Adaptation of the Test Developed to Measure Mathematical Knowledge of Teaching Geometry in Turkey
“Mathematical knowledge for teaching” is a concept indicating the requirement for a specific kind of knowledge required to teach mathemati.
- Pub. date: November 15, 2019
- Pages: 547-565
- 493 Downloads
- 813 Views
- 4 Citations
“Mathematical knowledge for teaching” is a concept indicating the requirement for a specific kind of knowledge required to teach mathematics. Mathematical knowledge for teaching necessitates a more complex structure than what is required to carry out mathematical tasks and the knowledge to do that. The purpose of this study is to realize the adaptation of “Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching -Geometry (MKT-G)” Test that was initially conceived in English to Turkish (or to Turkish culture). During the adaptation process; after the translations of the items, focus group interviews were held with a group consisting of mathematics teacher educators and experienced mathematics teachers, and then the data from 243 elementary mathematics teachers was analyzed via Item Response Theory (IRT). As a result of the analysis of the test items, psychometric values of the test items indicated that the items in the test performed well in Turkey. Besides, validity and reliability arguments were also tested. As a result, the Turkish version of the MKT-G test is highly reliable and valid to measure the teachers’ knowledge of teaching geometry.
Keywords: Teacher’s knowledge in Geometry, Mathematical knowledge for teaching, pedagogical content knowledge.
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical identification model. IEEE Transaction Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.
Atweh, B., Clarkson, P., & Nebres, B. (2003). Mathematics education in international and global contexts. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 185-229). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed). Washington, DC: ERIC clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, Canada: CMESG/GCEDM.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(1), 14-17, 20-22, 43-46.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th Edition) (pp. 433-456). New York, NY: Macmillan.
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.
Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2000). Young children's ideas about geometric shapes. Teaching children mathematics, 6(8), 482 – 488.
de Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Delaney, S. F. (2008). Adapting and using US measures to study Irish teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Michigan, USA.
Delaney, S., Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Zopf, D. (2008). “Mathematical knowledge for teaching”: Adapting US measures for use in Ireland. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 11(3), 171-197.
Guler, M. (2014). Ogretmen adaylarinin matematik ogretme bilgilerinin incelenmesi: Cebir ornegi [Investigating pre-service teachers' knowledge for teaching mathematics: The sample of algebra] (Unpublised master’s thesis). Karadeniz Techniqal University, Trabzon, Turkey.
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229-244.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory (Vol. 2). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California's mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 330-351.
Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430-511.
Hill, H. C., Dean, C., & Goffney, I. M. (2007). Assessing Elemental and Structural Validity: Data from Teachers, Non-teachers, and Mathematicians Measurement. Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2-3), 81-92, doi: 10.1080/15366360701486999.
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11-30.
Judson, T. W. (1999). Japan: A different model of mathematics education. In E. A. Gavasto, S. G. Krantz & W. McCallum (Eds.), Contemporary issues in mathematics education (pp. 75-81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kupari, P. (2008). Mathematics education in Finnish comprehensive school: characteristics contributing to student success. Proceedings of the XI International Congress in Mathematics Education, ICME, Mexico.
Learning Mathematics for Teaching [LMT]. (2008). Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) Measures: Mathematics Released Items. Retrieved from http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/lmt/files/LMT_sample_items.pdf
Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project [LMTP]. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25-47.
Ma, L. (2010). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi [MEB]. (2018). Matematik dersi ogretim programi (Ilkokul ve Ortaokul 1-8. Siniflar) [Primary schools’ math education program for grades 1-8]. Ankara, Turkey: Milli Egitim Bakanligi.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (Vol. 1). Raston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ng, D., Mosvold, R., & Fauskanger, J. (2012). Translating and Adapting the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) Measures: The Cases of Indonesia and Norway. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 9(1), 149-178.
Peace, H., Quebec Fuentes, S., & Bloom, M. (2018). Preservice teachers’ transforming perceptions of science and mathematics teacher knowledge. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(4), 227-241.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1986). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 122–183). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Schilling, S. G., & Hill, H. C. (2007). Assessing measures of mathematical knowledge for teaching: A validity argument approach. Measurement, 5(2-3), 70-80.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press.
Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85.
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2000). Mathematics education in the Netherlands: A guided tour. FI-ICME-9 cd-rom. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Instituut.
Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 187-213.
Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (2003). Bilog-MG 3.0; Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models for multiple groups. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.