Subject Matter Knowledge of Geometry Needed in Tasks of Teaching: Relationship to Prior Geometry Teaching Experience

View More View Less
  • 1 University of Michigan

This study proposes task of teaching as an organizer of dimensionality in teachers’ subject matter knowledge for teaching (SMK) and investigates it in the context of measuring SMK for teaching high school geometry (SMK-G). We hypothesize that teachers use different SMK-G in different aspects of their teaching work and that such differences can be scaled and associated with key elements of instruction. Analyses of 602 high school teachers’ responses to two sets of items designed to measure the SMK-G used in two particular tasks of teaching—understanding students’ work (USW) and choosing givens for a problem (CGP)—suggested the two scales of SMK-G to be distinguishable and differently related to experience in teaching high school geometry.

Footnotes

This article is based in part on the first author’s doctoral dissertation written at the University of Michigan under the direction of the second author. The authors appreciate the advice from several anonymous reviewers. The main data corpus used in this study was collected as part of a project supported by NSF grant DRL-0918425, with additional data collected with resources from NSF grant DRL-1420102. All opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation.

The guest editor for this article was M. Kathleen Heid.

Contributor Notes

Inah Ko, School of Education, University of Michigan, 610 East University Ave., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109; inahko@umich.edu

Patricio Herbst, School of Education, University of Michigan, 610 East University Ave.,AnnArbor, MI, 48109; pgherbst@umich.edu

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
  • 1.

    Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433456). Macmillan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Boileau, N., & Herbst, P. G. (2015). Teachers’ expectations about geometric calculations in high school geometry. In T. G. Bartell, K. N. Bieda, R. T. Putnam, K. Bradfield, & H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 269276). Michigan State University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford.

  • 7.

    Buschang, R. E., Chung, G. K. W. K., Delacruz, G. C., & Baker, E. L. (2012). Validating measures of algebra teacher subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Assessment, 17(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2012.697847

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Chazan, D., Herbst, P. G., & Clark, L. M. (2016). Research on the teaching of mathematics: A call to theorize the role of society and schooling in mathematics instruction. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 10391097). https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_17

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, XLI(4), 778820. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLI.4.778

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

  • 11.

    Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Etkina, E., Gitomer, D., Iaconangelo, C., Phelps, G., Seeley, L., & Vokos, S. (2018). Design of an assessment to probe teachers’ content knowledge for teaching: An example from energy in high school physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010127

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Falcaro, M., Pendleton, N., & Pickles, A. (2013). Analysing censored longitudinal data with non-ignorable missing values: Depression in older age. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)), 176(2), 415430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.01034.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Findell, B. (2001). The mathematical education of prospective teachers of secondary school mathematics: Old assumptions, new challenges. In CUPM discussion papers about mathematics and the mathematical sciences in 2010: What should students know? (pp. 3141). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Retrieved 2020, from https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CUPM/math-2010.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7275/n560-j767

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Gitomer, D. H., & Zisk, R. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers know. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14557001

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 798812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM, 44(5), 601612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0438-6

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Herbst, P., & Kosko, K. W. (2014). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and its specificity to high school geometry instruction. In J.-J. Lo, K. R. Leatham, & L. R. Van Zoest (Eds.), Research trends in mathematics teacher education (pp. 2345). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02562-9_2

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Hill, H. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95114. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707301711

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513545.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2009). The curious—and crucial—case of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 6871. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909100215

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372400.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 1130. https://doi.org/10.1086/428763

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Hoover, M., Mosvold, R., & Fauskanger, J. (2014). Common tasks of teaching as a resource for measuring professional content knowledge internationally. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 19(3 − 4), 720.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 173. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203235. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMTE.0000033084.26326.19

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Methodology in the social sciences (3rd ed.). Guilford.

  • 30.

    Ko, I., & Herbst, P. (2016, July 29). Subject matter knowledge of geometry needed in tasks of teaching and teachers’ geometry teaching experience [Paper presentation]. 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    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(5), 873892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0141-9

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Loewenthal, K. M. (2001). An introduction to psychological tests and scales (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

  • 33.

    McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. D., & Senk, S. L. (2012). Knowledge of algebra for teaching: A framework of knowledge and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584615. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.5.0584

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Mohr-Schroeder, M., Ronau, R. N., Peters, S., Lee, C. W., & Bush, W. S. (2017). Predicting student achievement using measures of teachers’ knowledge for teaching geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(5), 520566. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.48.5.0520

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998−2015). Mplus user’s guide. Authors.

  • 36.

    Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms. ZDM, 33(5), 158175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656616

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Phelps, G., Weren, B., Croft, A., & Gitomer, D. (2014). Developing content knowledge for teaching assessments for the Measures of Effective Teaching Study. ETS Research Report Series, 2014(2), 192. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12031

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Rdz-Navarro, K. (2019). Latent variables should remain as such: Evidence from a Monte Carlo study. The Journal of General Psychology, 146(4), 417442. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2019.1596064

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Robová, J. (2013). The impact of web sites on teaching and learning mathematics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 631635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.252

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Saderholm, J., Ronau, R., Brown, E. T., & Collins, G. (2010). Validation of the Diagnostic Teacher Assessment of Mathematics and Science (DTAMS) instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 110(4), 180192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00021.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Schilling, S., & Bock, R. D. (2005). High-dimensional maximum marginal likelihood item factor analysis by adaptive quadrature. Psychometrika, 70(3), 533555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-1141-x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Schilling, S. G. (2007). The role of psychometric modeling in test validation: An application of multidimensional item response theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 5(2–3), 93106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360701487021

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R. T. (2007). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Kluwer Academic.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., 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. Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Tchoshanov, M. A. (2011). Relationship between teacher knowledge of concepts and connections, teaching practice, and student achievement in middle grades mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(2), 141164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9269-y

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2011−2012). Table 209.50. Percentage of public school teachers of grades 9 through 12, by field of main teaching assignment and selected demographic and educational characteristics: 2011–12. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.50.asp

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47.

    U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013−2014). Table A.1.a.-2 Number of public elementary and secondary schools, by school urban-centric 12-category locale and state or jurisdiction: 2013–14. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/A.1.a.-2_2.asp?refer=

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Wilson, P., & Heid, M. K. (2015). From situations to framework. In M. K. Heid, P. S. Wilson, & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Mathematical understanding for secondary teaching: A framework and classroom based situations (pp. 4156). Information Age.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Wirth, R. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 5879. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Zaslavsky, O., & Sullivan, P. (2011). Setting the stage: A conceptual framework for examining and developing tasks for mathematics teacher education. In O. Zaslavsky & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Constructing knowledge for teaching secondary mathematics: Tasks to enhance prospective and practicing teacher learning (pp. 119). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09812-8_1

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 912 912 61
Full Text Views 202 202 36
PDF Downloads 193 193 50
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0