Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaed20

Teaching knowledge and difficulties of In-field

and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics
teachers in algebra

Williams Osei & Douglas Darko Agyei

To cite this article: Williams Osei & Douglas Darko Agyei (2023) Teaching knowledge and
difficulties of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers in algebra,
Cogent Education, 10:2, 2232240, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 16 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 891

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

TEACHER EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Received: 30 April 2023
Accepted: 28 June 2023
*Corresponding author: Williams Osei,
Department of Mathematics and ICT
Education, University of Cape Coast,
Cape Coast, Ghana
E-mail: williams.osei@stu.ucc.edu.gh
Reviewing editor:
Constantinos Xenofontos, Primary
and Secondary Teacher Education,
OsloMet - storbyuniversitetet,
Norway
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Teaching knowledge and difficulties of In-field
and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics
teachers in algebra
Williams Osei1* and Douglas Darko Agyei1
Abstract: This paper sought to explore the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching and
the algebra difficulties of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics
teachers using the expanded KAT framework. The study employed the descriptive
survey design and involved the participation of 374 mathematics teachers using an
achievement test instrument. The study projected School Algebra Knowledge as the
prevailing knowledge domain and revealed that the two categories of Junior High
School mathematics teachers possess knowledge that falls below average for five
(5) out of the seven (7) algebra knowledge domains and also for the overall
Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching. However, In-field mathematics teachers
showed higher knowledge as compared to Out-of-field mathematics teachers in
six (6) out of the seven (7) algebra knowledge domains as well as the overall
Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching. Also, the research revealed that mathematics

ABOUT THE AUTHORS PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Williams Osei is a Mathematics Educator with
interest in teacher knowledge and technology
integration in the teaching and learning of
mathematics. He is currently undertaking inno­
vative projects in teachers’ Technological
Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (T-KAT). This
paper is the first preliminary study for the devel­
opment of Computer Animated Technology (CAT)
interventions for improving mathematics tea­
chers’ Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT) in
Ghana. This project, through a Professional
Development Training, is expected to develop
Junior High School mathematics teachers’ T-KAT,
Williams Osei for the integration of CAT resources in the
teaching of algebra, to enhance learners’ experi­
ences in the mathematics classroom.
Douglas Darko Agyei (PhD) is a Professor of
Mathematics Education in the Department of
Mathematics and ICT Education at the University
of Cape Coast. His research interest includes
Mathematics Education, Educational Technology,
TPACK and his research has resulted in over 70
publications in several refereed journals. He has
over 12years of professional experience in
managing projects relating to ICT Education.
This paper provides insights into the deficiencies
in mathematics teachers’ Knowledge of Algebra
for Teaching in Ghana. Mathematics teachers’
repertoire of knowledge in algebra influences
learners’ achievement in mathematics. This is
due to the fact that, it is out of the knowledge
teachers possess that they teach and almost
impossible for teachers to effectively impart
knowledge they do not possess to learners. In
view of this, the algebra teaching knowledge of
mathematics teachers should be monitored and
improved to positively affect students’ algebra
knowledge, hence their general performance in
mathematics. The study projected aspects of
Junior High School mathematics teachers’
knowledge that need to be improved through
effective Professional Development Training and
Community of Practice.

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu­
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in
a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

Page 1 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

teachers with 5 or more years of teaching experience have higher Knowledge of

Algebra for Teaching as compared to those with below 5 years of teaching experi­
ence. The study finally identified eight major algebra difficulties among Junior High
School mathematics teachers. The findings of the study have implications for
teacher preparation, policy and practice.

Subjects: Mathematics Education; Teachers & Teacher Education; Educational Research

Keywords: Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT); algebra difficulties; Junior High
School mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching algebra; In-field mathematics
teachers; Out-of-field mathematics teachers

1. Introduction
Algebra functions as the bedrock (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008; U.S. National
Research Council, 2001; Wilmot, 2008) and language of mathematics. The numerous applications
of algebra in mathematics project the critical and significant roles of algebra in learners’ success
and advancement in mathematics (Matthews & Farmer, 2008; Star et al., 2015; Wang &
Goldschmidt, 2003; Wilmot et al., 2018), making it almost impossible for learners with weak
foundation in algebra to perform well in mathematics. In view of this, learners need strong
foundation in algebra to excel and progress in mathematics (Makonye & Stepwell, 2016; Moses,
2001; Osei, 2020; Osei & Kubi, 2022).

Researches (Chinnappan, 2010; Sultan & Artzt, 2011) have projected algebra as a particular
strand of mathematics that poses several difficulties to teachers. According to Pincheira and Alsina
(2021), studies have elucidated several deficiencies in the knowledge of algebra among mathe­
matics teachers. These difficulties include; inability to recognise the different mathematical mean­
ings of the equal sign, especially its equivalence property (Ferreira et al., 2017; Trivilin & Ribeiro,
2015), difficulty in handling algebra tasks that require the representation of unknown quantities
with variables (Bair & Rich, 2011), struggles to understand and interpret algebraic symbols,
graphical representations and solving algebraic task (Strand & Mills, 2014), issues of generality
and symbol language usage (Chick, 2009), deficiencies and less attention to the development of
algebraic thinking which leads to the handling of algebraic tasks mostly by trial and error
(DiBernardo et al., 2017) and difficulties in handling tasks involving generalisations and connecting
different representations (Noviyanti & Suryadi, 2019; Oliveira et al., 2021; Zapatera Llinares &
Callejo de la Vega, 2018). The existence of these difficulties among mathematics teachers
increases their struggles in providing assistance to learners with difficulties in algebra (Bush &
Karp, 2013; Kieran, 2018), thereby reducing the potency of mathematics teachers’ ability to offer
effective and reliable interventions for remedying learners’ difficulties in algebra.

Numerous studies (Baumert et al., 2010; Rowan et al., 1997) have projected the mathematics
teacher as a key factor that influences learners’ understanding during mathematics instructions.
Mathematics teachers’ repertoire of knowledge and their difficulties in algebra have potentials of
influencing learners’ achievement in mathematics (Campbell et al., 2014; Mohr-Schroeder et al.,
2017). This is due to the fact that, teachers teach out of the knowledge they have, and it is almost
impossible for them to effectively impart to learners, knowledge outside the knowledge they
possess. Mathematics teachers with difficulties in the contents they teach are likely to transmit
these difficulties to learners during the instructional process (Baumert et al., 2010; Campbell et al.,
2014; Eisenberg, 1977; Hanushek, 1972; Shulman & Quinlan, 1996). In laying a strong algebra
foundation for learners, mathematics teachers need to purposefully detect and address learners’
difficulties in algebra (Fumador & Agyei, 2018), which is almost impossible if teachers themselves
struggle in similar areas. Additionally, Mathematics teachers with difficulties in the algebra content
they teach, may have challenges in creating effective teaching strategies in addressing learners’
challenges in algebra for enhancement in mathematics achievement. Researches (Ball et al., 2008;

Page 2 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Hurrell, 2013) have shown that the knowledge of mathematics teachers about the content they
teach is an essential indicator of their competency and efficiency.

Studies (Boyd et al., 2010; Harris & Sass, 2011; Kraft & Papay, 2014; Ladd & Sorensen, 2017;
Staiger & Rockoff, 2010; Wiswall, 2013; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007) have shown that the knowl­
edge and effectiveness of teachers improve as their years of teaching experience increases,
especially at the early stages, according to Podolsky et al. (2019). Koedel and Betts (2007) argue
that, even beyond teachers’ first decade on field, they continue to improve in knowledge and
effectiveness. Darling-Harmmond (2000) emphasized that teachers’ years of teaching experience
is an indicative variable for their expertise and efficiency. Literature (Bodenhausen, 1988; Klecker,
2002; Rosenholtz, 1986) has revealed that teachers who have more years of teaching experience
possess in-depth knowledge about the contents they teach and are effective than those with fewer
years of teaching experiences. On this basis, the knowledge of algebra for teaching of Junior High
School mathematics teachers is expected to improve as their years of teaching experience
increase. This is due to the fact that teachers develop their competency and efficiency through
classroom experiences (Klecker, 2002; Rosenholtz, 1986).

In Ghana, mathematics is taught by both In-field and Out-of-field teachers at the Junior High
School level. According to McConney and Price (2009), supported by Hobbs (2013), In-field
mathematics teachers refer to teachers who possess either major or minor teaching qualifica­
tion in the area of mathematics education. In the Ghanaian context, In-field mathematics
teachers refer to teachers who have experienced professional training in the area of mathe­
matics education from accredited teacher training institutions and have received teaching
license from the National Teaching Council (NTC) of Ghana. This group of mathematics teachers
consists of teachers who hold either a diploma in Basic Education (with a specialisation in
Mathematics) or a Bachelor of Education degree (with a specialisation in Mathematics or Basic
Education with a Mathematics option). These teachers are primarily employed by the Ministry
of Education through the Ghana Education Service (GES) to teach mathematics in public
(Government) Junior High Schools throughout Ghana. Typically, each teacher specializing in
this field is responsible for instructing three separate classes (JHS 1, 2, and 3) within a specific
school, focusing specifically on the teaching of mathematics. On the other hand, Out-of-field
mathematics teachers are teachers without professional qualification (either major or minor) in
the area of mathematics education. In Ghana, mathematics teachers within this category may
be qualified teachers in other areas other than mathematics education or possess certificates
that fall below the minimum teaching qualification of mathematics teachers at the Junior High
School level (for instance, Senior High School graduates with the West African Senior School
Certificate Examination (WASSCE) certificates). Interestingly, Out-of-field Junior High School
mathematics teachers are mostly mathematics teachers of private (non-government) Junior
High Schools in Ghana. The engagement of Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics
teachers is primarily the responsibility of the management of the private school in question.
In view of this, different non-government schools have varied standards for engaging indivi­
duals as mathematics teachers for their respective schools. This situation raises concerns about
the professionalism of the teaching of mathematics (Buabeng et al., 2020), considering the
absence of specified standards for mathematics teachers’ engagement in non-government
schools, which may lead to the employment of unqualified individuals as mathematics tea­
chers in Ghana. In view of this, the study aimed at exploring the algebra teaching knowledge
and difficulties of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers in Ghana
to ascertain if they possess the knowledge it takes to effectively teach algebra to enhance
learners’ mathematics achievement.

2. Theoretical framework
The purpose of the study was to explore In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathe­
matics teachers’ Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching and their difficulties in algebra. In view of
this, the expanded Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT) framework (Wilmot, 2016), which

Page 3 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Figure 1. Expanded KAT frame­

work (Wilmot, 2016).

theorises the comprehensive knowledge of algebra for teaching in seven knowledge domains
was employed as the theoretical lens in our exploration of mathematics teachers’ algebra
knowledge. Studies (McCrory et al., 2012; Wilmot, 2016; Wilmot et al., 2018) have revealed that
the foundational teacher knowledge for teaching algebra comprises: School Algebra Knowledge
(SAK), Advanced Algebra Knowledge (AAK) and Algebra Teaching Knowledge (ATK), alongside
their four advanced algebra knowledge types, namely; Profound Knowledge of Algebra (PKA),
School Algebra Teaching Knowledge (SATK), Advanced Algebra Teaching Knowledge (AATK) and
Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Algebra (PCKA), which emanate from the interplay among
the foundational algebra knowledge domains. In practice, mathematics teachers’ ability to
connectively employ and operate within these knowledge domains during mathematics instruc­
tions are essential for the effective transmission of algebra contents to learners. In this study,
the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT) of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School
mathematics teachers were measured based on all the seven knowledge domains within the
expanded KAT framework (see Figure 1).

The utilisation of the expanded Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT) framework was to
ensure a domain specific measure of mathematics teachers’ Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching
through the interplay among the seven requisite teacher knowledge domains as postulated in the
expanded KAT framework, for effective transmission of algebra contents to learners at the Junior
High School level. These knowledge domains are discussed in relation to this study.

2.1. School Algebra Knowledge (SAK)

School Algebra Knowledge has been defined by studies (Reckase et al., 2015; Wilmot, 2016) as the
algebra contents in the intended curriculum. According to the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (2000), the principles and standards for school mathematics form the foundation for
defining the scope of school algebra knowledge. Stein, Kaufman, Sherman and Hillen (2011) assert
that, different curricula may define the contents of school algebra differently. These variations are
observed in different contexts based on several factors including; the nature, level of operation and
objectives of school mathematics. In the Ghanaian Junior High School context, algebra contents which
fall within the school algebra knowledge domain are found in mathematics syllabus, textbooks, work­
books and pamphlets. In this study, mathematics teachers’ school algebra knowledge was measured
based on the algebra contents stipulated within the Junior High School mathematics curriculum in
Ghana.

Page 4 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

2.2. Advanced Algebra Knowledge (AAK)

The Advanced Algebra Knowledge (AAK) domain include other mathematical knowledge in specific
college level mathematics (McCrory et al., 2012; Reckase et al., 2015; Wilmot, 2016) and the
application of school algebra in other areas of mathematics (Osei & Kubi, 2022). According to
the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (2012), Reckase et al. (2015) and McCrory et al.
(2012), the scope of Advanced Algebra Knowledge extends beyond School Algebra Knowledge and
provides mathematics teachers with broader and deeper viewpoints on different mathematical
ideas and their applications. Also, mathematics teachers’ expertise regarding alternate definitions,
generalizations and extensions of well-known theorems in mathematics promote advanced math­
ematical viewpoints (Usiskin et al., 2003). Wilmot (2019) asserts that topics such as operations on
numbers, sets of numbers and algebraic expressions incorporates advanced algebra knowledge for
algebra applications in these areas. In this research, the advanced algebra knowledge of mathe­
matics teachers was measured based on the applications and extensions of school algebra in
other areas of mathematics within the Junior High School mathematics curriculum of Ghana.

2.3. Algebra Teaching Knowledge (ATK)

According to Reckase et al. (2015) and McCrory et al. (2012), Algebra Teaching Knowledge is
defined as the pedagogical expertise unique to the teaching of algebra that may not be covered
in advanced mathematics courses. The Algebra Teaching Knowledge encompasses mathematics
teachers’ ability to examine what makes a certain algebra idea difficult to understand (Reckase
et al., 2015), identify learners’ errors (Osei & Kubi, 2022), connect mathematical errors to precise
misunderstandings, and deal with these challenging circumstances (Donkor, 2021; McCrory et al.,
2012; Yarkwah, 2017). In the context of this study, ATK of Junior High School mathematics
teachers was measured based on their ability to identify and connect learners’ errors to specific
misconceptions and propose appropriate workable pathways.

2.4. Profound Knowledge of School Algebra (PKSA)

The intersection of SAK and AAK leads to the development of Profound Knowledge of School
Algebra (Donkor, 2021; Osei, 2020; Wilmot, 2016). According to Donkor (2021) and Wilmot et al.
(2018), mathematics teachers who operate within this knowledge domain demonstrate thorough
command over school algebra and are more likely to explain algebra concepts clearly to learners.
Mathematics teachers who possess profound knowledge of school algebra demonstrate alternate
definitions, extensions, generalizations of well-known theorems (Donkor, 2021; Wilmot, 2016) and
are able to apply school algebra in different contexts (Osei & Kubi, 2022). In this study, items that
combine the features of school algebra and advanced algebra were the basis for measuring the
Profound Knowledge of School Algebra.

2.5. Advanced Algebra Teaching Knowledge (AATK)

The AATK emanates from the intersection of AAK and ATK (Donkor, 2021; Osei, 2020; Wilmot,
2016). According to Donkor (2021), Entsie (2021) and Wilmot et al. (2018), mathematics teachers
who possess this proficiency do not only exhibit mastery over advanced algebra, instead they are
equipped on how to communicate advanced algebra contents effectively for understanding. This
propels application of learned concepts and problem solving. Additionally, the Advanced Algebra
Teaching Knowledge equips mathematics instructors to make meaningful connections between
different ideas and engage in appropriate trimming and breakdown within and among advanced
algebra topics (Donkor, 2021; Entsie, 2021; Wilmot, 2016). In the context of this research, Junior
High School mathematics teachers’ ability to handle items that combine the features of advanced
algebra and teaching knowledge was the basis for measuring Advanced Algebra Teaching
Knowledge.

2.6. School Algebra Teaching Knowledge (SATK)

SATK emanates from the intersection of SAK and ATK (Donkor, 2021; Osei, 2020; Wilmot, 2016).
According to Entsie (2021) and Wilmot (2016), mathematics teachers who operate within this
knowledge domain have good knowledge of the trajectory of school algebra. School Algebra

Page 5 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Teaching Knowledge enables mathematics teachers to connect different algebra-related concepts,

solve problems while preserving some degree of dependability, and unravel complexity to widen
the range of the content they teach. The utilization of the SATK enables mathematics teachers to
teach school algebra in a flexible way to improve understanding of different groups of learners
(Donkor, 2021; Entsie, 2021). In the study, mathematics teachers’ performance on algebra items
that possess the features of school algebra and algebra teaching knowledge was the basis for
measuring School Algebra Teaching Knowledge.

2.7. Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Algebra (PCKA)

PCKA is the only trio algebra knowledge emanating from the complex interconnections among the
three foundational algebra knowledge domains (Donkor, 2021; Osei, 2020). In Wilmot (2016), the
PCKA is described as a form of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986) in a domain
specific area. Donkor (2021) asserts that mathematics teachers who possess this expertise are
capable of handling higher order tasks in algebra and are able to combine numerous teaching
techniques to make complex algebraic concepts understandable to learners. PCKA, according to
Osei and Kubi (2022) guarantees an effective and flexible transmission of algebra contents for
deeper cognitive engagements among learners. In our study, Junior High School mathematics
teachers’ performance on items that integrate the features of the three foundational algebra
knowledge domains was the basis for measuring the Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Algebra.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research design and research questions

The descriptive survey design was adopted to explore the teaching knowledge and difficulties of
In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers in algebra. According to Fox and
Bayat (2007), this approach is appropriate for a comprehensive description of specific character­
istics and situations of interest. In meeting the overarching objectives of the study, the following
specific research questions were addressed:

(1) What Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching domains prevail among In-field and Out-of-field
Junior High School mathematics teachers?
(2) What differences are observed in the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching of In-field and Out-
of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers as their years of teaching experiences
increase?
(3) What difficulties are exhibited in the algebra knowledge of In-field and Out-of-field Junior
High School mathematics teachers?

3.2. Sample and participants

The study employed the participation of Junior High School mathematics teachers within the
Southern part of the Ahafo region of Ghana. The population of the study was 742, constituting
509 In-field and 233 Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers. The two categories of
mathematics teachers were considered as strata based on the differences in their backgrounds
and experiences for a proportional selection of 226 In-field and 148 Out-of-field mathematics
teachers as recommended by Krejcie and Morgan (1970). The proportional selection of participants
from each stratum was done randomly using computer-generated numbers to minimize biases in
the sample selection. Analyses of the demographic details of participants revealed a male dom­
inance of 197 (87.2%) and 136 (91.9%) mathematics teachers within the In-field and Out-of-field
mathematics teachers respectively.

3.3. Instrument
In line with the study’s objective of exploring the algebra knowledge teaching of Junior High School
mathematics teachers based on the seven knowledge domains within the expanded Knowledge of
Algebra for Teaching (KAT) Framework, and the various difficulties exhibited as they handle

Page 6 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Table 1. Sample question for each Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT) domain
Knowledge domain Sample item
SAK Make d the subject of the equation a2= 1
b
1
d
3
AAK Expand the expression ð3x þ 4yÞ
ATK Gertrude’s solution to an equation is shown below
Given: n þ 8ðn þ 20Þ ¼ 200
Step 1: n þ 8n þ 20 ¼ 200
Step 2: 9n þ 20 ¼ 200
Step 3: 9n ¼ 200 − 20
Step 4: 9n ¼ 180
Step 5: 9n 180
9 = 9
Step 6: n ¼ 20
Which of the statements about Gertrude’s solution is
true?
(A) Gertrude’s solution is correct
(B) Gertrude made a mistake at step 1
(C) Gertrude made a mistake at step 2
(D) Gertrude made a mistake at step 3

PKSA Find the value of x in the equation 42x 1 1

¼ 16
SATK Subtract the product of 3x 4and 2x þ 8from the
product of ð2x þ 9Þ2 and 4x þ 3.
AATK What are the values of c, if c þ d ¼ 10 and c is less
than d? (Note: d ≤ 10)
PCKA Aunty Susana asked her algebra students to divide
x2 4 by x þ 2. Ama said, “I have an easy method.
I just divided x2 by x and the 4 by 2. I got x 2, am
I right?”

(a) Comment on the correctness of Ama’s method

and answer
(b) Explain why you agree/disagree with Ama on her
response to Aunty Susana’s question
(c) Suggest (by way of solving) any/another appro­
priate way of handling Aunty Susana’ task

algebra, the research adapted the teacher-made achievement test instruments of Black (2007),
Osei and Kubi (2022) and Donkor (2021) for data collection. The instrument had two major
sections, these were Personal information section and Test item section. The personal information
section sought for demographic information such as respondents’ sex, professional status and
years of teaching experience. The test item section had sixty (60) questions covering the seven
knowledge domains of the expanded KAT framework. Specifically, the instrument had thirteen (13)
items on SAK, ten (10) on AAK, nine (9) on ATK, seven (7) on PKSA, eight (8) on AATK, seven (7) on
SATK and six (6) on PCKA. The test re-test reliability of 0.79 on 62 Junior High School mathematics
teachers was considered acceptable according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) and Vaske (2008).
On this basis, the instrument was considered reliable for data collection. Table 1 presents sample
item for each knowledge domain as employed in the study.

3.4. Data collection procedure

An introductory meeting was arranged between the first author and the participating Junior High
School mathematics teachers in seven proximal centres within the study area. In each of these
meetings, issues regarding the purpose and importance of the study, duration for responding to
the items of the achievement test and anonymity of all responses were discussed. Participants’
consents were sought and data was collected a week after the completion of the various consent
forms. The authors supported by 13 field assistants administered the achievement test instrument
within two weeks.

Page 7 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

3.5. Data analyses

A preliminary data analysis on respondents’ background characteristics was carried out to ascer­
tain the various demographic compositions within the Junior High School mathematics teachers
who participated in the study. The research questions were answered using the achievement test
scores and excerpts (snapshots) from the responses of participants. Specifically, the study utilised
descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test and Analysis of variance in providing answers to
research questions one and two. Descriptive statistics and excerpts (snapshot) of some identified
difficulties were used in answering the research question three. Results were presented using
tables and charts for meaningful interpretations.

4. Results

4.1. In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers’ Knowledge of
Algebra for Teaching
The first research question sought to find out the prevailing algebra teaching knowledge domains
and the differences that exist in the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching of In-field and Out-of-field
Junior High School mathematics teachers based on the expanded KAT framework. In addressing
this research question, the achievement test scores across the seven knowledge domains (each
marked out of 20) and the overall knowledge; a combination of the scores from each knowledge
domain (marked out of 140) of the two categories of Junior High School mathematics teachers
were utilised. Independent samples t-test at 5% level of significance was employed in comparing
the mean scores of In-field and Out-of-field mathematics teachers across the various KAT
domains. The descriptive statistics, t-tests and corresponding effect sizes are presented in Table 2.

In reference to Table 2, School Algebra Knowledge (SAK) domain emerged as the prevailing
algebra knowledge domain for both In-field (M = 11.26, SD = 3.263) and Out-of-field (M = 11.06, SD
= 2.736) Junior High School mathematics teachers. Interestingly, In-field mathematics teachers
had ATK (M = 11.06, SD = 3.791) as their second predominant algebra knowledge domain whiles
that of the Out-of-field mathematics teachers was AAK (M = 7.91, SD = 1.685). Surprisingly, PCKA
which combines the three foundational knowledge domains was the least among In-field (M =
6.69, SD = 3.010) and Out-of-field (M = 5.11, SD = 2.388) Junior High School mathematics teachers.
These results seem to suggest that the two categories of mathematics teachers demonstrated
mastery over the curriculum contents they teach in the classroom (SAK) as compared to the
applications of these contents and the contents of advanced algebra courses (AAK) and, the
pedagogy for transmitting algebra contents (ATK). It was however not surprising that ATK which
takes care of the pedagogical issues within the scope of algebra was reported as the second-best
knowledge domain among In-field mathematics teachers. This is because, the pedagogical issues
are projected throughout their professional training as mathematics teachers.

Also, it is apparent that In-field Junior High school mathematics teachers possess higher knowl­
edge across six of the seven domains of the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (AAK, ATK, PKSA,
SATK, AATK and PCKA) as compared to the Out-of-field Junior High school mathematics teachers.
These differences are more pronounced in ATK (d = 1.08, p = 0.000), AAK (d = 0.92, p = 0.000) and
AATK (d = 0.83, p = 0.000), yielding large effect sizes. In addition, significant differences were also
observed in PKSA (d = 0.31, p = 0.004), PCKA (d = 0.58, p = 0.000) and SATK (d = 0.36, p = 0.001) with
small, moderate and small effect sizes respectively. Although the overall KAT averages (In-field =
64.20 and Out-of-field = 53.03) out of a total of 140 marks do not show high Knowledge of Algebra
for Teaching among Junior High School mathematics teachers, the difference (d = 1.08, p = 0.000)
between the two categories of mathematics teachers is significant with a large effect size in favor
of In-field Junior High school mathematics teachers.

Even though all the algebra knowledge domains except SAK fall below average for the two
groups of mathematics teachers, it is obvious that In-field mathematics teachers possess higher
knowledge for teaching algebra as compared to Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics

Page 8 of 25
 Table 2. Differences in the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching for In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers
KAT In-field Out-of-field mathematics teachers (n T p-value Effect size
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240

Knowledge mathematics teachers (n = 226) = 148) (d)

domain M SD M SD
SAK (20) 11.26 3.263 11.06 2.736 0.630 0.529 –
AAK (20) 9.79 2.338 7.91 1.685 9.015 0.000* 0.92
ATK (20) 11.06 3.791 7.59 2.487 10.695 0.000* 1.08
PKSA (20) 8.24 3.567 7.22 3.097 2.860 0.004* 0.31
SATK (20) 8.78 2.954 7.73 2.827 3.430 0.001* 0.36
AATK (20) 8.30 2.513 6.48 1.838 8.097 0.000* 0.83
PCKA (20) 6.69 3.010 5.11 2.388 5.619 0.000* 0.58
Overall KAT (140) 64.20 11.877 53.03 8.514 10.581 0.000* 1.08
Notes: * p < .05- analysed with t-test.

Page 9 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

teachers. This is encouraging and projects the relevance of professional training for developing
competent mathematics teachers for Junior High Schools.

4.2. Differences in the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching of In-field and Out-of-field Junior
High School mathematics teachers based on years of teaching experience
The second research question sought to find out the differences in the Knowledge of Algebra for
Teaching of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers as their years of
teaching experiences increase. In addressing this research question, the overall Knowledge of
Algebra for Teaching (marked out of 140) of In-field and Out-of-field mathematics teachers were
categorized into three years of teaching experience, namely, Below 5 years, 5–10 years and Above 10
years. Analysis of variance at 5% level of significance was employed for mean score comparisons
across the years of teaching experience. Table 3 displays the descriptive statistics of Junior High School
mathematics teachers Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching based on years of teaching experience.

A cursory look at Table 3 seems to suggest an upward trend in the mean scores as years of
teaching experience increases for the two groups of Junior High School mathematics teachers.
Thus, within each group of Junior High School mathematics teachers, teachers with above 10 years
of teaching experience obtained the highest means; In-field (M = 67.50, SD = 10.899), Out-of-field
(M = 58.91, SD = 8.758) and All mathematics teachers (M = 64.46, SD = 10.954). This supposed
upward trend is displayed in Figure 2.

In reference to Figure 2, there appears to be a sharp upward difference in the Knowledge of

Algebra for Teaching between teachers with teaching experience below 5 years and those with 5–
10 years as compared to the difference between teachers with 5–10 years and above 10 years for
In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers. To ascertain the significance of
the differences observed in the means scores, a one-way analysis of variance was employed.
Table 4 presents the results of the ANOVA tests and their corresponding post hoc tests based on
years of teaching experience.

The comparisons of Junior High School mathematics teachers’ Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching
across years of teaching experiences (see Table 4) were significant for In-field mathematics teachers
(F (2, 223) = 39.47, p = .000), Out-of-field mathematics teachers (F (2, 145) = 47.53, p = .000) and All
mathematics teachers (F (2, 371) = 92.63, p = .000). A post hoc probe through pairwise comparison of
the mean scores across the various years of teaching experience revealed significant difference in
favor of mathematics teachers with 5 and above years (5–10 years and Above 10 years) of teaching
experience as against those with below 5 years of teaching experience for Infield (Below 5 years (M =
50.75, SD = 11.711) against 5–10 years (M = 66.62, SD = 9.406), p = .000 and Below 5 years (M = 50.75,
SD = 11.711) against Above 10 years (M = 67.50, SD = 10.899), p = .000), Out-of-field (Below 5 years (M
= 46.75, SD = 6.616) against 5–10 years (M = 56.44, SD = 4.856), p = .000 and Below 5 years (M = 46.75,
SD = 6.616) against Above 10 years (M = 58.91, SD = 8.758), p = .000) and All mathematics teachers
(Below 5 years (M = 48.29, SD = 9.077) against 5–10 years (M = 63.61, SD = 9.526), p = .000 and Below 5
years (M = 48.29, SD = 9.077) against Above 10 years (M = 64.46, SD = 10.954), p = .000). Interestingly,
the pairwise comparison between the mean scores of mathematics teachers with teaching experi­
ence from 5 to 10 years against those with above 10 years showed no significant difference for In-
field (p = 0.843), Out-of-field (p = 0.210) and All Junior High School mathematics teachers (p = 0.769).

The results seem to project a sharp positive difference in the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching
within the first decade of Junior High School mathematics teachers’ experiences on the field of
work. Surprisingly, this improvement in teacher knowledge is not pronounced after the first 10
years of their teaching experiences. This situation is discouraging and does not propel the con­
tinual growth expected among mathematics teachers for enhancement in algebra instructions.

Page 10 of 25
 Table 3. Descriptive statistics of KAT for Junior High School mathematics teachers based on years of teaching experience
Professional Years of teaching experience
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240

Status
Below 5 years 5 - 10 years Above 10 years

N Mean Std. D N Mean Std. D N Mean Std. D

In-field 38 50.75 11.711 124 66.62 9.406 64 67.50 10.899
Out-of-field 61 46.75 6.616 52 56.44 4.856 35 58.91 8.758
All teachers 99 48.29 9.077 176 63.61 9.526 99 64.46 10.954

Page 11 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Figure 2. Mean score plot of In-field Out-of-field All teachers

KAT for Junior High School 80
mathematics teachers based on
years of teaching experience. 70 66.62
67.5
63.61 64.46
60
58.91
50.75 56.44
MEAN SCORE
50
48.29
46.75
40

30

20

10

0
BELOW 5 YEARS 5 - 10 YEARS ABOVE 10 YEARS
YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE

4.3. Difficulties of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers in
algebra
The third research question sought to identify the difficulties of Junior High School mathematics
teachers in algebra. In addressing this research question, the written scripts of the mathematics
teachers from the achievement test instrument were assessed for the identification of the algebra
difficulties of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers.

The analysis of the written responses of Junior High School mathematics teachers to the algebra
items employed in the achievement test instrument revealed eight (8) dominant difficulties.
Table 5 presents the various identified algebra difficulties and their corresponding breakdown
based on the two categories of mathematics teachers.

According to Table 5, Out-of-field mathematics teachers dominated in terms of percentage in

all the identified algebra difficulties except the difficulty of factorising difference of two squares
which recorded the highest number (115) and percentage (30.75%) for the two groups of
Junior High school mathematics teachers. It is apparent that few (21) Junior High School
mathematics teachers representing 5.61% had difficulty regarding the correct application of
the order of operations when handling algebra items. Snapshot samples of the various identi­
fied difficulties are presented below.

4.3.1. Factorisation of difference of two squares

Factorisation of difference of two squares was identified as a difficulty among Junior High School
mathematics teachers. Presented below (See Excerpts 1 and 2) are examples of how two mathe­
matics teachers struggled with two items within the scope of difference of two squares.

In relation to Excerpt 1, the response of In-field mathematics teacher 122 to item 50 of the
achievement test looked promising at step 1, where x2 25y2 was broken down as x2 52 y2 .
However, the difficulty was exhibited at step 3 (circled yellow) where x2 52 y2 was simplified as
2 2 2
ðx 5yÞ , which led to an incorrect factorization of x 25y as ðx 5yÞðx 5yÞ. In the case of the
response of Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teacher 89 to item 45 of the achievement
test (see Excerpt 2), the difficulty was exhibited at step 3 where a wrong cancellation of the factor

Page 12 of 25
 Table 4. Differences in the KAT of Junior High School mathematics teachers based on years of teaching experience
ANOVA POST HOC TEST
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240

Sum of df Mean F Sig. (I) M (J) M Sig.

Squares Square
Output 1: In-field mathematics teachers
Between Groups 8298.029 2 4149.02 39.47 .000* Below 5 years 50.75 5–10 years 66.62 .000*
Within Groups 23441.06 223 105.12 5–10 years 66.62 Above 10 years 67.50 .843
Total 31739.09 225 Above 10 years 67.50 Below 5 years 50.75 .000*
Output 2: Out-of-field mathematics teachers
Between Groups 4219.950 2 2109.98 47.53 .000* Below 5 years 46.75 5–10 years 56.44 .000*
Within Groups 6436.881 145 44.392 5–10 years 56.44 Above 10 years 58.91 .210

Total 10656.83 147 Above 10 years 58.91 Below 5 years 46.75 .000*
Output 3: All mathematics teachers
Between Groups 17834.09 2 8917.05 92.63 .000* Below 5 years 48.29 5–10 years 63.61 .000*
Within Groups 35715.40 371 96.268 5–10 years 63.61 Above 10 years 64.46 .769
Total 53549.490 373 Above 10 years 64.46 Below 5 years 48.29 .000*
Notes: * p < .05 - analysed with ANOVA.

Page 13 of 25
 Table 5. Difficulties of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics teachers in algebra
Algebra difficulty In-field Out-of-field mathematics teachers All mathematics teachers
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240

Mathematics teachers (n=226) (n=148) (n=374)

N Percent (%) N Percent (%) N Percent (%)
(1) Factorisation of 76 33.63 39 26.35 115 30.75
difference of two
squares

(2) More than one 24 10.62 29 19.59 53 14.17

term bracket
expansions

(3) More than one 21 9.29 42 28.38 63 16.84

term exponential
expansions

(4) Cancellation of 19 8.41 23 15.54 42 11.23

common factors

(5) Equal sign usage 4 1.77 18 12.16 22 5.88

(6) Application of the 27 11.95 29 19.59 56 14.97

laws of indices

(7) Order of opera­ 9 3.98 12 8.11 21 5.61

tions

(8) Algebraic repre­ 24 10.62 31 20.95 55 14.71

sentation of word
problems

Page 14 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Excerpt 1: Response of In-field

teacher 122 to item 50.

Excerpt 2: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 89 to item 45.

9 resulted in an incorrect simplification of 9ð19 y2 w2 Þ as y2 w2 . The analysis reveals some sort of

deficiencies in teacher knowledge regarding factorising difference of two squares which falls within
the scope of advanced algebra courses taken by In-field mathematics teachers during their
professional training.

4.3.2. More than one term bracket expansions

The two categories of Junior High School mathematics teachers exhibited difficulties regarding the
appropriate application of the distributive property in the context of expanding brackets that
contain more than one term. See for instance Excerpts 3 and 4 presented below.

Excerpt 3: Response of In-field

teacher 9 to item 46.

Excerpt 4: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 49 to item 42.

Page 15 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Excerpt 3 and 4 provide an understanding of how two Junior High School mathematics
teachers exhibited difficuty in handling more than one term bracket expansions. The two
snapshot samples look similar in terms of how the mathematics teachers handled items of
this kind. It is observed that they both teachers failed to multiply through correctly where
a bracket contains more than one term. For instance in excerpt 3, 2a was multiplied by
�
ð6a 3bÞ and not 4ð2a þ bÞ and for excerpt 4, an incorrect expanssion of 7y2 þ 12 ð5y xÞ
and failure to multiply 1 by x2 as seen in step 1. This particular difficulty was unexpected,
looking at the nature of these expressions and the fact that they fall within the scope of the
algebra contents these mathematics teachers teach at the Juinior High School level.

4.3.3. More than one term exponential expansions

Expansion of exponential expressions, specifically more than one term exponential expansion was
observed as a challenge among the two groups of Junior High School mathematics teachers. See
for instance Excerpts 5 and 6 shown below.

Excerpts 5 and 6 exhibit Junior High School mathematics teachers’ difficulty in handling more
than one term exponential expansions. It is apparent that the two mathematics teachers incor­
rectly distributed the exponent (2) to each of the terms within the bracket. This resulted in an
incorrect expansion of ð2a 5bÞ2 as 4a2 25b2 in excerpt 5 and ða þ b þ cÞ2 as a2 þ b2 þ c2 in
excerpt 6. This is quite alarming, it was expected that these mathematics teachers demonstrate
exceptional control over expressions of this kind for effective transmission of similar alegbra
contents within the Junior High School mathematics curriculum to enhance learners achivement
in mathematics.

Excerpt 5: Response of In-field

teacher 111 to item 49.

Excerpt 6: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 7 to item 48.

4.3.4. Cancellation of common factors

Inappropriate cancellation of factors was observed among the two categories of Junior High
School mathematics teachers. Excerpts 7 and 8 presented below throw light on the challenges
of the mathematics teachers regarding the appropriate cancellation of common factors.

Misapplications of the principle of cancelling common factors for easy simplification of expres­
sions were observed in the responses some Junior High School mathematics teachers (see
excerpts 7 and 8). These incorrect cancellations led to the wrong simplification of 2a 3
a b
2a as

Page 16 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

2a b 1 3a 3b
3 2 in Excerpt 7 and as 3 in Excerpt 8 as displayed above. The inappropriate cancellations
observed in the responses of Junior High School mathematics teachers project the deficiencies in
teacher knowledge regarding the correct application of the principle of cancelling common factors
during simplifications of algebraic expressions.

Excerpt 7: Response of In-field

teacher 3 to item 53.

Excerpt 8: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 29 to item 53.

4.3.5. Equal sign usage

Among the difficulties exhibited in the responses of In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School
mathematics teachers was the inappropriate use of the equal sign especially in equations. Excerpts
9 and 10 provide a clearer understanding regarding the improper use of the equal sign among
Junior High School mathematics teachers.

The multiple utilisation of the equal sign in single equations as shown in Excerpts 9 and 10
reveals a deficiency in Junior High School mathematics teachers’ knowledge regarding the equiva­
lence property of the equal sign. It is apparent in excerpts 9 and 10 that mathematics teachers
perceive the equal sign as a symbol that precedes solutions or answers neglecting its equivalence
and balancing property.

Excerpt 9: Response of In-field

teacher 112 to item 34.

Page 17 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Excerpt 10: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 9 to item 47.

4.3.6. Application of the laws of indices

Inappropriate application of the laws of indices was also observed among in-field and Out-of-field
Junior High School mathematics teachers. The two snapshots (see Excerpt 11 and 12) displayed
below exhibit some sort of misapplications of indices rules in the responses of the mathematics
teachers.

In excerpt 11, the respondent (In-field mathematics teacher 206) misapplied the indices rule
of equating exponents in cases of equal base for the two sides of an equation. This rule which
would have worked perfectly if 42x 1 ¼ 1 2 as seen in step 1 was further simplified as
ð4Þ
2
42x 1
¼ ð4Þ was directly misapplied to 42x 1
¼ 1
resulting in an incorrect value of x as
ð4Þ2
seen in excerpt 11. In the case of excerpt 12, the Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics
teacher misapplied the bracket power rule of indices; ðabcÞ2 ¼ a2 b2 c2 to ða þ b þ cÞ2 instead of
expanding ða þ b þ cÞ2 as ða þ b þ cÞða þ b þ cÞ. This resulted in an incorrect expansion of
ða þ b þ cÞ2 as a2 þ b2 þ c2 . This analysis clearly reveals misapplications of some valid indices
rules which can be transmitted to learners during mathematics instructions, hence demands
attention.

Excerpt 11: Response of In-field

teacher 206 to item 47.

Page 18 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

Excerpt 12: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 7 to item 48.

4.3.7. Order of operations

Incorrect order of operations were also observed in the responses of Junior High School mathematics
teachers to some of the items of the achivement test instruemnt. Excerpts 13 and 14 provide evidence
and understanding of how two mathematics teachers had difficuty handling expressions containing
multiple operations (Addition, subtraction, division, multiplication and brackets).

In Excerpt 13, the In-field mathematics teacher correctly changed the mixed fraction 1 12 to 32
as seen in step 1. Afterwards, the respondent removed the bracket by multiplying the terms
within the bracket 32, 3
4 and 1
4 by 12, without following the approprite order of operation. Even
though the expression obtained in step 2 is inaccurate 34+38 � 34, the respondent simplified the
first two terms 34+38 and afterwards divided the result by the last term 34, instead of dividing
3 3
the second term 8 by the last term 4 for a subequent addition to the first term 34. In the case of
the Out-of-field mathematics teacher (see excerpt 14), the difficuty was observed where in the
expression 23 � 27 8
4 � 15
10
3, the last two terms 8
15
10
3 were simplified before of the other opera­
tions (division and multiplication). Mathematics teachers’ dificulties regarding the correct
application of order of operations demand attention. This is due to the fact that, they are
expected to project the relevenace of adhering to the principles regarding order of operations
for expressions that combine multiple arithmetic operations to learners during instructions.

Excerpt 13: Response of In-field

teacher 10 to item 51.

Excerpt 14: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 94 to item 56.

Page 19 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

4.3.8. Algebraic representation of word problems

The two categories of Junior High School mathematics teachers exhibited difficulty in transforming
word problems into equations. Excerpts 15 and 16 present such evidences for a clearer understanding
of how two mathematics teachers incorrectly represented some word problems mathematically.

For excerpt 15, the respondent subtracted the product of ð2x þ 9Þ2 and ð4x þ 3Þ from that of
ð3x 4Þandð2x þ 8Þ, instead of the product of ð3x 4Þandð2x þ 8Þ from ð2x þ 9Þ2 and ð4x þ 3Þ as
expected in item 44. Interestingly, excerpts 16 also reveals how a mathematics teacher incorrectly
represented “X’s age 5 years ago is equal to 5 ⁄₄ of Y’s age 2 years ago” as X 5 ¼ 54 Y 2 instead of
X 5 ¼ 54 ðY 2Þ. These incorrect algebraic representations of word problems in the responses of
the mathematics teachers exhibit their difficulty regarding correct representations of word pro­
blems in algebraic forms.

Excerpt 15: Response of In-field

teacher 4 to item 44.

Excerpt 16: Response of Out-of-

field teacher 33 to item 58.

5. Discussion
This study aimed at exploring the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching of In-field and Out-of-field
Junior High School mathematics teachers based on the seven knowledge domains within the
expanded KAT framework (SAK, AAK, ATK, PKSA, SATK, AATK and PCKA), and the various algebra
difficulties exhibited as these mathematics teachers handle algebra items. The results of the study
projected SAK as the prevailing knowledge domain for the two categories of Junior High School
mathematics teachers. It was however discovered that ATK and AAK were the second-best knowl­
edge domains for Infield and Out-of-field mathematics teachers, respectively. Even though

Page 20 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

mathematics teachers’ knowledge within each of the seven algebra knowledge domains and the
overall Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching fell below average, except ATK for In-field and SAK for
the two groups of mathematics teachers, the study showed that apart from SAK, Infield mathe­
matics teachers possess higher knowledge in all the sub-knowledge domains and the overall
Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching as compared to their counterparts who are Out-of-field
mathematics teachers. Although the results on the prevalence of SAK over the other sub-
knowledge domains and the demonstration of higher knowledge by Infield mathematics teachers
as compared to Out-of-field in the overall Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching are consistent with
several studies (Donkor, 2021; Entsie, 2021; Osei, 2020; Osei & Kubi, 2022), the breakdown based
on the seven sub-knowledge domains deviate from Donkor (2021), where she found out that In-
field mathematics teachers did not possess higher knowledge than Out-of-field mathematics
teachers in Advanced Algebra Knowledge (AAK), School Algebra Teaching Knowledge (SATK) and
Advanced Algebra Teaching Knowledge (AATK).

The result also demonstrates differences in the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT) as
years of teaching experiences increase for In-field, Out-of-field and All Junior High School mathe­
matics teachers. These findings are consistent with numerous studies (Harris & Sass, 2011; Kraft &
Papay, 2014; Ladd & Sorensen, 2017; Staiger & Rockoff, 2010; Wiswall, 2013; Yarkwah, 2017), as
they argue for substantial differences in teacher knowledge as years of teaching experiences
increase. The study further revealed that, the observed differences in the Knowledge of Algebra
for Teaching are not pronounced among Junior High School mathematics teachers with Above 10
years of teaching experience as compared with those with 5–10 years of teaching experience as
indicated in Podolsky et al. (2019) and inconsistent with Koedel and Betts (2007) where they argue
that even beyond teachers’ first decade on field, teachers continue to improve in knowledge and
effectiveness.

The study identified eight algebra difficulties among In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School
mathematics teachers. These findings align with researches such as Sultan and Artzt (2011),
Chinnappan (2010) and Pincheira and Alsina (2021), which projected algebra as a particular strand
of mathematics that poses several difficulties to mathematics teachers. Mathematics teachers’
difficulty regarding the understanding and utilization of the equal sign as identified in this study
sits with studies such as Trivilin and Ribeiro (2015), Ferreira et al. (2017) as they asserted that
mathematics teachers are unable to recognise the different mathematical meanings of the equal
sign, especially its equivalence property. In addition, the study’s finding on mathematics teachers’
difficulty regarding algebraic representation of word problems especially using variables to repre­
sent unknown quantities sit with Bair and Rich’s (2011) assertion that mathematics teachers have
challenges in handling algebra tasks that require the representation of unknown quantities with
variables. The identified difficulties such as; more than one term bracket expansions, more than
one term exponential expansions, Cancellation of common factors, Application of the laws of
indices, Order of operations and factorization of difference of two squares buttress Strand and Mills
(2014) claim that mathematics teachers have several challenges when solving algebraic tasks.
More importantly, the existence of these difficulties among mathematics teachers increases their
struggles in providing assistance to learners with difficulties in algebra (Bush & Karp, 2013; Kieran,
2018), thereby reducing the potency of mathematics teachers’ ability to offer effective and reliable
interventions for remedying learners’ difficulties in algebra.

6. Conclusions, limitation and recommendations

The study revealed SAK as the prevailing knowledge domain among the two categories of Junior
High School mathematics teachers. It was further discovered that the two groups of mathematics
teachers possess algebra knowledge that fall below average for five out of the seven knowledge
domains (AAK, PKSA, SATK, AATK and PCKA) and also for the overall Knowledge of Algebra for
Teaching, however, In-field mathematics teachers possess relatively higher knowledge as com­
pared to Out-of-field mathematics teachers in six out of the seven knowledge domains (AAK, ATK,
PKSA, SATK, AATK and PCKA) as well as the overall Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching. The study

Page 21 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240

further showed that the Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching (KAT) differs as years of teaching
experiences increase for In-field, Out-of-field and All Junior High School mathematics teachers,
however, these differences are not pronounced among Junior High School mathematics teachers
with above 10 years of teaching experience as compared with those with 5–10 years of teaching
experience, but between those with 5–10 years and below 5 years of teaching experience. The
study finally identified eight major algebra difficulties among Junior High School mathematics
teachers namely; factorization of difference of two squares, more than one term bracket expan­
sions, more than one term exponential expansions, Cancellation of common factors, Equal sign
usage, Application of the laws of indices, Order of operations and Algebraic representation of word
problems.

This research had some limitations. The utilsation of Junior High School mathematics teachers
within the southern part of the Ahafo region in Ghana is a limitation for the generalisation of the
findings for the entire country. Additionally, placing sole reliance on an achievement test instrument
to evaluate the competence of mathematics teachers in teaching algebra, within a constrained
timeframe and controlled setting, presents constraints in capturing a comprehensive grasp of the
teachers’ overall knowledge of Algebra for teaching. It would have been considerably advantageous
if the authors had incorporated teacher observations to gauge additional crucial pedagogical issues
(such as classroom management, utilisation of teaching and learning materials, and more) that
significantly contribute to successful mathematics lessons, thereby enriching the collected data.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the study provides insights into the Knowledge of Algebra for
Teaching of Junior High School mathematics teachers for teacher preparation, policy and practice
decisions in Ghana and similar contexts. The deficits and difficulties revealed in the Knowledge of
Algebra for Teaching of Junior High School mathematics teachers have critical implication on teacher
preparation. Specifically, teacher training institutions should aim at developing pre-service mathe­
matics teachers’ mastery in the advanced algebra knowledge domains, especially, PCKA which
combines the three foundational algebra knowledge domains for effective transmission of algebra
contents to learners at the Junior High School level. For example, when preparing prospective
mathematics teachers, teacher training institutions should ensure that future Junior High School
teachers cultivate the ability to establish connections between various errors and their corresponding
misconceptions in algebra. Additionally, they should ensure that trained teachers possess the profi­
ciency to illustrate the practical application of the algebraic concepts they teach within real-world
contexts throughout the training period.

In addition, Policy makers should make clear regulations on the engagement of Out-of-field
mathematics teachers in private (non-government) Junior High Schools in Ghana, since Out-of-
field mathematics teachers’ Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching falls below In-field mathematics
teachers who are usually engaged in public (government) schools. In this respect, the various
district offices of the Ghana Education Service should provide teacher engagement criteria for non-
government Junior High Schools, which may include an acceptable performance on an aptitude
test and further training to improve the knowledge of the Out-of-field teachers engaged for the
teaching of mathematics. Again, Out-of-field mathematics teachers could be assigned mentors
(preferably, experienced In-field mathematics teachers) to enable them receive assistance in areas
of difficulty, especially, the pedagogical components of their Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching.

Also, the identified algebra difficulties have critical implications on Junior High School mathe­
matics teachers’ potency to offer effective and reliable interventions for addressing learners’
difficulties in algebra. In view of this, the study recommends that school administrators (specifi­
cally School heads) organise professional development trainings that aim at remedying identified
algebra difficulties and also equipping mathematics teachers with innovative and practical
approaches of providing assistance to learners with difficulties in algebra. These training pro­
grammes should utilise effective learning approaches such as Teacher Design Teams (TDTs) for

