy, V., DeSarbo, W. S., Reibstein, D. J., & Robinson, W. T. (1993). An empirical pooling approach for estimating marketing mix elasticities using PIMS data. Marketing Science, 12, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reys, B., & Fennell, F. (2003). Who should lead mathematics instruction at the elementary level? A case for mathematics specialists. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9, 277–282.Google Scholar
  74. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schwille, J., Ingvarson, L., & Holdgreve-Resendez, R. (Eds.). (2013). TEDS-M encyclopedia: A guide to teacher education context, structure, and quality assurance 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 Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  77. Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52, 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9(4), 545–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  82. Tatto, M. T., Rodriguez, M. C., Reckase, M., Rowley, G., & Lu, Y. (2013). Scale development and reporting: Opportunities to learn, beliefs and mathematics knowledge for teaching. In M. T. Tatto et al. (Eds.), 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 (pp. 161–174). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  83. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (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
  84. 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 Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  85. Thames, M. H., & Ball, D. L. (2010). What mathematical knowledge does teaching require? Knowing mathematics in and for teaching. Teaching Children Mathematics, 17(4), 220–225.Google Scholar
  86. Warfield, J. (2001). Where mathematics content knowledge matters: Learning about and building on children’s mathematical thinking. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 135–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  87. Weaver, S. R., & Kim, S. Y. (2008). A person-centered approach to studying the linkages among parent– child differences in cultural orientation, supportive parenting, and adolescent depressive symptoms in Chinese American families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.University of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations