Abstract
TEDS-M displayed the results of an international comparison of primary and lower-secondary future teachers’ performances on MCK and MPCK. Taiwanese future teachers excelled on both levels. This study probes into the reasons by analyzing future teachers’ performance corresponding to three different background factors: different systems of teacher preparation, different majors and different academic degrees. Overall, eight different models based on these factors existed. The results from paired comparison revealed that teachers from a department-based system performed significantly better than from a center-based system on both MCK and MPCK. Mathematics majors performed significantly better than non-math majors on both MCK and MPCK. For academic degrees, future teachers who had majored in mathematics with a master or doctoral degree were not better than those who had majored in mathematics with a bachelor degree. Regard the eight different models, we discovered that “major” is an important criterion influencing teachers’ performance on MCK and MPCK. In addition, this study examined the relationship between Taiwan’s excellent performance and two other factors, namely the OTL provided in tertiary level mathematics and the highest level of school mathematics. However, checking the percent correct on MCK and MPCK items our study reveals that Taiwanese primary and lower secondary level future teachers did not perform as well as expected according to our deeply-rooted standard. This stunning result has raised great concerns among teacher educators in Taiwan.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The combined participation rates of Chile and Poland were between 60 and 75 %. Poland limited its participation to institutions with concurrent programs. Switzerland limited its participation to German speaking regions. The United States limited its participation to public universities. The combined participation rate of future teachers in Norway was 58 %, which was just slightly below the threshold set by the IEA for direct comparisons with other countries and therefore was still taken into account by this study. Data sets of four Norwegian program types are available, which were combined for analysis in an attempt to accurately represent the situation in Norway.
References
Betts, J. R., Zau, A., & Rice, L. (2003). Determinants of student achievement: New evidence form San Diego. Public Policy Institute of California San Francisco.
Bond, T., & Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for research in mathematics education, 23, 194–222.
Cankoy, O. (2010). Mathematics Teachers’ Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Context of Teaching a 0, 0! and a÷0. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 749–769.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Parker, D., Kulm, G., & Raulerson, T. (2005). The mathematics content knowledge role in developing preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(2), 102–118.
Cook, L. L., & Eignor, D. R. (2005). IRT equating methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 37–45.
Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education, 2, 20–24.
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), 371–406.
Hsieh, F.-J. (2012).
[Mathematics competence of Taiwanese future secondary mathematics teachers in various preparation modes]. In F.-J. Hsieh (Ed.), 
Taiwan TEDS-M 2008 Secondary Analysis. Taipei: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.
Hsieh, F.-J., Lin, P.-J., Chao, G., & Wang, T.-Y. (2009). Policy and practice of mathematics teacher education in Taiwan. Accessed February 20, 2012. http://tedsm.math.ntnu.edu.tw/Teds-m%20Taiwan%20Policy%20Report.pdf.
Hsieh, F.-J., Lin, P.-J., & Shy, H.-Y. (2012). Mathematics Teacher Education in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Taiwan.
Hsieh, F.-J., Wang, T.-Y., Hsieh, C.-J., Tang, S.-J., Chao, G.-H., & Law, C.-K. (2010). A milestone of an international study in Taiwan teacher education—An international comparison of Taiwan mathematics teacher (Taiwan TEDS-M. 2008). Accessed May 25, 2010. http://tedsm.math.ntnu.edu.tw/eng/result.htm.
Klecker, B. M. (2008). Is Teacher Quality Related to Eighth-Grade Mathematics Achievement? Evidence from the 2007 NAEP Data. Online Submission.
Koirala, H. P., Davis, M., & Johnson, P. (2008). Development of a performance assessment task and rubric to measure prospective secondary school mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and skills. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 127–138.
Krainer, K., Hsieh, F.-J., Peck, R., & Tatto, M. T. (2012). The TEDS-M-plenary panel at ICME-12: important issues, results and questions. Paper presented at the meeting of 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, Korea.
Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. US Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1–23.
Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Rodriguez, M., Bankov, K., & Reckase, M. (2009). Teacher Education Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Technical Summary. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University (Entwurf).
Wang, T.-Y., & Hsieh, F.-J. (2012).
[Mathematics teaching competence of Taiwanese future secondary mathematics teachers in various preparation modes]. In F.-J. Hsieh (Ed.), 
Taiwan TEDS-M 2008 Secondary Analysis. Taipei: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.
Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational research, 73(1), 89–122.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How Schools Matter: The Link between Teacher Classroom Practices and Student Academic Performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 12.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. London: Cassell (pp. 104–124).
[Mathematics competence of Taiwanese future secondary mathematics teachers in various preparation modes]. In F.-J. Hsieh (Ed.), 
Taiwan TEDS-M 2008 Secondary Analysis. Taipei: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.
[Mathematics teaching competence of Taiwanese future secondary mathematics teachers in various preparation modes]. In F.-J. Hsieh (Ed.), 
Taiwan TEDS-M 2008 Secondary Analysis. Taipei: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hsieh, FJ., Wu, PC., Wang, TY. (2014). Why Did Taiwan Excel: Hot Topics and Pressing Issues. In: Blömeke, S., Hsieh, FJ., Kaiser, G., Schmidt, W. (eds) International Perspectives on Teacher Knowledge, Beliefs and Opportunities to Learn. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6437-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6437-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6436-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6437-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)