Effects of Mathematics Content Knowledge on Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Abstract

The related literature emphasizes that mathematics content knowledge (MCK) itself is not sufficient for effective teaching; teachers also need to have deep and wide mathematics pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK). In this study, we worked with 12 pre-service primary teachers through Teaching Practice course in order to examine how their MCK affects their MPCK. Observation, interview and field notes were used as data collecting tools and data gathered were analyzed with induction and deduction methods. The results showed that preservice teachers’ lack of MCK made it difficult for them to use MPCK effectively. Their weaknesses in MCK were apparent in their evaluation and interpretation of the students’ responses and explanations, as well as in giving feedback to these comments. On the other hand, in cases where pre-service teachers’ MCK was good, but their MPCK was insufficient, the lessons were also ineffective. In these instances, they had difficulties in reducing the level of instruction to the level of the students, and they used some knowledge which had not been mastered by the students

Keywords

• Content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pre-service teacher

References

1. An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu. Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of mid- dle school mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145-172.
2. Ahn, S., & Choi, J. (2004). Teachers’ subject matter knowledge as a teacher qualifica- tion: A synthesis of the quantitative literature on students’ mathematics achieve- ment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Con- ference, San Diego, CA.
3. Baki, M. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematiği öğretme bilgilerinin gelişiminin incelenmesi: Bir ders imecesi (lesson study) çalışması. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi.Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
4. 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.
5. Blömeke, S., & Delenay, S. (2012). Assessment of teacher knowledge across coun- tries: A review of the state of research. ZDM- The International Journal on Math- ematics Education, 44(3), 223- 247.
6. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to Teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 673-708). New York, NY: Mcmillan.
7. Capraro, R, M., Capraro, M. M., Parker, D., Kulm, G., & Raulerson, T. (2005). The mathematics content knowledge role in developing pre-service teachers’ peda- gogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 108-124.
8. Choi, J., Ahn, S., & Kennedy, M. (2008). The role of teachers’ subject-matter knowl- edge. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

9. Ding, L., He, J., & Leung., F. K. S. (2014).Relations between subject matter knowl- edge and pedagogical content knowledge: A study of Chinese pre-service teachers on the topic of three- term ratio. The Mathematics Teacher 15(2), 50-76
10. Halim, L., & Meraah. S. M. (2002).Science trainee teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and its influence on physics teaching. Research in science & Techno- logical Education 20, 215-225.
11. Kahan, J. A., Cooper, D., & Bethea, K. A. (2003). The role of mathematics teachers’ content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 223-252.
12. Kinach, B. M. (2002). A cognitive strategy for developing pedagogical content knowl- edge in the secondary mathematics methods course: toward a model of effective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education ,18, 51-71.
13. Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S. & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90-106.
14. Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ peda- gogical content knowledge and content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM- The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 873- 892.
15. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understand- ing of fundamental mathematics in China and United States. Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum.
16. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to modi- fied conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3-11.
17. Magnusson, S., Borko, H., & Krajik, J. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18. McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work: Subject specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowl- edge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 193-205). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
19. Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as profes- sional. Research in science Education, 38, 261- 284.
20. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qalitative research evaluation methods, Third Edition, Sage Publications, London
21. Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L., & Houang, R. (2011). The role of opportunity to learn in teacher preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138-153.
22. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educa- tional Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
23. Thanhieser, E. (2009). Preservice elementaray school teachers’ conceptions of multidiğit whole numbers. Journal for Research in mathematics Education, 40, 252-281.
24. Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2010). The Teacher education knowledge base: Peda- gogical content knowledge. In B. McGraw, P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, (Eds.), In- ternational encyclopedia of education, 3rd edition; Vol.7 (pp.656-661), Oxford: Elsevier.
25. Wilson, S. M., Sulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). ‘’ 150 different ways of know- ing: Representations of knowledge in teaching.’’ In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. Sussex: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
26. Wood, E., & Geddis, A. N. (1997). Transforming subject matter and managing dilem- mas A case study in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6), 611-626.
27. Youngs, P., & Qian, H. (2013). The influence of university courses and field experi- ences on Chinese elementary candidates’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 244-261. doi:10.1177/0022487112473836