ZDM

pp 1–17 | Cite as

The challenges in the assessment of knowledge for teaching geometry

Original Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

In our research, we focused on the design of assessment instruments for measuring teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry. Since 1987 when Lee Shulman conceptualized pedagogical content knowledge, different research groups have expanded on this construct and developed their own measurement instruments. The strengths and limitations of these instruments have been described in the literature. Compared to researchers who have designed instruments for a broad range of mathematical topics, we propose that the measures should be designed as “probes” around specific topics commonly taught by a targeted group of teachers (e.g., middle school). In this paper, we focus on methodological issues of measuring mathematical knowledge for teaching, describe our approach in designing the probe targeting knowledge for teaching the Area of a Trapezoid task and accompanied assessment tools, identify challenges in designing assessments, and discuss possible solutions. In designing the measures and rubrics of teachers’ knowledge, we used the Delphi and Grounded Theory research methods.

Keywords

Geometry PCK Delphi study PCK profiles Grounded theory 

References

  1. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. C. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, B. B. (1968). Delphi process: A methodology used for the elicitation of opinions of experts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  3. Bush, W., Lee, C., & Jakubowski, E. (2008). DR-K12 R&D geometry assessments for secondary teachers (GAST). http://grantome.com/grant/NSF/DRL-0821967. Accessed 20 Jun 2017.
  4. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Clement, L., Chauvot, J., Philipp, R., & Ambrose, R. (2003). A method for developing rubrics for research purposes. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 joint meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 2 pp. 221–227). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  7. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements, D. H., Wilson, D. C., & Sarama, J. (2004). Young children’s composition of geometric figures: A learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrini-Mundy, J., Floden, R., McCrory, R., Burrill, G., & Sandow, D. (2005). Knowledge for teaching school algebra: challenges in developing an analytic framework. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  11. Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: Analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gellert, U., Becerra Hernández, R., & Chapman, O. (2013). Research methods in mathematics teacher education. In M. A. K. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 27, pp. 431–457). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Glaser, B. G. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Art. 4.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  15. Gutiérrez, A., Jaime, A., & Fortuny, J. M. (1991). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herbst, P., & Kosko, K. (2014). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and its specificity to high school geometry instruction. In J. J. Lo, K. Leatham & L. Van Zoest (Eds.), Research trends in mathematics teacher education (pp. 23–45). Cham: Springer (Research in Mathematics Education).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 374–400.Google Scholar
  18. Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Junker, B., Weisberg, Y., Matsumura, L. C., Crosson, A., Wolf, M. K., Levison, A., & Resnick, L. (2006). Overview of the instructional quality assessment. Los Angeles: University of California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaiser, G., Blömeke, S., Busse, A., Döhrmann, M., & König, J. (2014). Professional knowledge of (prospective) mathematics teachers—its structure and development. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 1). Vancouver: PME.Google Scholar
  21. Kilpatrick, J. (2016). Measured mathematics. In A. Izsák, J. T. Remillard & J. Templin (Eds.), Psychometric methods in mathematics education: Opportunities, challenges, and interdisciplinary collaborations. Monograph Series No. 15 (pp. 175–182). Reston: NCTM (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education).Google Scholar
  22. Langrall, C., Mooney, E., Nisbet, S., & Jones, G. (2008). Elementary/primary students’ access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 109–135). Park Drive: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  23. Manizade, A. G. (2006). Designing measure for assessing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of geometry and measurement at the middle school level. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia).Google Scholar
  24. Manizade, A. G. (2009). Delphi Method: A different approach of creating measures of professional knowledge for teaching. Proceedings of the PME-NA 31. Atlanta: PME-NA.Google Scholar
  25. Manizade, A. G., & Martinovic, D. (2016). Developing an interactive instrument for measuring teachers’ professional situated knowledge in geometry and measurement. In P. Moyer–Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era Series (pp. 323–342). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Manizade, A. G., & Martinovic, D. (2018). Creating profiles of geometry teachers’ PCK. In U. -H. Cheah, K. Jones, M. Ludwig, P. Richard & P. Herbst (Eds.), ICME 13 monograph.Google Scholar
  27. Manizade, A. G., & Mason, M. M. (2011). Using Delphi methodology to design assessments of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(2), 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manizade, A. G., & Mason, M. M. (2014). Developing the area of trapezoid. Mathematics Teacher, 107(7), 509–514.Google Scholar
  29. Martinovic, D., & Manizade, A. G. (2017). Using grounded theory to extend PCK framework at the secondary level. Education Sciences, 7(60), 1–17.Google Scholar
  30. McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. D., & Senk, S. L. (2012). Knowledge of algebra for teaching: A framework of knowledge and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayberry, J. (1983). The van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orrill, C. H., & Cohen, A. (2016). Purpose and conceptualization: Examining assessment development questions through analysis of measures of teacher knowledge. In A. Izsák, J. T. Remillard & J. Templin (Eds.), Psychometric methods in mathematics education: Opportunities, challenges, and interdisciplinary collaborations. Monograph Series No. 15 (pp. 139–154). Reston: NCTM (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education).Google Scholar
  33. Orrill, C. H., Kim, O. K., Peters, S. A., Lischka, A. E., Jong, C., Sanchez, W. B., & Eli, J. A. (2015). Challenges and strategies for assessing specialised knowledge for teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 17, 12–29.Google Scholar
  34. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1986). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 225–264). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reforms. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, M. (1997). Developing new models of mathematics teaching: An imperative for research on mathematics teacher development. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 55–86). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Sinclair, N., et al. (2016). Recent research on geometry education. ZDM, 48(5), 691–719.Google Scholar
  40. Steele, M. D. (2013). Exploring the mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry and measurement through the design and use of rich assessment tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(4), 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson, P. W. (2016). Researching mathematical meanings for teaching. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 435–461). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  42. Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children’s conceptions: the case of division and fractions. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. University of Louisville. (2004). Diagnostics mathematics assessment for middle school teachers. http://louisville.edu/education/research/centers/crmstd/diag_math_assess_middle_ teachers.html. Accessed 4 Apr 2018.
  44. Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  45. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: a theory of mathematics education. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WindsorWindsorCanada
  2. 2.Radford UniversityRadfordUSA

Personalised recommendations