Page 22 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240
collaboration among teachers and should be evaluated to ascertain the realisation of their
intended goals.
Finally, teachers are also entreated to engage in communities of practice. In this case, teachers
within catchment areas should be admonished to come together or network to share knowledge
and experiences regarding algebra difficulties. Within the community of practice, the teachers
should engage in ongoing interactions, discussions, and collaborative activities that will enhance
their teaching skills, pedagogical approaches, and subject knowledge. This will provide an oppor­
tunity for teachers to learn from one another, exchange best practice, and collectively address
challenges and issues in their field.
Author details
Williams Osei1
E-mail: williams.osei@stu.ucc.edu.gh
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9057-8179
Douglas Darko Agyei1
1
Department of Mathematics and ICT Education,
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: Teaching knowledge and difficulties of
In-field and Out-of-field Junior High School mathematics
teachers in algebra, Williams Osei & Douglas Darko Agyei,
Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240.
References
Bair, S. L., & Rich, B. S. (2011). Characterizing the develop­
ment of specialized mathematical content knowledge
for teaching in algebraic reasoning and number theory.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(4), 292–321.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2011.608345
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. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T.,
Jordan, A., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathema­
tical knowledge, cognitive activation in the class­
room, and student progress. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0002831209345157
Black, D. J. W. (2007). The relationship of teachers’ content
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in
algebra, and changes in both types of knowledge as
a result of professional development. Auburn University.
Bodenhausen, J. (1988). Does the academic background of
teachers affect the performance of their students?.
[Paper presented]. Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
(ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED293836)
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2010).
Teacher layoffs: An empirical illustration of seniority
versus measures of effectiveness. Education Finance
and Policy, 6(3), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1162/
EDFP_a_00041
Buabeng, I., Ntow, F. D., & Otami, C. D. (2020). Teacher
education in Ghana: policies and practices. Journal of
Curriculum and Teaching, 9(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/
10.5430/jct.v9n1p86
Bush, S. B., & Karp, K. S. (2013). Prerequisite algebra skills
and associated misconceptions of middle grade stu­
dents: A review. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 32(3), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmathb.2013.07.002
Campbell, P. F., Nishio, M., Smith, T. M., Clark, L. M.,
Conant, D. L., Rust, A. H., & Choi, Y. (2014). The rela­
tionship between teachers’ mathematical content
and pedagogical knowledge, teachers’ perceptions,
and student achievement. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 45(2), 419–459. https://doi.
org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0419
Chick, H. (2009). Teaching the distributive law: Is fruit
salad still on the menu? In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, &
T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides: proceedings of the
32nd annual MERGA conference. MERGA. https://
merga.net.au/Public/Public/Publications/Annual_
Conference_Proceedings/2009_MERGA_CP.aspx
Chinnappan, M. (2010). Cognitive load and modelling of
an algebra problem. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 22(2), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03217563
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012).
The mathematical education of teachers II. American
Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association
of America.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and stu­
dents’ achievement: A review of state policy evi­
dence. Working paper, Center for the study of
teaching and policy, . https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.
v8n1.2000
DiBernardo, R., Carotenuto, G., Mellone, M., & Ribeiro, M.
(2017). Prospective teachers’ interpretative knowl­
edge on early algebra. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 24
(esp.), 208. https://doi.org/10.18764/2178-2229.v24n.
especialp208-222
Donkor, M. (2021). An investigation into senior high school
teachers’ knowledge for teaching algebra [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Cape Coast].
Eisenberg, T. A. (1977). Begle revisited: Teacher knowl­
edge and student achievement in algebra. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 8(30), 216–222.
https://doi.org/10.2307/748523
Entsie, G. (2021). Pre-Service mathematics teachers’
knowledge for teaching senior high school algebra
[Doctoral dissertation, UCC].
Ferreira, M. C. N., Ribeiro, M., & Ribeiro, A. J. (2017).
Conhecimento matemático para ensinar Álgebra
nos Anos Iniciais do Ensino Fundamental. Zetetike,
25(3), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.20396/zet.v25i3.
8648585
Fox, W., & Bayat, M. S. (2007). A Guide to managing
research. Juta Publications.
Fumador, E. S., & Agyei, D. D. (2018). Students’ errors and
misconceptions in algebra: Exploring the impact of
remedy using diagnostic conflict and conventional
teaching approaches.
Hanushek, E. A. (1972). Education and race: An analysis of
the educational production process. D. C. Heath and
Co.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher
quality and student achievement. Journal of Public
Page 23 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240
Economics, 95(7–8), 798–812. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009
Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching ‘Out-of-field’ as a boundary-
crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 11(2), 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10763-012-9333-4
Hurrell, D. P. (2013). What teachers need to know to
teach mathematics: An argument for
a reconceptualised model. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 38(11), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.
14221/ajte.2013v38n11.3
Kieran, C. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching and learning algebraic
thinking with 5- to 12-year-olds. Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-68351-5
Klecker, B. M. (2002). The relationship between teachers’
years of teaching experience and students’ mathe­
matical achievement. [Paper presented]. Annual
Meeting of the Mid South Educational Research
Association, Chattanooga, TN.
Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2007), Re-examining the role of
teacher quality in the educational production
function. Working Paper No. 2007-03, National
Center on Performance Incentives, Peabody College
of Vanderbilt University. https://my.vanderbilt.edu/
performanceincentives/files/2012/10/200703_
KoedelBetts_ReExamTeacherQual1.pdf
Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional envir­
onments in schools promote teacher development?
Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching
experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 36(4), 476–500. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0162373713519496
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample
size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Ladd, H. F., & Sorensen, L. C. (2017). Returns to teacher
experience: Student achievement and motivation in
middle school. Education Finance and Policy, 12(2),
241–279. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00194
Makonye, J. P., & Stepwell, N. (2016). Eliciting learner
errors and misconceptions in simplifying rational
algebraic expressions to improve teaching and
learning. International Journal of Educational
Sciences, 12(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09751122.2016.11890408
Matthews, M. S., & Farmer, J. L. (2008). Factors affecting
the algebra I achievement of academically talented
learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3),
472–501. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-810
McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009). An assessment of the
Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-Field” in WA
schools: Final report. Western Australian College of
Teaching (WACOT). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.
2009v34n6.6
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), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresemathe
duc.43.5.0584
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), 520–566. https://doi.org/10.5951/
jresematheduc.48.5.0520
Moses, R. P. (2001). Radical equations: Math, literacy, and
civil rights. Beacon Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000).
Principles and standards for school mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
Retrieved from: https://www.nctm.org/Standards-
and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008).
Foundations for success: The final report of the
national mathematics advisory panel (ED 00424P).
U.S. Department of Education.
Noviyanti, M. E. R. Y., & Suryadi, D. I. D. I. (2019). Basic
mathematics knowledge of early childhood teachers.
Journal of Engineering Science & Technology, 1, 19–27.
https://jestec.taylors.edu.my/Special%20Issue%20on
%20AASEC%202018/AASEC_SIS_003.pdf
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric
theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Oliveira, H., Polo-Blanco, I., & Henriques, A. (2021).
Exploring prospective elementary mathematics tea­
chers’ knowledge: A focus on functional thinking.
Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(2), 257–278.
https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.2.13745.257-278
Osei, W. (2020). Algebra teaching knowledge of basic
school mathematics teachers [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Cape Coast].
Osei, W., & Kubi, M. K. (2022). Algebra teaching knowl­
edge of professional and non-professional basic
school mathematics teachers. International Journal
of Scientific & Research Publications, 12(1), 41–48.
https://doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.12.01.2022,p12107
Pincheira, N., & Alsina, Á. (2021). Teachers’ mathematics
knowledge for teaching early algebra: A systematic
review from the mkt perspective. Mathematics, 9(20),
2590. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9202590
Podolsky, A., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Does
teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness?
A review of US research. Journal of Professional
Capital & Community, 4(4), 286–308. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JPCC-12-2018-0032
Reckase, M. D., McCrory, R., Floden, R. E., Ferrini-Mundy,
J., & Senk, S. L. (2015). A multidimensional assess­
ment of teachers’ knowledge of algebra for teach­
ing: Developing an instrument and supporting valid
inferences. Educational Assessment, 20(4),
249–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.
1093927
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). The organizational context of
teaching: In learning to teach. University of Illinois
Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research
on employees’ performance to study the effects of
teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of
Education, 70(4), 256–284. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2673267
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge
growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2),
4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. M. (1996). The comparative
psychology of school subjects. In D. C. Berliner &
R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychol­
ogy (pp. 399–422). Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Staiger, D. O., & Rockoff, J. E. (2010). Searching for effec­
tive teachers with imperfect information. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 97–118. https://doi.org/
10.1257/jep.24.3.97
Star, J. R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J.,
Keating, B., Larson, M. R., Lyskawa, J.,
McCallum, W. G., Porath, J., & Zbiek, R. M. (2015).
Teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge
in middle and high school students (NCEE
2014-4333). National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Page 24 of 25
Osei & Agyei, Cogent Education (2023), 10: 2232240
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2232240
Retrieved from the NCEE website. http://whatworks.
ed.gov
Stein, M. K., Kaufman, J. H., Sherman, M., & Hillen, A. F.
(2011). Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of
policy and practice. Review of Educational Research,
81(4), 453–492. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654311423025
Strand, K., & Mills, B. (2014). Mathematical content knowl­
edge for teaching elementary mathematics: A focus on
algebra. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(2), 385–432.
https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1307
Sultan, A., & Artzt, A. F. (2011). The mathematics that
every secondary school math teacher needs to know.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203857533
Trivilin, L. R., & Ribeiro, A. J. (2015). Conhecimento
Matemático para o Ensino de Diferentes Significados
do Sinal de Igualdade: um estudo desenvolvido com
professores dos Anos Iniciais do Ensino
Fundamental. Bolema: Boletim de Educação
Matemática, 29(51), 38–59. https://doi.org/10.1590/
1980-4415v29n51a03
Usiskin, Z., Peressini, A., Marchisotto, E. A., & Stanley, D.
(2003). Mathematics for high school teachers: An
advanced perspective. Prentice Hall.
U.S. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up:
Helping children learn mathematics. Mathematics
Learning Study Committee, Center of Education,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education.
Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis:
Applications in parks, recreation and human dimen­
sions. Venture.
Wang, J., & Goldschmidt, P. (2003). Importance of middle
school mathematics on high school students’
mathematics achievement. The Journal of
Educational Research, 97, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00220670309596624 1
Wilmot, E. M. (2008). An investigation into the profile of
Ghanaian high school mathematics teachers’
knowledge for teaching algebra and its relationship
with students’ performance. [Unpublished doctoral
thesis]. submitted to Michigan State University.
Wilmot, E. M. (2016). Reconceptualising teacher knowl­
edge in domain specific terms. Ghana Journal of
Education: Issues and Practices (GJE), 2, 1–27. https://
doi.org/10.47963/gje.v2i.475
Wilmot, E. M. (2019). Re-conceptualising teacher
knowledge in domain specific terms. Ghana
Journal of Education: Issues and Practice (GJE).
https://journal.ucc.edu.gh/index.php/gje/article/
view/475
Wilmot, E. M., Yarkwah, C., & Abreh, M. K. (2018).
Conceptualizing TEacher knowledge in domain spe­
cific and measurable terms: validation of the
expanded kat framework. British Journal of
Education, 6(7), 31–48. http://www.eajournals.org/
wp-content/uploads/Conceptualizing-Teacher-
Knowledge-in-Domain-Specific-and-Measurable-
Terms.pdf
Wiswall, M. (2013). The dynamics of teacher quality.
Journal of Public Economics, 100, 61–78. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.01.006
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goals structures
and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and
association to teaching experience and academic
level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1),
181–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.
181
Yarkwah, C. (2017). An investigation into senior high
school mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching
algebra [Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape
Coast].
Zapatera Llinares, A., & Callejo de la Vega, M. L. (2018).
Mathematical knowledge and professional noticing
of prospective teachers in the context of pattern
generalization. Characterization of profiles. Revista
Complutense De Educacion, 29(4), 1217–1235.
https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.55070
Page 25 of 25