Developing a Scale to Measure Content Knowledge and Pedagogy Content Knowledge of In-Service Elementary Teachers on Fractions

  • Farhad Kazemi
  • Abolfazl Rafiepour


The main purpose of this study was to develop a scale for measuring content knowledge (CK) and pedagogy content knowledge (PCK) of in-service elementary teachers on mathematical fractions. Another aim of this study was to consider whether CK and PCK are separate from each other, or are in a single body. Therefore, a scale containing 22 items about mathematics fractions was designed and administered to 256 elementary teachers. Exploratory factor analysis indicated four factors that three of which are included in PCK, that is, instruction, task, and student, whereas CK had just one factor. Also to evaluate fitness of model, confirmatory factor analysis was used. The results revealed that CK and PCK are separate and correlated, and the scale has suitable validity and reliability to measure CK and PCK of in-service elementary teachers on mathematics fractions.


Content knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge In-service teachers Fractions 



The authors would like to thank Thilo Kleickmann and Kaye Stacey for their good comments to improve this paper. They also appreciate the comments of referees of IJSME.


  1. Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching Mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Teachers’ subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction, Vol. 2, pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, J. (1985). Teaching experience and instruction. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 9, pp. 5124–5128). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S. & Neubrand, M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blomeke, S. & Kaiser, G. (2012). Homogeneity or heterogeneity? Profiles of opportunities to learn in primary teacher education and their relationship to cultural context and outcomes. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bukova-Güzel, E., Cantürk-Günhan, B. & Kula, S. (2013). Scale development for pre-service mathematics teachers’ perceptions related to their pedagogical content knowledge. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). London, UK: Rutledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, D. M. & Roche, A. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Depaepe, F., Torbeyns, J., Vermeersch, N., Janssens, D., Janssen, R., Kelchtermans, G., Verschaffel, L. & Van Dooren, W. (2015). Teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge on rational numbers: A comparison of prospective elementary and lower secondary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 82–92. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D. & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual knowledge fall through the cracks: Complexities of learning to teachmathematics for understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 8–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R. & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Friedrichsen, P. J., Abell, S. K., Pareja, E. M., Brown, P. L., Lankford, D. M. & Volkmann, M. J. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers’ prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 357–383. doi: 10.1002/tea.20283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghasemi, V. (2013). Structural equation modeling in social researches using AMOS graphics. Tehran, Iran: Jameeshenasan publisher.Google Scholar
  15. Harbison, R. W. & Hanushek, E. A. (1992). Educational performance of the poor: Lessons from rural northeast Brazil. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hashweh, M. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., Blunk, M., Goffney, I. M. & Rowan, B. (2007). Validating the ecological assumption: The relationship of measure scores to classroom teaching and student learning. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2–3), 107–117.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B. & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406. doi: 10.3102/00028312042002371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.Google Scholar
  21. Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kahan, J., Cooper, D. & Bethea, K. (2003). The role of mathematics teachers’ content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), 223–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelloway, K. E. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Kennedy, M. M., Ball, D. L. & Mc Diarmid, G. W. (1993). A study package for examining and tracking changes in teachers’ knowledge. East Lansing, MI: The National Center for Research on Teacher Education/Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  25. Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S. & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kovarik, K (2008) Mathematics educators’ and teachers’ perceptions of pedagogical content knowledge (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  28. Krauss, S., Baumert, J. & Blum, W. (2008a). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 873–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M. & Baumert, J. (2008b). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kromrey, J. D. & Renfrow, D. D. (1991). Using multiple choice examination items to measure teachers’ content-specific pedagogical knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Lamon, S. J. (2005). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Lanahan, L., Scotchmer, M., & McLaughlin M. (2004). Methodological critique of current NCES survey measures of instructional processes. Retrieved from
  33. Levy, P. S. & Lemeshow, S. (2008). Sampling of populations: methods and applications (4th ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T. A. & Hamilton, L. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 67–101. doi: 10.3102/10769986029001067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1989). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of content and pedagogy: Measuring growth in reflective, pedagogical decision-making. Journal of Teacher Education, 5(1), 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2003). Programs for initial preparation of mathematics teachers: Standards for middle level mathematics teachers. Retrieved from
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  38. Park, K. M. (2004). Mathematics teacher education in East Asian countries from perspective of Pedagogical content knowledge. Retrieved from
  39. Park, S. & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phelps, G. & Schilling, S. G. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L. & Schwille, J. (2007). The preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries. East Lansing, MI: MSU Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education.Google Scholar
  42. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues inEducation, 4(1), 1–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schoenfeld, A. H., Minstrell, J. & van Zee, E. (2000). The detailed analysis of an established teacher carrying out a non-traditional lesson. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 281–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Senk, S. L., Tatto, M. T., Reckase, M., Rowley, G., Peck, R. & Bankov, K. (2012). Knowledge of future primary teachers for teaching mathematics: An international comparative study. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, A. G. & Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, partII: Mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turnuklu, E. B. & Yesildere, S. (2007). The pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics: Pre-service primary mathematics teachers’ perspectives in Turkey. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mahani Mathematical Research Center & Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and ComputerShahid Bahonar University of KermanKermanIran

Personalised recommendations