Home
The Preparation Gap: Teacher Education for Middle School Mathematics in Six Countries
Location and Schedule
Time slot: 
RL-2 on Wednesday 9, 10:30 – 11:30
Auditorium: 
S03-Polivalente Auditorium – FIME
Metadata information
Author(s): 
William H. Schmidt et al
Language: 
English
Keywords: 
International Study, Teacher Preparation, Middle School Mathematics, Mathematics Teachers
Abstract: 

MT21 is a cross-national study of the preparation of middle school mathematics teachers. Countries participating include Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Korea, Bulgaria, Germany, Mexico and the United States. The preparation of middle school teachers in the U.S. is accomplished through three routes: (a) elementary programs, (b) secondary programs or (c) middle school programs. Data were collected from teachers in their last year of preparation by sampling institutions in each country. Future teachers were questioned on their (1) backgrounds, (2) course taking and other program activities, (3) knowledge relevant to their teaching – mathematical and pedagogical, and (4) beliefs and perspectives on content and pedagogy.

Ten years ago a report was issued which showed that the United States middle school students performed below the international mean on a test of mathematics among some 40 countries. Additionally, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) indicated that one of the major factors related to that low performance was a middle school curriculum in the U.S. that was unfocused, lacking coherence, and not particularly demanding or rigorous. The study also showed that the top- achieving countries had the opposite type of curriculum. Many states and districts in response have recently increased the rigor of their standards as well as their focus and coherence. The important question then becomes– how shall we prepare our future teachers to teach a more rigorous curriculum to all students? The MT21 project was designed to answer that question by examining how other countries prepared their middle school teachers.

The results clearly suggest that teacher education as defined by the learning opportunities provided likely has an impact on what future teachers know and believe as they leave their teacher preparation program. The differences across the countries, combined with the differences across the three programs of preparation within the United States, all point in that direction.

Mathematical knowledge among future teachers as measured in MT21 was highest in Taiwan and Korea on all five areas of mathematics – algebra, functions, number, geometry and statistics –while the U.S. performance lagged behind scoring anywhere from the middle of the six countries (in statistics) to almost three fourths of a standard deviation below the international mean in functions.

The answer to the question of how to best prepare middle school teachers is more complex than might be expected given these achievement results. The obvious solution of having U.S. future teachers of middle school take more mathematics appears to be the answer but it is only part of the answer. Both Korea and Taiwan whose middle school students have performed well in previous international comparative studies such as TIMSS demanded a different level of preparation on the part of their future teachers than was provided in the United States. In Taiwan and Korea, the level of mathematics preparation was very strong and, in both countries, the amount of emphasis given to the practical issues of mathematics pedagogy was also extensive. In general pedagogy, there was a difference between the two top performing countries. In Taiwan, there was also extensive emphasis given to the practical aspects of general pedagogy such as classroom management, which was not the case for Korean future teachers. Apart from that difference, it is clear that the future teachers in those two countries have extensive coverage of two of the areas (and in the case of Taiwan all three areas). In none of the six countries was the preparation of teachers done without at least some level of coverage associated with each of the three broad areas.

The contrast of the German profile to that of the future teachers in the U.S. is interesting. The amount of mathematics taken by the future teachers in the U.S. was lower in algebra and analysis than was the case for German future teachers, but the amount of opportunity that was provided in the pedagogy areas was much larger. On the international TIMSS test, eighth graders in both Germany and U.S. had very comparable low levels of performance. The differences in achievement between the Asian eighth graders and the U.S. eighth graders is likely related not only to the “curriculum gap” found in TIMSS but also to a “preparation gap” - the fact that teachers in those countries had a very different configuration of learning experiences as a part of their teacher preparation.

The belief held by some that the preparation of future teachers might be done without any preparation in practical pedagogy seems unwise and should certainly be reconsidered. The fact that none of the five countries prepare their teachers in this way tells us something. The real question then is not whether such experiences are necessary but rather the nature and the extent of the learning opportunities in each of the three areas that should be available for future teachers. It is quite revealing that the countries whose middle school students continuously perform well on the international benchmark tests have a coherent, focused and rigorous curriculum as well as teachers who have been trained with extensive educational opportunities in mathematics as well as in the practical aspects of teaching mathematics to students in the middle grades.