Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DEVELOPING AN INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING TEACHERS’ MATHEMATICS CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ON RATIO AND PROPORTION: A CASE OF INDONESIAN PRIMARY TEACHERS

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

In this study, we developed an instrument for assessing teachers’ mathematics content knowledge (MCK) on ratio and proportion and examined the profile of Indonesian primary teacher’s MCK on this topic. The MCK items were administered to 271 Indonesian in-service primary teachers with a variety of educational backgrounds and teaching experiences. Teachers’ responses were analyzed by factor analysis and cluster analysis. The MCK instrument was found to have good acceptability in the reliability analysis with 3 factor components—meaning of proportional and non-proportional situations, number structures in situation, and figural representation—which was the main result of the study. With respect to the 3 factors, the teachers in the 3 assigned categories (“Good,” “Middle,” or “Low”) showed consistent performance on the items of the 3 factors. In particular, our results indicated that Indonesian in-service primary teachers had difficulty with the factor on figural representation, but they performed best on number structures in situation representing products of proportional reasoning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahl, V. A., Moore, C. F. & Dixon, J. A. (1992). Development of intuitive and numerical proportional reasoning. Cognitive Development, 7, 81–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alatorre, S., & Figueras, O. (2005). A developmental model for proportional reasoning in ratio comparison tasks. In H. L. Chick, H. L. & J. L. Vincent, (Eds.), Proceeding of the 29th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 25–32). Melbourne: PME.

  • Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? The fall 2005 issue of American Educator, the quarterly Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

  • Barret, J. (2002). Working with novice teachers: Challenges for professional development mathematics. Teacher Education and Development Journal, 4, 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, J., Jones, G., Mooney, E., Thornton, C., Cady, J. & Guinee, P., et al. (2002). Working with novice teachers: challenges for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 4, 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayazit, I. (2013). Quality of the tasks in the new Turkish elementary mathematics textbooks: The case of proportional reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 651–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, D., Bombardier, C. & Ferraz, M. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T. & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio and proportion. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). NY: Macmillan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedett, O. C. & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among 7th grade students with different curricular experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 247–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blömeke, S. & Delaney, S. (2012). Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries: A review of the state of research. ZDM, 44(3), 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brink, J. V. D. & Streefland, L. (1979). Young children (6–8)-ratio and proportion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10, 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaim, D. B., Keret, Y., & Ilany, B. (2007). Designing and implementing authentic investigative proportional reasoning tasks: the impact on pre-service mathematics teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 333–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaim, D. B., Keret, Y. Z. & Ilany, B. S. (2012). Research and teaching in mathematics teachers’ education: Pre- and in-service mathematics teachers of elementary and middle school classes. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coakes, S. J. & Steed, L. G. (1997). SPSS analysis without anguish. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dole, S. (2008). Ratio tables to promote proportional reasoning in the primary classroom. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(2), 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L. & Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E. & Franke, M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbein, E. (1994). Tacit models. In D. Tirosh (Ed.), Implicit and explicit knowledge: An educational approach (pp. 96–110). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, K. M. (1981). Ratio and proportion. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16. The CSMS Mathematics Team (pp. 88–101). London: John.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilany, B-S., Keret, Y., & Ben-Chaim, D. (2004). Implementation of a model using authentic investigative activities for teaching ratio & proportion in pre-service teacher education. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 81–88.

  • Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 873–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss S., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Neubrand, M., Baumert, J., Kunter, M., …, Elsner. J. (2013). Mathematics teachers’ domain specific professional knowledge: Conceptualization and test construction in COACTIV. In Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M. (Eds.) 2013, VI, 378 p 31. Mathematics Teacher Education 8. NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

  • Lamon, S. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Connecting content and children’s thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 629–668). Charlottes: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, C. (1993). Contextual factors affecting errors in proportional reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(5), 460–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., Post, T. & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93–118). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livy, S. & Vale, C. (2011). First year pre-service teachers’ mathematical content knowledge: Methods of solution for a ratio question. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(2), 22–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margarit, J., & Figueras, O. (2001) Ratio comparison: Performance on ratio in similarity tasks. Utrecht Netherlands: PME Conference Proceeding paper.

  • Masters, J. (2012). Eight grade in-service teachers’ knowledge of proportional reasoning and functions: A secondary data analysis. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching & Learning [Published only in electronic form].February 3rd Issue. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/masters.pdf.

  • Peled, I. & Hershkovitz, S. (2004). Evolving research of mathematics teacher educators: The case of non-standard issues in solving standard problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 299–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmelzing, S., Driel, J. H. V., Juttner, M., Brandenbusch, S., Sandmann, A. & Neuhaus, B. J. (2013). Development, evaluation and validation of a paper-and-pencil test for measuring two components of biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge concerning the “cardiovascular system”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1369–1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. H., Houang, R. & Cogan, L. S. (2011). Preparing future math teachers. Science, 332, 1266–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senk, S. L., Peck, R., Bankov, K., & Tatto, M. T. (2008). Conceptualizing and measuring mathematical knowledge for teaching: Issues from TEDS-M, an IEA cross-national study. Mexico: 11th International Congress of Mathematics Education.

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. & Levitov, J. E. (1985). Using microcomputers to score and evaluate test items. Collegiate Microcomputer, 3, 163–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, S. & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMSS 2002. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh, D. & Graeber, A. O. (1990). Evoking cognitive conflict to explore pre-service teachers’ thinking about division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourniaire, F. & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S. G. (1990). Educational measurement and testing (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Taiwan Normal University, No. 88, Section 4, Ting-jou Road, Taipei, 11677, Taiwan

    Rooselyna Ekawati, Fou-Lai Lin & Kai-Lin Yang

  2. The State University of Surabaya, Jln. Ketintang, Surabaya, Indonesia

    Rooselyna Ekawati

Authors
  1. Rooselyna Ekawati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fou-Lai Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kai-Lin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fou-Lai Lin.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 141 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ekawati, R., Lin, FL. & Yang, KL. DEVELOPING AN INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING TEACHERS’ MATHEMATICS CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ON RATIO AND PROPORTION: A CASE OF INDONESIAN PRIMARY TEACHERS. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 13 (Suppl 1), 1–24 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9532-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9532-2

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation