J Math Teacher Educ DOI 10.

1007/s10857-011-9177-9

The nature and development of middle school mathematics teachers knowledge

Kim Beswick Rosemary Callingham Jane Watson

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract In this article, we report on the use of a teacher proling instrument with 62 middle school teachers at the start of a 3-year professional learning programme. The instrument was designed to assess the aspects of teachers knowledge identied by Shulman (1987) rened by Ball et al. (2008) and extended to include teachers condence to use and teach various topics in the middle school mathematics curriculum and their beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning. Based on a hierarchical coding of items, the application of the partial credit Rasch model revealed that the prole items were measuring a single underlying construct and suggested that the various facets of teacher knowledge develop together. We describe the characteristics of four levels of the hierarchical construct measuring teacher knowledge and understanding for teaching mathematics in the middle years of schooling, and discuss the unique affordances of a holistic view of teacher knowledge in contrast to considerations of multiple knowledge categories. Keywords Mathematics teacher knowledge Middle school teachers Rasch measurement Teacher beliefs

Introduction The dilemma of how to measure teacher competence for teaching has been on the educational agenda for more than a century. A major reason for wishing to describe and measure attributes associated with teaching mathematics is to be able to identify those where high levels of prociency are associated with high levels of student achievement. The apparently multi-faceted nature of teachers knowledge for teaching mathematics,
K. Beswick (&) R. Callingham J. Watson Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1307, Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia e-mail: Kim.Beswick@utas.edu.au R. Callingham e-mail: Rosemary.Callingham@utas.edu.au J. Watson e-mail: Jane.Watson@utas.ed.au

123

K. Beswick et al.

however, has complicated efforts to establish clear links between it and students mathematics achievement. In this article, we present evidence that the many aspects of middle school mathematics teachers knowledge can be conceptualised as contributing to a single underlying variable that we have called teacher knowledge, thereby laying the groundwork for future studies in which teacher knowledge and student attainment can be linked. In addition, we discuss what can be learned about the development of mathematics teaching expertise from an instrument designed to measure a comprehensive conceptualisation of it.

Conceptualising teacher knowledge Hill et al. (2007) provide an excellent history of developments in understanding of teacher competence in the United States with a particular focus on the teaching of mathematics. The precise nature of the knowledge required for teaching mathematics effectively has proven difcult to specify, but there is agreement that it comprises more than simply knowledge of mathematics (Hill et al. 2007; Mewborn 2001). Indeed Shulman (1987) suggested seven categories of teacher knowledge for teachers across the curriculum: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of how students learn, curriculum knowledge, knowledge about the educational context, and knowledge of the values and purposes of education. Shulmans work provided the impetus for many subsequent studies focussing on particular categories and at times enlarging or inter-relating them. Zhou et al. (2006) for example, considered the rst three, whereas Kanes and Nisbet (1996) explored content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curriculum knowledge. Ball and Bass (2000) examined pedagogical content knowledge, and Watson (2001) and Watson et al. (2006) evaluated all seven. Chick et al. (2006) used the concept of pedagogical content knowledge but also expanded it to consider examples of content knowledge in a pedagogical context and pedagogical knowledge in a content context. Acknowledging a close link with content knowledge and knowledge of how students learn, Watson et al. (2008) also considered pedagogical content knowledge. Ball et al. (2008) presented an empirically based renement of Shulmans content and pedagogical content knowledge types developed from some two decades of systematic research in the area. Their conception of subject matter knowledge (content knowledge) comprised common mathematical content knowledge (CCK) that many adults not involved in teaching might reasonably be expected to have, plus specialised mathematical content knowledge (SCK) that would not be expected outside the teaching profession and used, for example, in assessing the mathematical appropriateness of non-standard solutions to mathematics problems. In addition, they hypothesised that a further aspect of content knowledge might be what they termed horizon content knowledge. This involves knowing how the mathematics being taught at a particular grade level relates to that which is to come and how current teaching choices may facilitate or obstruct future learning. Building on Shulmans characterisation of pedagogical content knowledge as involving an amalgam of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, Ball et al. (2008) identied three knowledge types at the intersections of content knowledge and each of knowledge of students, knowledge of teaching, and knowledge of the curriculum. They described these as knowledge of content and students (KCS), knowledge of content and teaching (KCT), and knowledge of content and curriculum. Ball et al. (2008) claimed to dene knowledge broadly to include skill, habits of mind, and insight (p. 399) but later stated that their interest was in skills, habits, sensibilities,

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

and judgements as well as knowledge (p. 403) (italics added). Undoubtedly, Ball and colleagues are interested in more than simple declarative knowledge; their work is based on what teachers actually do in the full breadth of tasks associated with teaching mathematics. Nevertheless, the precise way in which they conceive of knowledge and how aspects of such a conception beyond facts that are known is incorporated in their model is not clear. In this article, we attempt to dene a broad conception of teacher knowledge that encompasses all of Shulmans knowledge types, including Ball et al.s renements, as well as elements more commonly associated with the affective domain. We suggest that such a holistic consideration of teacher knowledge reveals important insights that may not be evident from detailed analytic dissections of the concept. In particular, we include in our conception of knowledge teachers beliefs and condence. Teachers beliefs have long been recognised as crucial in shaping their practice (Wilson and Cooney 2002). Beswick (2005, 2007) argued that distinctions between beliefs and knowledge are contextual in that they vary with time and place; there are many things that once were known (e.g., that the earth is the centre of the universe) but now are known not to be true. Essentially whether a statement is considered to be knowledge or a belief is dependent upon the extent to which there is consensus as to its veracity, and this is usually a function of the extent to which the claim is useful in making sense of phenomena. In any case, teachers act upon their beliefs as if they are knowledge. There is growing evidence that teachers beliefs (whether or not they would be accepted as knowledge in other contexts) about broad issues or principles concerning the nature of mathematics, and mathematics teaching and learning, rather than about the use of specic approaches or tools, are what matter to students learning (e.g., Beswick 2007; Watson and De Geest 2005). Nevertheless, in the literature promoting student-centred approaches to mathematics teaching, certain methods and tools are associated with traditional (and by implication less effective) teaching. The use of textbooks, for example, has been contrasted with reform oriented (or student-centred) teaching (Farmer et al. 2003) and associated with conventional (as opposed to reform) teaching (Wood et al. 2006). Condence is generally positioned in the affective domain and is one of eight dimensions of attitude identied from the literature by Beswick et al. (2006). It has been claimed to be of particular relevance to teachers practice, reected in enjoyment of mathematics for its own sake (Beswick 2007). In addition, Watson et al. (2006) reported increased teacher condence in relation to topics in the mathematics curriculum that were the focus of a professional learning programme, suggesting that condence is associated with knowledge. It is also possible, however, that increased understanding of the complexities of teaching mathematics might lead, initially at least, to decreased condence; hence, the relationship between competence and condence is not necessarily straightforward. Nevertheless, we were interested to explore whether or not condence could usefully be included in a broad conception of knowledge for teaching mathematics.

Measuring teacher knowledge Mewborn (2001) described how early attempts to identify attributes of mathematics teaching associated with high levels of student attainment involved crude measures of teacher knowledge in the form of the numbers of mathematics courses studied or years of teaching experience. Such efforts failed to establish any clear connections. Comparative studies such as those of Ma (1999) and Zhou et al. (2006) provided indirect evidence of a link between teachers knowledge and student achievement by establishing that in

123

K. Beswick et al.

countries such as China, where students mathematical achievement is typically higher than that of students in the United States, teachers score more highly on measures of certain aspects of knowledge. Hill et al. (2005) cited studies linking certain classroom behaviours of teachers, and teachers mathematical prociency as measured by written tests, with improved student achievement. They contended that the relevant aspect of teacher knowledge missing from such studies was how teachers used their mathematics knowledge in classrooms. With their multiple choice items devised to match the knowledge that teachers use in classroom contexts, they reported positive correlations between teacher knowledge and student achievement. The seven categories outlined by Shulman (1987) provided the foundation for subsequent research, but the categories themselves do not address the method of measuring the aspects of knowledge and understanding behind the phrases or in fact the comprehensive meaning of each. Hill et al. (2007) summarised the many methods of measurement used for this purpose in the United States throughout the 20th century into the 21st, acknowledging the benets and limitations of each. Attempts to measure teachers content knowledge have utilised pen and paper instruments addressing mathematics content knowledge as variously dened (Hill et al. 2005; Zhou et al. 2006) and general pedagogical knowledge (Zhou et al. 2006). Measuring pedagogical content knowledge has been seen as a greater challenge. Hence, more intensive methods such as observation and detailed analyses of classroom interactions (Ball and Bass 2000), interviews in which teachers comment on teaching plans (Zhou et al. 2006), and workshop assignments completed by prospective teachers (Chick and Pierce 2008) have been employed. The study reported here builds on that reported by Watson et al. (2006) by using a written teacher prole comprising open-ended tasks and questions as well as Likert format items. The prole was used as a measure of a comprehensive conception of teacher knowledge needed for mathematics teaching that includes the types of knowledge identied by Shulman (1987), the additional categories of Ball et al. (2008) and extended to include teachers condence and salient aspects of their beliefs. Rather than considering and attempting to measure each of these different dimensions of teacher knowledge separately, the interest in this study was to consider whether it was legitimate to consider various types of teacher knowledge as a single construct, and identify how that construct might develop. The potential of this approach was that it could provide insights into relationships among the diverse knowledge categories and particularly their development. The approach is analogous to, for example, considering a students mathematics competence as an entity, although it may be composed of several aspects including competence in algebra, geometry and arithmetic that develop at different rates and at different stages of the students schooling. In addition, if teacher knowledge can be conceived of as a uni-dimensional construct, then it could provide a basis upon which it may be possible to link teacher prociency, broadly conceived, to student achievement. Rasch models Rasch models are a set of measurement models coming under the general umbrella of Item Response Theory (Stocking 1999). They use the interaction between persons and items to obtain an estimate of the probabilities of the response of each person on each item, and conversely of each item to each person. In this way, a set of scores is derived that denes the position of each person and each item against the underlying construct on the same measurement scale. This produces a genuine interval scale in units of logits, the logarithm of the odds of success (Bond and Fox 2007). In this study, the specic model used is the

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

Masters (1982) Partial Credit Model (PCM). The PCM is an appropriate model for use in this study because it does not assume that every item has the same structure, that is, each item may have a different number of categories or item-steps. Rasch measurement (Rasch 1980) provided a means of examining the extent to which the multiple aspects of teacher knowledge can be considered to work together to measure a single underlying variable. Rasch models are underpinned by three assumptions. The rst of which is that the variable under consideration is a uni-dimensional construct; second, this construct must be measurable using an additive measure in which a higher value indicates a greater quantity of the variable, and nally, the items used to operationalise the construct must be independent of each other (Bond and Fox 2007). The initial step in using Rasch measurement is to establish the extent to which these assumptions hold for the data under consideration. In the case of this study, conformity of the teacher prole data with the model would demonstrate the instrument was indeed measuring an underlying uni-dimensional construct, the nature and structure of which could then be considered. To establish the validity of an instrument, such as the teacher knowledge prole used in this study, two features must be addressed: a theoretical framework and a measurement instrument that operationalises this framework. The strongest evidence of validity arises when the t of the information obtained through use of the measurement instrument is closest to the theoretical framework (Messick 1989). In this instance, the theoretical framework was provided by the conceptualisation of teacher knowledge described earlier, operationalised through the prole instrument. In addition to the content validity of the teacher knowledge construct deriving from its theoretical conceptualisation, Rasch measurement allows for a consideration of the nature of the construct through the mathematical description provided by the model (Fisher 1994). Hence, testing the prole instrument against the Rasch model provided a means of determining the validity of the theorised unidimensional construct of teacher knowledge. Uses of Rasch modelling in mathematics education have included the creation of measurement scales (e.g., Waugh 2002) and the identication of hierarchies in students understanding of particular concepts (e.g., Callingham and Watson 2004). Callingham and Watson were concerned with dichotomously scored items, whereas other studies have used Masters (1982) Partial Credit Model (PCM) (e.g., Callingham and Watson 2005). The application of Rasch techniques to Likert items, as in Waugh (2002), requires the use of partial credit models in which part marks are awarded for various intermediate responses between complete success or agreement and complete failure or disagreement. Where there are no missing categories, the Andrich (1978) Rating Scale model is applied. These models, the PCM and the Rating Scale model, are applicable to items eliciting responses that reveal increasing amounts of the ability or understanding that they are designed to measure (e.g., Bond and Fox 2007;Callingham and Watson 2005; Watson and Callingham 2004; Watson et al. 2007).

The study Participants The participants in this study were 62 middle school (grades 58, ages 1014 years) teachers (of whom only 4 claimed to have majors in mathematics) in 10 rural primary (grades K to 6), district (grades K to 10), and high (grades 710) schools in the Australian state of Tasmania. Although they catered for different grade ranges all of these school

123

K. Beswick et al.

types followed the same state curriculum. The teachers in each school type were similarly qualied and employed by the Department of Education (DoE) under the same conditions of employment. The schools were selected by the DoE to take part in a professional learning programme designed to assist teachers to facilitate two types of learning for their students: learning related to the quantitative literacy skills required for active citizenship in Australia, and learning needed as a prerequisite for studying the higher mathematics in senior secondary school required for those who would contribute later to the scientic and technological innovations of Australian society. The prole was administered as a written survey instrument to teachers when they entered the programme. Due to changes in school stafng, some teachers entered the programme at its beginning and others at later stages. Some of the teachers involved in the study reported here had also been participants in an earlier professional learning programme described by Watson et al. (2006). Prole description The prole was designed to cover Shulman (1987) seven knowledge categories including subsequent renements such as those by Ball et al. (2008), and to incorporate aspects of teachers condence and beliefs. The prole sections and the knowledge types covered in each are summarised in Table 1. Specically, it required teachers to: nominate how they would improve middle school students mathematical understandings and how mathematics might be used to enhance students learning more broadly (Section 1); outline a plan for teaching a mathematics concept that they considered important (Section 2); rate their condence on an open scale from low to high in relation to developing their students understanding of a range of middle school mathematics topics, and their ability to make connections between mathematics and other curriculum areas, to develop critical numeracy using the media and to assess their students achievement against the new Tasmanian curriculum standards (Section 3); respond on open scales from strongly agree to strongly disagree to 11 items concerning the use of mathematics in everyday life (Section 4) and 14 belief statements related to mathematics teaching and learning (Section 5); and suggest both appropriate and inappropriate responses that their students might give to each of three mathematics problems and describe how they could use each of the items in their classroom (Section 6). Sections 7 and 8 related to teachers background and perceived professional learning needs. Although not unrelated to teachers knowledge, the personal details addressed in Section 7 are possible correlates of knowledge rather than parts of the construct and, in relation to Section 8, it is possible that teachers with considerable knowledge might nevertheless perceive a need to know more. These sections, therefore, were not included in the measure of teacher knowledge and are not shown in Table 1. The complete prole and coding schemes are available from the authors. Table 1 illustrates how the various sections of the prole spanned knowledge types and how the knowledge categories are not necessarily distinct. Ball et al. (2008) acknowledged a similar problem in that different teachers may bring to bear different aspects of their knowledge in relation to the same task. In our prole, for example, teachers could potentially address all of the knowledge types in Table 1 or fewer than we have indicated. In Table 1, we have indicated those categories of knowledge that were either directly solicited in the structure of the item or which would seem most difcult to avoid using in responding to the task. Furthermore, although we viewed teachers condence and beliefs as parts of teacher knowledge, they also related more or less directly to other aspects of knowledge. For example, condence to teach mathematics topics is related to both

123

Table 1 Prole section and knowledge types

Prole section

Types of teacher knowledge

Summary description Pedagogical content

Shulman (1987) General Curriculum Learners Contexts Ends/ pedagogical characteristics values

Content

Ball et al. (2008) Horizon Content Content Content and and and students teaching curriculum 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Common content

Specialised content

1 Signicant factors

(1) Improving teaching of mathematics/ numeracy (2) use maths in other Key Learning Areas 4 4 4 4 4 4

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

2 Planning to teach a mathematics or numeracy concept

Understanding goals, time, teaching and assessment methods, usual student response, contribution of other Key Learning Areas 4 4

3 Condence

Likert scale of condence in teaching topics in Middle School mathematics

4 Mathematics/ Likert scale on beliefs about numeracy in numeracy in everyday life everyday life 4

123

5 Numeracy in Likert scale on beliefs about numeracy in the the classroom classroom

Table 1 continued

Prole section

Types of teacher knowledge

123
Pedagogical content General Curriculum Learners Contexts Ends/ pedagogical characteristics values Horizon Content Content Content and and and students teaching curriculum 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Summary description

Shulman (1987)

Content

Ball et al. (2008)

Common content

Specialised content

6 Student survey items

Three middle school mathematics/ numeracy tasks (a) likely student responses and (b) how item would be used in the classroom

K. Beswick et al.

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

common and specialised content knowledge, and also to pedagogical content knowledge in relation to content and teaching and content and the curriculum. Similarly, many of the belief statements in Sections 4 and 5 relate to views about mathematical content and the purposes and priorities of mathematics teaching that constitute part of the context of teaching the subject.

Data analysis The data were coded such that the increasing quality of a response, based on progressively more structurally complex responses, was rated more highly. The decision to focus on the structure of responses was made prior to the study with the precise form of the coding emerging from the actual responses of teachers. The application of a coding scheme is illustrated in relation to Item 3 in Section 6 in which teachers were presented with the following problem. Mary and John both receive pocket money. Mary spends of hers, and John spends of his. A. Is it possible for Mary to have spent more than John? B. Why do you think this? Explain. The teachers were asked to respond to this item by addressing two questions: 6.1a What responses would you expect from your students? Write down some appropriate and inappropriate responses (use * to show appropriate responses). 6.1b How would/could you use this item in the classroom? For example, choose one of the inappropriate responses and explain how you would intervene. Examples of responses to question 6.1a that attracted each of the possible codes are shown in Table 2. Examples of responses to question 6.1b that attracted each of the possible codes are shown in Table 3. The data were checked for missing categories in each item, and where necessary responses were recoded to provide a single continuous rating for each item. Analysis was carried out using Quest computer software (Adams and Khoo 1996). The results were

Table 2 Examples of responses to question 6.1a Code 0 No response 1 Response not addressing fractions or wholes I dont know I need help Why do I have to do this? Example of suggested student response

It depends how much pocket money they get. Mary 2 Response indicating either a correct fraction relation to whole or an incorrect relationship to could have spent more than John if she gets more pocket money than him whole 3 Response containing both appropriate and inappropriate approaches to the problem Yes, Mary might have bought something more expensive No, is less than *Yes, because Mary might have had lots more than John

123

K. Beswick et al. Table 3 Examples of responses to question 6.1b Code 0 No response 1 Response not addressing the mathematical By modelling critical thinking skills content of the problem 2 A single generic idea for the problem, e.g., Compare of 100 and of 20. Which is bigger? use money, discuss fractions 3 Reference to two or more aspects of the solution without linking them I would relate the question to their pocket money and ask them how much they receive each week. Then I would ask what is and what a quarter is and discuss which is greater. Look at class pocket money and compare and of each of the amounts. See if of some is more than of others Example of suggested student response

4 Discussion including reference to partwhole concepts with specic examples

examined in two ways. First, the overall t to the model was considered, including the t of each individual item. Then the relative item-step difculties and distribution of item-steps were considered. Fit to the model is the prime quality control process used to evaluate instruments when using Rasch measurement. If there is mist, then the assumption of unidimensionality may be violated (Bond and Fox 2007). Fit is determined by considering the extent to which the responses to a particular item deviate from those expected by the model (Bond and Fox 2007; Wright and Masters 1982). The most commonly used measure of t at test level is the int mean square, which has an ideal value of 1. As a rule of thumb for practical situations, t values are considered adequate if the int mean square (IMSQ) value lies between 0.77 and 1.3 (Adams and Khoo 1996; Keeves and Alagumalai 1999), and these values are used throughout this study. Fit measures are provided by Quest as part of the routine output. The second examination of the data obtained from the analysis involved considering the item difculty and the variable map produced by Quest. A variable or Wright map is a visual representation of the distribution of items and persons along the variable. The unit of
Fig. 1 Components of a variable map
Logit 2.0 XXXX XX X XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXX -3.0 Persons X Items It18 It8 It 20 It 15 It19 I t 1 0 I t 13 I t 1 6 It12 It17 It9 It14 It6 It7 It11 It4 It2 It5 It3 It1

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

measure is the logit, the natural logarithm of the odds of success. Figure 1 shows the components of a variable map for 50 persons and 20 items. On the left side of the axis, Xs represent persons, and the position on the scale indicates the ability estimate, increasing with greater prociency with respect to the variable being measured. On the right side of the axis, items are displayed based on their measured difculty, again being more demanding with a larger logit value. The item mean is constrained to 0 logits, and this has the effect of providing a true zero point on the measurement scale. Discontinuities between items, e.g., between item It4 and the two items It7 and It11, indicate some change in the demands of the items. Such jumps can be used to identify groups of items that form clusters having similar demands. These clusters can then be used to describe the development along the identied variable.

Results and discussion Overall t to the model Overall t values obtained for the prole instrument were satisfactory for both items (IMSQI = 1.01) and persons (IMSQP = 1.05), suggesting that the items were working together satisfactorily to provide a single measurement scale, and that the persons were also responding to the items in the way anticipated by the prole designers. Hence, the various aspects of the teachers knowledge addressed by the prole together could legitimately be considered to work together to measure a single underlying variable that we have called teacher knowledge. The item separation reliability measure, which indicates the extent to which the items are spread along the scale, was low at 0.21. This measure is dependent on the size of the sample of test takers (Linacre 1991) and does not threaten the validity of the test because it is not related to t to the model. Individual item t In addition to considering t at test level, individual items were also considered. This is important because even when test t is satisfactory, if particular items do not t the model, these may not be measuring the same construct. In this situation, the developer needs to consider the nature of the mist and seek an explanation. In some instances, items should be removed from the scale because they threaten the integrity and validity of the instrument. Of the total of 51 items, nine showed some mist with ve having int mean square values below 0.77 and four having values greater than 1.3. Items with low int mean square value (\0.77) exhibit less variability in the data than the Rasch model predicts. These items are measuring the same construct but in an overly predictable manner. This kind of mist may suggest dependence among the items. In the prole, these items all related to condence with three concerning condence to develop students understandings of decimals, percent, and ratio and proportion, and two concerning the newly introduced Essential Learnings (ELs) curriculum. One of the ELs-related items concerned condence in connecting mathematics to the key elements of the ELs that did not explicitly mention mathematics, and the other related to condence to assess the Being Numerate key element against the ELs standards (teachers were about to undertake this task for the rst time). It is, therefore, not surprising that teachers responded in highly predictable ways (i.e., with overwhelmingly low condence) to the latter two items and that there might be dependence among responses to the three dealing with aspects of rational number. Overt of this type is

123

K. Beswick et al.

regarded as not providing any threat to the validity of the scale because the items are measuring the same construct, albeit in ways that are more predictable than the model expects and with some redundant information because of possible inter-dependence (Wright 1991). The remaining four mistting items all showed undert (t values[1.3) to the model indicating randomness in the responses. Three of the four undertting items concerned belief statements about teaching and learning mathematics. Specically they were Telling children the answer is an efcient way of facilitating their mathematics learning, It is important that mathematics content be presented to children in the correct sequence, and Effective mathematics teachers enjoy learning and doing mathematics themselves. It is likely that inconsistencies among teachers interpretations of these items led to responses being more variable than expected. The other undertting item concerned the possible classroom use of a problem that required the comparison of and in relation to unknown wholes. Teachers responses to this item were discussed in detail by Watson et al. (2006), and it was also included in the professional learning programme described by Watson et al. (2006). Teachers who had participated in that programme as well as in the study reported here had been involved in discussions of the ways in which students actually did respond to the problem and how such problems could be used in teaching. It is possible that these teachers responded to this item quite differently from their colleagues, leading to lack of t to the model. The mist was, again, relatively small and overall, however, the items could be considered to work together to provide a scale of teacher knowledge. The scale of middle school mathematics teachers knowledge The variable map in Fig. 2 shows the distribution of item-steps on the right-hand side of the vertical dotted line and persons on the left. The item-steps are grouped according to the section of the prole and the knowledge subscale to which they relate. The relationship between the sections of the prole (see Table 1) and types of knowledge according to which the item-steps are grouped in Fig. 2 is shown in Table 4. Item-steps in Fig. 2 are denoted by letters (P, PC, NC, CN, and EL) also shown in Table 4, signifying the knowledge subscale to which they relate. Table 4 also shows how the subscales relate to the prole sections. In Fig. 2, the numbers after the decimal points indicate the level of response according to the coding, with .1 denoting the second lowest level at which a response was obtained. Item-steps appearing higher on the scale were more difcult for the teachers to satisfy or, in the case of Likert scale items, more difcult for them to endorse. Horizontal lines indicate points at which the authors agreed that there was a shift in the nature and/or demands of the items-steps, using the same process as that described by Callingham and Watson (2005). Identifying levels provided a means of describing a developmental hierarchy along the measurement scale. The levels were named to reect the distinct differences in the nature of teacher knowledge that characterised each.

Description of the levels In this section, each of the levels of middle school mathematics teachers knowledge is described in terms of the demands of item-steps at each level. Item-step codes as in Fig. 2 are included throughout. For the rst of these, Level 1 (Personal Numeracy), the complete set of item-steps is detailed (See Table 5) along with a summary of the distinguishing

123

Logits Confidence Everyday Life

GPK

PCK

Numeracy in Classroom

PC2b.4

P2b .3

P2a .3 NC 4 . 4

P1a .3

CN11.4 NC13.4 NC4 .3 NC11.3 NC 5 . 4 CN13.4 CN4 .4 NC7 .4 NC13.3 CN12.4 Level 4: PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE CONSOLIDATION

PC1b.4

P2c .2

P2d .2 P2e .2 N C 14 . 4 NC6 .4 NC1 .4 N C4 . 2

P2b .2

X XX

1 P C 3b . 3 NC10.3 EL7 .3 NC11.2 NC 6 . 3 N C 1 .3 E L 5 .3 EL6 .4 EL9 .4 EL4 .3

P2a .2

PC3b.4 PC1b.3 PC2b.3

PC1a.3

PC2a.3

P2d .1

CN7 .4 CN1 .4 CN3 .4 CN2 .4 CN9 .3 CN6 .2 CN4 .3 CN10.3 CN13.3 CN12.3 CN11.3

Level 3: PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWEDGE EMERGENCE

PC2b.2

P C 3a . 3

NC9 .4 N C 7 .3 NC12.2 N C8 . 4 NC 4 . 1 NC11.1 NC3 .3 NC2 . 3 CN 2 . 3 CN13.2 CN3 .3 CN8 .3 NC7 .2 CN6 .1 CN4 .2 NC 5 . 2 NC13.1 NC9 .2 NC14.1 C N3 . 2 CN13.1 NC9 . 3 CN7 .2 CN9 .2 EL5 .2 EL8 .2 EL8 .3 NC8 .3 EL10.2 EL6 .2 NC5 .3 N C 1 4. 3 P C 3a . 2 P C 3 b. 1

PC1b.2 PC2b.1

PC3b.2

XXXX XXXXXX XX XX XX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX XX CN8 .4 CN7 .3 CN10.2 CN5 .2 CN1 .3 C N 12 . 2 CN11.2 EL 1 1 . 3 E L 6 .3 E L9 .3 EL 7 . 2 EL8 .4 EL 4 . 2 NC13.2 NC6 .2 NC1 .2

P1b .2 P2b .1

P2e .1

PC1b.1 PC1a.2

PC 2 a. 2

Level 2: PEDAGOGICAL AWARENESS

PC3a.1

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

P1a .2 P2a .1 P1b .1

PC2a.1

P2c .1

PC1a.1

CN8 .2 CN1 .2 CN10.1

EL 3 . 2 EL2 .3 EL8 .1 E L 1 .2 EL 9 . 2 E L 1 1 .2 EL 2 . 2 E L 9 .1

Level 1: PERSONAL NUMERACY EL3 .1 EL5 .1

P1a .1

-1

NC8 .2 N C 10 . 2 NC3 .2 NC14.2 NC8 .1 NC 2 . 2 NC1 .1 NC7 .1 NC2 .1 NC6 .1 NC5 .1 NC9 .1 CN7 .1 CN2 .2 CN12.1 CN4 .1

EL 2 .1 EL 7 . 1

EL10.1

NC12.1

C N 2 .1 CN5 .1 CN11.1 CN3 .1 CN1 .1 C N8 . 1 CN9 .1

EL 6 . 1 E L 1 .1 E L4 . 1

EL11.1

-2 NC 3 . 1 NC10.1

Each X is one teacher

123

Fig. 2 Variable map separated according to item type

K. Beswick et al. Table 4 Relationship of knowledge subscales in Fig. 2 to prole sections Prole section (as described in Table 1) Subscale in Fig. 2 Itemsteps P

1 Signicant factors 2 Planning to teach a mathematics or numeracy concept 3 Condence 4 Mathematics/numeracy in everyday life 5 Numeracy in the classroom 6 Student survey items

General pedagogical knowledge (GPK) Condence Everyday life Numeracy in classroom Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

CN EL NC PC

characteristics of item-steps at this level. For other levels, rather than presenting tables similar to Table 5, the discussion of each begins with a summary of the distinctive features of that level, followed by paragraphs that highlight in more detail the item-steps at that level that distinguish them from those at the previous and subsequent levels. This discussion is designed to assist readers to interpret Fig. 2 although it is possible to gain an overview of the distinctive aspects of the levels from reading just the introductory paragraphs. The complete set of item-step codes appearing at each level is shown in Fig. 2. Level 1: personal numeracy The item-steps appearing in the lowest level required teachers to express condence in their own capacities to use mathematics in everyday life and moderate condence in their ability to develop understandings of most topics in their students. However, item-steps requiring recognition of the importance of mathematical topics such as fractions, decimals, percent, ratio and proportion, and pattern and algebra in everyday tasks did not appear. Consistent with this, item-steps concerning beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics included agreement that the mathematics taught in their classes was often irrelevant to students. The most notable feature of this level is the very low levels of responses demanded by general pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge item-steps, all of which required only single or inappropriate suggestions. This level is, therefore, about everyday personal functioning without signicant links to the mathematics curriculum or to classroom practice. Full details of the item-steps are provided in Table 5, which is essentially an expanded version of level 1 of Fig. 2. The appearance at the same level of two or more item-steps for a single item indicates that more than one response to the item made relatively similar demands of teachers. For example, both EL11.1 and EL11.2 representing ambivalence and agreement with the proposition, I can easily extract information from tables, plans and graphs were both relatively easy for teachers to endorse, and hence both appeared at this lowest knowledge level. The item-step representing strong agreement (EL11.3) was sufciently difcult to endorse for it to appear at Level 2. Level 2: pedagogical awareness The second level required teachers to express high levels of condence in relation to their ability to use mathematics in their everyday lives, and to teach most topics. In terms of beliefs, it demanded more positive views than the rst level of such aspects as the place of

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development Table 5 Item-steps at the personal numeracy level (Level 1) Item-steps Knowledge subscale Level of endorsement/ response Code Item

Numeracy in Strong agreement EL1.1 everyday life EL2.3 Agreement EL8.3 EL2.2

I need to be numerate to be an intelligent consumer I am condent that I could work out how many tiles I would need to tile my bathroom Given the price per square metre, I could estimate how much carpet I would need for my lounge room I am condent that I could work out how many tiles I would need to tile my bathroom I often perform calculations in my head

EL11.2 I can easily extract information from tables, plans and graphs EL3.1 EL10.1 I often use mathematics to make decisions and choices in everyday life EL6.1 Ambivalence/ neutrality EL7.1 EL4.1 EL8.2 EL2.1 EL9.2 I have difculty identifying mathematical patterns in everyday situations Proportional reasoning is needed to understand claims made in the media Understanding fractions, decimals, and percents is becoming increasingly important in our society Given the price per square metre, I could estimate how much carpet I would need for my lounge room I am condent that I could work out how many tiles I would need to tile my bathroom Mathematics is not always communicated well in newspapers and the media Given the price per square metre, I could estimate how much carpet I would need for my lounge room Mathematics is not always communicated well in newspapers and the media Measurement Mental computation Fractions Decimals Percent Ratio and proportion Pattern and algebra Chance and data Fractions Decimals Percent Ratio and proportion Pattern and algebra

EL11.1 I can easily extract information from tables, plans and graphs Disagreement EL8.1 EL9.1 Condence High Moderate CN5.1 CN9.1 CN1.2 CN2.2 CN3.2 CN4.2 CN7.2 CN8.2 Low CN1.1 CN2.1 CN3.1 CN4.1 CN7.1

CN10.1 Connecting mathematics to other key learning areas

123

K. Beswick et al. Table 5 continued Item-steps Knowledge subscale Level of endorsement/ response Code Item

CN8.1

Chance and data

CN12.1 Critical numeracy in the media CN11.1 Connecting mathematics to key elements of the ELs CN13.1 Assessment of Being Numerate against the Els standards Numeracy in Agreement the classroom NC12.1 Mathematics teaching should assist students to develop an attitude of inquiry NC3.1 Teachers of mathematics should be fascinated with how children think and be intrigued by alternative ideas

NC10.2 Effective mathematics teachers enjoy learning and doing mathematics themselves NC9.3 Justifying the mathematical statements that a person makes is an extremely important part of mathematics

NC14.2 Often the mathematics work I do in the classroom is not relevant to the students everyday lives Ambivalence/neutrality NC3.1 Teachers of mathematics should be fascinated with how children think and be intrigued by alternative ideas

NC10.1 Effective mathematics teachers enjoy learning and doing mathematics themselves NC2.2 I would feel uncomfortable if a child suggested a solution to a problem that I hadnt thought of previously Allowing a child to struggle with a mathematical problem, even a little tension, can be necessary for learning to occur Ignoring the mathematical ideas that children generate themselves can seriously limit their learning Justifying the mathematical statements that a person makes is an extremely important part of mathematics

NC5.2

NC8.2

NC9.2

NC14.1 Often the mathematics work I do in the classroom is not relevant to the students everyday lives Disagreement NC1.1 NC2.1 Mathematics is computation I would feel uncomfortable if a child suggested a solution to a problem that I hadnt thought of previously Allowing a child to struggle with a mathematical problem, even a little tension, can be necessary for learning to occur Ignoring the mathematical ideas that children generate themselves can seriously limit their learning

NC5.1

NC8.1

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development Table 5 continued Item-steps Knowledge subscale Level of endorsement/ response Code Item

NC9.1

Justifying the mathematical statements that a person makes is an extremely important part of mathematics Mathematical material is best presented in an expository style: demonstrating, explaining and describing concepts and skills It is important that mathematics content is presented in the correct sequence

NC6.1

NC7.1

NC13.1 Mathematics in high schools is best taught in mixed groups of abilities, at least until grade 9 General pedagogical knowledge Uni-structural response P2c.1 P1a.1 Suggested assessment methods and strategies for chosen concept How would you go about improving students numeracy and mathematical understandings in the middle years?

Pedagogical content knowledge

Response not addressing PC1a.1 What responses to, What is 90% of 40? would you expect from your students the relevant mathematics

struggle in mathematics learning, the importance of the teacher being fascinated with students thinking, and the relevance of the mathematics they taught. These beliefs mostly reect views that are more closely aligned with those presented in the literature as associated with student-centred mathematics teaching than those at Level 1. In contrast with the previous level, item-steps at this level that related to planning for mathematics teaching and to pedagogical content knowledge were present although only demanding low levels of responses. Item-steps at this level thus required at least some awareness of pedagogical issues and the beginnings of recognition of the possibility of using specic problems to reveal students thinking and to facilitate their learning. Item-steps at this level indicated agreement or strong agreement with all but one item related to mathematics and numeracy in everyday life. Ambivalence (EL6.2) or disagreement (EL6.3) that mathematical patterns are difcult to identify in everyday situations was the exception and also the only item in this section worded such that disagreement represented greater mathematical prociency. With respect to condence to teach mathematics, item-steps at this level demanded moderate condence in relation to aspects of the ELs curriculum that were not related to specic mathematics content, and critical numeracy in the media (CN12.2). High or, in the case of measurement, very high, levels of condence in relation to all content areas except for ratio and proportion, and pattern and algebra appeared at this level. Item-steps concerning beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning indicated broad agreement with a contemporary student-centred orientation as evidenced by disagreement with such things as that teaching would be difcult without a text (NC11.1), and that telling children the answer is an efcient way of facilitating their mathematics learning (NC4.1), and strong agreement that teachers of mathematics should be fascinated with childrens thinking (NC3.3). However, item-steps appearing at this level also indicated ambivalence

123

K. Beswick et al.

about mathematics being computation (NC1.2), and about a range of practices, such as using an expository style (NC6.2), and teaching mathematics in mixed ability groups at least until grade 9 (NC13.2), which are commonly associated with traditional teaching. Ten item-steps related to pedagogical content knowledge featured at this level. Suggested student responses to each of the three problems that did not address the relevant mathematics (PC1a.1, PC2a.1, PC3a.1) appeared, along with item-steps that demanded a suggestion that addressed a single mathematically relevant aspect (PC1a.2, PC2a.2, PC3a.2). This level demanded suggestions for classroom uses for the problems that did not address their mathematical content (PC1b.1, PC2b.1, PC3b.1) or, in the case of the fraction problem, that suggested the provision of just a single generic idea (PC3b.2). In relation to general pedagogical knowledge, item-steps at this level required teachers to provide multiple suggestions regarding how numeracy in the middle years could be improved (P1a.2) and either just one (P1b.1) or several (P1b.2) examples of ways in which they used mathematics to enhance students learning in other key learning areas. In relation to planning to teach a mathematics concept of the teachers choice, only the lowest itemsteps of some aspects appeared at this level. These required teachers to suggest, for example, only very broad or very narrow understanding goals in relation to the concept (P2a.1), and to suggest activities related to the concept but which did not link clearly to a developmental sequence or be likely to provide more than a limited insight into students understandings (P2b.1). Level 3: pedagogical content knowledge emergence The third level was characterised by item-steps requiring teachers to express high or very high levels of condence with respect to both their everyday use of mathematics and the teaching of mathematics, and increasingly strong beliefs, not necessarily aligned with student-centred ideas, about mathematics teaching and learning. The item-steps demanded a focus on students understanding as an outcome of teaching and required teachers to demonstrate some awareness of the likely range of their students responses to mathematics problems along with at least some idea of how such problems might be used in teaching. Item-steps at this level demanded strong agreement with statements such as, that fractions, decimals and percent are becoming increasingly important in our society (EL4.3) and that quantitative literacy is as necessary to efcient citizenship as reading and writing (EL5.4), suggesting important links between mathematical understandings and participation in society. At this level, all item-steps related to condence to teach mathematical topics required teachers to express high or very high condence, including in relation to ratio and proportion, and pattern and algebra (CN4.3, CN7.3, CN7.4). Ambivalence concerning the difculty of teaching mathematics without a text (NC11.2) was the only item-step at this level related to beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning that required other than agreement or strong agreement. Several item-steps required endorsement of statements typically aligned with a student-centred orientation, for example, strong agreement that ignoring students ideas can limit their learning (NC8.4), and that justifying mathematical statements is extremely important (NC9.4). Others, such as those requiring agreement that mathematics is computation (NC1.3) and that mathematical material is best presented in an expository style (NC6.3) were consistent with a traditional view.

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

Item-steps related to pedagogical content knowledge required teachers to suggest student responses to all three of the problems that included both appropriate and inappropriate responses (PC1a.3, PC2a.3, PC3a.3). One or more suggestions for the classroom use of the pie-chart problem (PC2b.2, PC2b.3), and two or more disconnected ideas for using each of 90% of 40 (PC1b.3) and the fraction problem (PC3b.3) were demanded by item-steps at this level. The item-step requiring suggestions for the use of the fraction problem that included reference to fractions and wholes with specic examples (PC3b.4) also appeared at this level. In terms of general pedagogical knowledge, item-steps at this level required teachers to provide appropriate understanding goals for their chosen topic (P2a.2) and to indicate that their teaching of it generally resulted in their students understanding it (P2d.1). Level 4: pedagogical content knowledge consolidation Item-steps at this level demanded the highest levels of condence with respect to teaching mathematics, and required teachers generally to express mainly very strongly held beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics. With respect to pedagogical content knowledge, item-steps at this level demanded of teachers the ability not only to think of multiple possible uses of mathematics problems, but also to identify the relevant mathematical concepts inherent in each, along with relationships among these ideas. No item-steps concerning the everyday use of mathematics appeared at this level and only item-steps demanding very high levels of condence with respect to teaching mathematics topics featured here. These topics related to ratio and proportion (CN4.4), critical numeracy in the media (CN12.4), assessing Being Numerate (CN13.4), and making connections between mathematics and key elements of the ELs curriculum (CN11.4). Item-steps requiring strong agreement with the value of struggle in mathematics learning (NC5.4), the desirability of teaching mathematics in the correct sequence (NC7.4), and using an expository style (NC6.4) appeared at this level along with strong agreement that mathematics is computation (NC1.4). The item related to using mixed ability groups at least until grade 9 required either agreement (NC13.3) or strong agreement (NC13.4) at this level. Agreement that mathematics would be very difcult to teach without a text book (NC11.3) was also demanded, and item-steps requiring teachers to express either ambivalence (NC4.2), agreement (NC4.3), or strong agreement (NC4.4) that telling students answers is an efcient means of facilitating their mathematics learning were also included at this level along with the item-step requiring teachers to disagree strongly that the mathematics they do in class is often irrelevant to their students lives (NC14.4). Item-steps requiring teachers to discuss a range of possible uses of each of 90% of 40 and the pie-chart problem, which referred to relevant part-whole ideas and included specic examples, were included at this level (PC1b.4, PC2b.4). This level demanded that teachers present an integrated rationale for their suggestions about how they would go about improving middle school students numeracy and mathematical understandings (P1a.3). In terms of planning, item-steps at this highest level required appropriate goals expressed as understandings (P2a.3), teaching and assessment strategies that related to these goals (P2b.2) and that also included evidence of evaluation of student understanding (P2b.3). Item-steps demanded assessment methods including multiple strategies linked to outcomes (P2c.2), student responses including both engagement and understanding (P2d.2), and multiple examples of how work across the curriculum could contribute to understanding of the relevant mathematics (P2e.2).

123

K. Beswick et al.

Knowledge subscales across the levels The following sections consider each of the subscales of items in the prole instrument. Two of these, general pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge correspond to knowledge types identied by Shulman (1987). The other three subscales relate to teachers condence and their beliefs about numeracy in everyday life, and numeracy and mathematics in the classroom. As shown in Table 1, these subscales correspond to sections of the prole and were designed to access various Shulmans (1987) knowledge types. They are considered separately in the following discussion because, as shown in Fig. 2, there were clear differences in the distribution of item-steps from these subscales across the levels. Illustrative examples are provided here. Numeracy in everyday life Numeracy in everyday life were essentially belief statements, and hence the position on the scale of item-steps related to these is a measure of the ease with which the teachers were able to agree with them (Bond and Fox 2007). For example, strong agreement that mathematics is best taught in an expository style appeared at Level 4. This means that this item-step was difcult for teachers to endorse. In general, item-steps at the lowest level (Personal Numeracy) were those easiest to endorse and those at Level 4 (PCK Consolidation) were most difcult to agree with. More than half of all item-steps related to the everyday use of mathematics appeared at the Personal Numeracy level (Level 1). These included those demanding disagreement with the proposition that understanding fractions, decimals and percent is becoming increasingly important (EL4.1), and agreement that nding mathematical patterns in everyday life is difcult (EL6.1). Item-steps related to arguably more common everyday uses of mathematics demanded responses reecting more perceived competence. These included those requiring agreement or strong agreement that being numerate is necessary for intelligent citizenship (EL1.1, EL1.2), and agreement concerning frequent personal use of mental computation (EL3.1) and the use of mathematics in everyday decision making (EL10.1). Levels 2 and 3 (Pedagogical Awareness and PCK Emergence) included only item-steps that expressed positive beliefs about the role of mathematics and numeracy in everyday life and no item-steps for these items occurred at Level 4 (PCK Consolidation). The most difcult item-steps to endorse included those requiring strong agreement that understanding fractions, decimals and percents is becoming increasingly important in our society (EL4.3), and that proportional reasoning is required to understand claims in the media (EL7.3). These appeared at Level 3 (Pedagogical Awareness) along with strong disagreement with the statement, I have difculty identifying mathematical patterns in everyday life (EL6.4). Condence Only item-steps demanding high condence appeared beyond Level 1 (Personal Numeracy). The nine item-steps included at this level that suggested low condence related to critical numeracy in the media (CN12.1) and aspects of the ELs curriculum. Item-steps that demanded low and moderate condence in relation to all mathematics topics except for space and measurement also appeared at this level. High condence in relation to developing students measurement understandings (CN5.1) appeared at Level 1, whereas high

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

condence in relation to most topics, including space (CN6.1), as well as making connections between mathematics and other curriculum areas (CN10.2) appeared at Level 2 (Pedagogical Awareness) along with very high condence in relation to measurement (CN9.2). At levels 3 and 4 (PCK Emergence and PCK Consolidation) only item-steps representing high or very high condence appeared. The most demanding item-steps concerned very high condence in making connections between the mathematics and the ELs (CN11.4), critical numeracy in the media (CN12.4), assessing numeracy against the ELs standards (CN13.4), and developing students understandings of percent (CN4.4), all of which appeared at the PCK Consolidation level (Level 4). Mathematics and numeracy in the classroom Of the 11 mathematics and numeracy in the classroom items that tted the model, eight had item-steps ordered across levels such that those at higher levels required beliefs more consistent with those advocated in contemporary mathematics education literature than those at lower levels. From Level 1 to Level 4, item-steps demanded increasing agreement with such ideas, including that secondary school mathematics is best taught in mixed ability groups at least until grade 9 (NC13), that a student suggesting an unanticipated solution would cause discomfort (NC2), that allowing a child to struggle with a mathematical problem can be necessary for learning (NC5), that ignoring childrens mathematical ideas can seriously limit their learning (NC8), that teachers of mathematics should be fascinated with how children think and intrigued by new ideas (NC3), and that justifying ones mathematical statements is an extremely important part of mathematics (NC9). In contrast to these items, several items behaved in ways that are typically presented in the literature as contrary to student-centred thinking. Ambivalence through to strong agreement was demanded by item-steps at higher levels in relation to the statements that mathematics is computation (NC1), that mathematics would be difcult to teach without a textbook (NC11), and that mathematics is best taught in an expository style (NC6). Pedagogical content knowledge Item-steps related to pedagogical content knowledge occurred mainly at Levels 2 and 3 (Pedagogical Awareness and PCK Emergence). The only item-step in this group that appeared at Level 1 (Personal Numeracy) required teachers to suggest a student response to 90% of 40 that did not address appropriate procedures for solving it (PC1a.1). Item-steps requiring teachers to suggest student responses that similarly did not address relevant ideas in relation to the pie chart (PC2a.1), and the fraction problem (PC3a.1) occurred at Level 2 (Pedagogical Awareness). At the PCK Emergence level (Level 3) item-steps concerning student responses demanded suggestions that included both appropriate and inappropriate approaches to 90% of 40 (PC1a.3) and the fraction problem (PC3a.3), and that mentioned both salient and irrelevant aspects of the pie graph or its context (PC2a.3). Suggested classroom uses at this level were reected in item-steps that required a single generic idea for solving the piechart problem (PC2b.2), reference to two or more relevant but unlinked ideas in relation to each of the three problems (PC1b.3, PC2b.3, PC3b.3) and, for the fraction problem, a discussion of fractions and wholes including specic examples (PC3b.4). At the PCK Consolidation level (Level 4), item-steps required teachers to provide suggested classroom uses for 90% of 40 that included a discussion of part-whole concepts with specic

123

K. Beswick et al.

examples (PC1b.4) and similarly for the pie-chart problem, a discussion of percents and wholes with specic examples (PC2b.4). General pedagogical knowledge In terms of general pedagogical knowledge item-steps the Personal Numeracy level (Level 1) required only that teachers provide a single example of how they would go about improving the mathematics/numeracy understandings of their students (P1a.1) and more than one assessment strategy for their chosen topic (P2c.1). It was not until the level of PCK Emergence (Level 3) that item-steps required teachers to suggest understanding goals that included appropriate understandings and skills (P2a.2) and to consider their students responses to their teaching in terms of understanding (P2d.1). Finally, at the level of PCK Consolidation (Level 4), item-steps demanded ideas for improving students mathematics/ numeracy presented as an integrated rationale (P1a.3). For their chosen topic, teachers needed to provide appropriate goals expressed as understandings (P2a.3), teaching and assessment plans linked with the understanding goals within an appropriate time frame and with attention to the evaluation of students understandings (P2b.3). In evaluating their students reactions to their teaching, consideration of both engagement and understanding (P2d.2), and multiple examples of how the broader curriculum could contribute to the development of the relevant understandings (P2e.2), were demanded.

Discussion The fact that the data gathered using the teacher prole satised the assumptions of the Rasch model conrmed that for these teachers the prole was indeed measuring a single underlying construct and thus validated our holistic conception of teacher knowledge for mathematics teaching. Several important lessons can also be derived from the 4-level structure of teacher knowledge that the model revealed. The two lowest levels of teacher knowledge identied in this study demanded little in terms of general pedagogical knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge. In contrast with this, item-steps expressing condence to teach most topics in the middle school mathematics curriculum were easy to endorse with moderate condence reected in itemsteps at Level 1 (Personal Numeracy) and high levels of condence in relation to most topics featuring at Level 2 (Pedagogic Awareness). This is consistent with the relative ease with which teachers were able to endorse item-steps indicating a positive view of their ability to use mathematics in their own everyday lives. It is apparent that condence to use mathematics and even to develop mathematical understandings in students does not imply levels of general pedagogical knowledge or PCK that could be considered satisfactory for teachers of middle school mathematics. This nding is timely in view of current shortages of suitably qualied mathematics teachers in many parts of the world (OECD 2004) that could tempt education authorities to look to teachers without appropriate qualications and/or experience, yet condent of their ability for the role, to ll mathematics teaching positions. Much is also made about the importance of improving the condence of preservice primary teachers in relation to teaching mathematics (e.g., Graven 2004). This study suggests that although building condence is desirable, its development appears to precede that of other aspects of knowledge and hence should not be taken as indicative of competence.

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

In relation to teachers beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning as described in the section on mathematics and numeracy in the classroom, the sequencing of item-steps across levels suggests increasingly student focussed beliefs at higher levels of knowledge. Item-steps at Levels 3 and 4 (PCK Emergence and PCK Consolidation) required beliefs about the value of struggle with mathematical ideas, the importance of using students ideas, justifying mathematical claims, fostering inquiry and teaching mixed ability groups. All of these are aligned with the recommendations in the literature regarding studentcentred mathematics education. Consistent with this, the appearance at Level 4 of strong disagreement that the mathematics work done in class is irrelevant to students lives suggests that more teacher knowledge is associated with classroom tasks that are more relevant to students, or at least perceived by teachers to be so. Item-steps relating to three items, however, present a different picture. It seems that teachers with greater knowledge, who have ability measures that fell within PCK Consolidation (Level 4), would be more likely to equate mathematics with computation, and to value expository teaching and textbook use. One might not expect that these three items would be endorsed by highly knowledgeable teachers with a student-centred approach to mathematics teaching. However, the teacher beliefs literature suggests that there is nothing necessarily contradictory in this picture. Rather, it is consistent with Beswicks (2007) argument that it is teachers beliefs about the nature of mathematics, how mathematics is learned, students capabilities, and the role of the teacher, rather than about the merits of differing particular pedagogic approaches and tools, that determine the extent to which teaching is consistent with constructivist (and hence student-centred or reform) ideas. Associations of particular practices with student-centred mathematics teaching and others with traditional teaching are not helpful. The belief that mathematics is computation relates to the nature of mathematics and is usually associated with an instrumentalist view thereof (Ernest 1989). Beswick (2005) identied it as a belief relatively unlikely to be held by teachers who could be characterised as having a problem solving orientation (consistent with student-centred ideas) to mathematics teaching. The current study, however, included primary and secondary teachers, of whom only four (of 62) claimed to have majors in mathematics, whereas Beswicks (2005) study involved only secondary teachers who taught mathematics to at least two classes. Of the 25 teachers in that study, three reported having majors in mathematics and a further ve claimed to have studied some mathematics at third year university level. The greater involvement of these teachers with the discipline of mathematics may explain their broader views of it although Beswick (2009) reported on one teacher who despite considerable tertiary study of mathematics had great difculty in conceiving of the discipline beyond the school curriculum to the extent that she regarded it as quite different from school mathematics. It seems that the development of knowledge to teach mathematics may not inuence views of the nature of the discipline and hence the belief that mathematics is computation may persist in spite of the development of student-centred beliefs about teaching and learning. The wording of these items might also be problematic. They are worded positively, but the sentiment of the items is in the opposite direction. This nding raises an issue about the structure of Likert type items when used with Rasch measurement. Bond and Fox (2007) suggest that items should all be worded in the same direction. In most instances, this requires the removal of negatively worded items, such as I do not believe Where items are considered to be working in the opposite direction to a desired state, even if worded positively, they might be better reverse coded. This issue needs further exploration and discussion.

123

K. Beswick et al.

From a measurement perspective, there is also scope to rene the teacher knowledge scale described here. This study represents an initial attempt to consider various aspects of teacher knowledge on a single scale, and it was decided to keep as much as possible in the scale. Future considerations will focus on whether it is necessary to retain all items in each group and the merits of collapsing categories to obtain better discrimination.

Conclusion The application of Rasch modelling to an instrument designed to measure multiple facets of mathematics teacher knowledge has shown that teacher knowledge can be conceived of as a uni-dimensional construct that underpins many separate aspects. This study has shown that a holistic conception of teacher knowledge made up of multiple aspects but that is, nevertheless, a single construct is possible and offers some unique insights into the nature and development of mathematics teachers knowledge. The scale that resulted shows that teacher knowledge develops from competence with everyday personal numeracy, uninformed condence in ones ability to teach most of the mathematical concepts that constitute the middle school mathematics curriculum, and disagreement or ambivalence in relation to most of the tenets of student-centred mathematics teaching. Progress is by way of initial ideas about general pedagogy, increasingly strongly held beliefs largely aligned with the contemporary student-centred literature, and condence to teach and to use mathematics that appears to be in advance of the general pedagogical knowledge and PCK. It is evident that personal mathematical competence, condence to teach mathematics, and beliefs that are largely aligned with student-centred agendas do not imply more than the most basic and inadequate general and content specic pedagogical knowledge. Furthermore, the signicant demands of Level 4 (PCK Consolidation) item-steps in terms of both general pedagogical knowledge and PCK suggest that these aspects of teacher knowledge develop together. Previous work that has built upon Shulmans seminal categorisation of knowledge types has added much to our understanding of what constitutes teacher knowledge and how it relates to specic content areas such as mathematics. A crucial contribution of Ball and colleagues (e.g., Ball et al. 2008) has been to identify aspects of mathematical knowledge uniquely required for teaching mathematics. Ball et al. (2008) pointed to the potential of their approach to identify aspects of mathematics knowledge for teaching that are especially relevant to improving students learning and for designing more effective mathematics curricula for preservice teachers. They acknowledge, however, that further work and renement are necessary for these ends to be achieved. Of particular importance will be clarication and delineation of the various categories. In this study, we were mindful of the complexity of teaching mathematics, also acknowledged by Ball et al. (2008). Teachers do not always employ the same sort of knowledge in apparently equivalent situations, and they draw upon a range of types of knowledge in relation to many of their everyday tasks, moving among them seamlessly and exibly. Analysing and categorising their knowledge, although useful in many respects, risks losing an appreciation of the complexity of the work of teaching mathematics and may never be possible with complete clarity. A striking feature of the variable map shown in Fig. 2 is the differing levels of teacher knowledge that are tapped by the various knowledge subscales. The lowest level (Personal Numeracy, Level 1) featured beliefs about everyday life, condence and beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning that were easy for all of the teachers involved in the study to endorse. Item-steps belonging to all ve groups are relevant at the middle levels

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development

(Pedagogical Awareness, Level 2, and PCK Emergence, Level 3), whereas the highest knowledge level (PCK Consolidation, Level 4) is characterised by item-steps demanding the highest levels of condence in relation to the most difcult aspects of the middle school mathematics curriculum, beliefs that are most difcult to endorse, and quite sophisticated understandings of PCK for mathematics teaching and general pedagogy. The inclusion of teacher belief statements in the measure of teacher knowledge is consistent with the denition of beliefs as any propositions that an individual regards as true and distinguished from knowledge only by the degree of consensus that they attract (Beswick 2005, 2007). In showing beliefs to be contributors to a uni-dimensional teacher knowledge construct, this study lends weight to what was previously a theoretically based contention. The use of Rasch measurement in relation to these items has raised some interesting questions for future research. In particular, it suggests that knowledgeable teachers of middle school mathematics hold sets of beliefs that include aspects that are consistent with the mathematics education literature promoting student-centred teaching, and others that may not be. Precisely how teachers perceive the role of exposition and textbooks and their views of computation in relation to the discipline of mathematics warrant further exploration. At the very least, the ndings present a warning against simplistic assumptions about what teachers believe and how readily observable practices relate to underlying beliefs. It is important to note that the ndings reported here are based on a particular group of middle school teachers, the nature and structure of whose knowledge may not be the same as that of other teachers. Indeed it is possible that the uni-dimensionality found in this instance may not hold in other contexts. Nevertheless, the outcomes of this study suggest that there is value in pursuing holistic conceptions and measures of mathematics teachers knowledge as well as ongoing detailed analyses of categories. Such approaches may be a better basis for future comparison of teachers knowledge with their students achievement in mathematics as they avoid the delineation problems inherent in attempting to distinguish categories while still acknowledging the inherent complexity of the construct. In addition, we believe that the prole instrument used in this study has the potential to be adapted, rened and applied in a range of settings including the evaluation of professional learning programmes.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Natalie Brown for her valuable contribution to initial discussions of the delineation and naming of levels on the teacher knowledge scale, and Suzie Wright for her assistance with the coding and analysis of the data. This research was funded by Australian Research Council Linkage Grant No. LP0560543.

References
Adams, R. J., & Khoo, S. T. (1996). Quest: Interactive item analysis system. Version 2.1 [computer software]. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561573. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83104). Westport, CT: Ablex. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it so special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389407. Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly dened contexts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 3968. Beswick, K. (2007). Teachers beliefs that matter in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 95120.

123

K. Beswick et al. Beswick, K. (2009). School mathematics and mathematicians mathematics: Teachers beliefs about mathematics. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & S. Haralambos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 153160). Thessaloniki: IGPME. Beswick, K., Watson, J., & Brown, N. (2006). Teachers condence and beliefs and their students attitudes to mathematics. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces: Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 6875). Adelaide: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Callingham, R., & Watson, J. (2004). A developmental scale of mental computation with part-whole numbers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 6986. Callingham, R., & Watson, J. (2005). Measuring statistical literacy. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(1), 1947. Chick, H. L., & Pierce, R. (2008). Issues associated with using examples in teaching statistics. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX (Vol. 2, pp. 321328). Mexico: Cinvestav-UMSNH. Chick, H. L., Baker, M., Pham, T., & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers pedagogical content knowledge for decimals. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Ktatka, & N. Stehlkova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 297304). Prague: PME. Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), 1333. Farmer, J. D., Gerretson, H., & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 331360. Fisher, W. P. (1994). The Rasch debate: Validity and revolution in educational measurement. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement (Vol. 2, pp. 3672). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Graven, M. (2004). Investigating mathematics teacher learning within an in-service community of practice: The centrality of condence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 177211. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371406. Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers mathematical knowledge: What knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 111155). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Kanes, C., & Nisbet, S. (1996). Mathematics teachers knowledge bases: Implications for teacher education. Asia-Pacic Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 159171. Keeves, J. P., & Alagumalai, S. (1999). New approaches to measurement. In G. N. Masters & J. P. Keeves (Eds.), Advances in measurement in educational research and assessment (pp. 2342). Oxford: Pergamon. Linacre, J. M. (1991). Winsteps Rasch measurement users guide. Chicago: MESA Press. From http://www.winsteps.com/aftp/winsteps.pdf. Retrieved 14 Dec 2007. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149174. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company. Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Teachers content knowledge, teacher education, and their effects on the preparation of elementary teachers in the United States. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 3, 2836. Organisation for Economic Co-operation, Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (original work published 1960). Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 122. Stocking, M. L. (1999). Item response theory. In G. N. Masters & J. P. Keeves (Eds.), Advances in measurement in educational research and assessment (pp. 5563). Oxford: Pergamon. Watson, J. (2001). Proling teachers competence and condence to teach particular mathematics topics: The case of chance and data. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 305337.

123

Middle school mathematics teachers knowledge development Watson, J., & Callingham, R. (2004). Statistical literacy: From idiosyncratic to critical thinking. In G. Burrill & M. Camden (Eds.), Curricular development in statistics education: International Association for Statistical Education roundtable (pp. 116137). Lund: IASE. Watson, A., & De Geest, E. (2005). Principled teaching for deep progress: Improving mathematical learning beyond methods and materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(2), 209234. Watson, J. M., Beswick, K., & Brown, N. (2006a). Teachers knowledge of their students as learners and how to intervene. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces: Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (Vol. 2). Adelaide: MERGA. Watson, J. M., Beswick, K., Caney, A., & Skalicky, J. (2006b). Proling teacher change resulting from a professional learning program in middle school numeracy. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 7, 317. Watson, J. M., Beswick, K., Brown, N., & Callingham, R. (2007). Student change associated with teachers professional learning. In J. M. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics, essential research, essential practice: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 785794). Adelaide: MERGA. Watson, J., Callingham, R., & Donne, J. (2008). Establishing PCK for teaching statistics. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, C. Reading, & A. Rossman (Eds.), Joint ICME/IASE study: Teaching statistics in school mathematics. Challenges for teaching and teacher education. Proceedings of the ICMI study 18 and the 2008 IASE round table conference. Monterrey, Mexico, July, 2008. Waugh, R. F. (2002). Creating a scale to measure motivation to achieve academically: Linking attitudes and behaviours using Rasch measurement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 6586. Wilson, M. S., & Cooney, T. J. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Torner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 127147). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Childrens mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3), 222255. Wright, B. (1991). Diagnosing mist. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 5(2), 156. From http://www.rasch. org/rmt/rmt52k.htm. Accessed 28 June 2009. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press. Zhou, Z., Peverly, S. T., & Xin, T. (2006). Knowing and teaching fractions: A cross-cultural study of American and Chinese mathematics teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(4), 438457.

123