Articles

Teacher Education and Special Education

Who’s Teaching Math to

33(2) 102–113
© 2010 Teacher Education Division of
the Council for Exceptional

Our Most Needy Students? Reprints and permission:

.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

A Descriptive Study
DOI: 10.1177/0888406409357537
http://tese.sagepub.com

Clarissa Rosas1 and Lisa Campbell2

Abstract
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandates that every classroom be staffed with a
“highly qualified teacher.” Research supports that teachers’ content knowledge affects student
achievement. However, the special education population continues to be taught by teachers
who do not have the content area background they teach. In addition, accountability reports
indicate that the special education population did not meet the adequate yearly progress in
reading and mathematics as required under NCLB. The purpose of this study is to determine
the mathematical background, beliefs, and perceptions of future intervention specialists. Results
of this study indicate a disconnect between the participants’ beliefs and perceptions of their
ability to provide math instruction and their limited mathematical background as measured
by mathematical courses completed at the undergraduate level and by the Ohio Achievement
Test–Practice Eighth Grade Mathematics.

Keywords
math, special education, standardized tests, teacher’s perception

According to the National Assessment of Edu-
cational Progress (NAEP, 2005, 2007),
students with disabilities consistently perform
lower than their peers without disabilities in
mathematics. As students with disabilities
progress through grade levels, their achieve-
ment in mathematics decreases. According to
the NAEP, 40% of students with disabilities in
Grade 4 scored below the basic level of profi-
ciency in mathematics compared with 15% of
their peers without disabilities (NAEP, 2007).
Among eighth graders, 66% of students with
disabilities scored below the basic level of
proficiency compared with 25% of students
without disabilities (NAEP, 2007). In 12th
grade, 83% of students with disabilities scored
below the basic level of proficiency compared
with 36% of students without disabilities
(NAEP, 2005). These findings indicate that not
only do students with disabilities lag behind
their peers, but as they progress through grade
levels, their mathematic proficiency also
decreases. In addition, research indicates that
teachers’ content knowledge in mathematics is
a critical factor for student success (National
Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of
2001 supports the belief that teachers must be
competent in the content they teach as this
legislation requires that every classroom
be staffed with a “highly qualified teacher.”
1
College of Mount St. Joseph, Cincinnati, OH, USA
2
Hamilton County Educational Service Center,
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Dr. Clarissa Rosas, College of Mount St. Joseph,
Department of Education, 5701 Delhi Road, Cincinnati,
OH 45233-1670
Email: clarissa_rosas@mail.msj.edu

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015

Rosas and Campbell
A highly qualified teacher, according to NCLB,
is one who holds a “bachelor’s degree, has
full state certification and has demonstrated
subject area competence for each subject
taught” (U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Postsecondary Education, 2005, p. 5). This
legislation is the latest response to studies
and reports that lament over the qualification
of teachers. Research clearly supports that
teachers’ content background affects student
achievement (Barth, 2002; Darling-Hammond &
Bransford, 2005; Heritage & Vendlinski,
2006; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Ingersoll,
2003; National Mathematics Advisory Panel,
2008). “It is self-evident that teachers cannot
teach what they do not know” (National Math-
ematics Advisory Panel, 2008, p. xxi). While
legislation such as NCLB has mandated that
teachers be qualified in the content area they
teach, it has not improved the teacher quality
for certain student populations such as special
education, middle school, limited English pro-
ficient, and those from high-poverty families.
Furthermore, those schools that did not make
adequate yearly progress in reading and math-
ematics as required under NCLB were largely
(37%) students with disabilities (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, 2007).
Lack of teachers’ mathematical background
has been an issue prior to NCLB as noted in
Ingersoll’s (2003) and Barth’s (2002) research.
Ingersoll (2003) indicated that 38% of all 7th-
to 12th-grade school teachers who taught math
did not have a “minor in math or math educa-
tion” (p. 14). Barth (2002) reported that “one
in three high school students was taught by a
teacher who lacked a major in mathematics,
math education or related field (e.g., engi-
neering)” (p. 15) and 61% of middle school
students were taught by teachers who did not
have a minor in mathematics or a related field.
In addition, Barth (2002) found that schools
with high minority and/or low income families
are more likely to be taught by teachers who
lack mathematical knowledge. The National
Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) also indi-
cated that “there are large, persistent disparities
in mathematics achievement related to race
and income” (p. xii). Because the special
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
103
education student populations often come
from diverse ethnic and low income families,
they are more at risk for being taught by a
teacher who does not have content back-
ground. In addition, school districts reported
that the largest percentage of teacher vacan-
cies were for special education (67.4%),
English (57%), and mathematics (55%) (see
http://nces.ed.gov/). Furthermore, Zumwalt
and Craig (2005) indicate that “special edu-
cation teachers (are) least likely to be certified”
(p. 180).
Securing a highly qualified teacher for
positions in mathematics and special educa-
tion is compounded when one considers that
most credentialing programs for elementary
school teachers and intervention specialists
(special education teachers) require minimal
subject area courses at the college level (Con-
ference Board of the Mathematical Sciences,
2001). Although the research supports that
teachers must have a deep understanding of
the subject area they teach as well as the ped-
agogy to effectively deliver instruction, in
practice elementary and special education pro-
grams typically are taught by teachers who
do not have subject area mastery for the con-
tent that they teach (see http://nces.ed.gov/).
In the field of special education, the shortage
of fully licensed “teachers for students with
disabilities age 6-21 years has been chronic
since 1987/1988 and has increased annually
from 7.4% in 1993/1994 to 13.4% in
2002/2003” (Boe, 2006, p. 138). As a result
of this shortage area, students with the most
need are often taught by the least qualified
teacher. The gap between a highly qualified
teacher serving the general education popu-
lation and a highly qualified intervention
specialist serving the special education popu-
lation continues to grow.
Method
The purpose of this study was to determine
the mathematical background, beliefs, and
perceptions of future intervention specialists.
This study adds to the body of knowledge
in the field of mathematical instruction for
104
special education in three ways. First, the
study examines the mathematical background
of participants prior to entering an initial spe-
cial education licensure program through a
transcript review. Second, the study examines
the mathematical mastery of participants
through the administration of a standardized
math test typically given to eighth-grade stu-
dents in Ohio. Third, the study examines the
beliefs and confidence level of mathematical
instruction for participants through the admin-
istration of a survey. The research questions
for this study were as follows:
Research Question 1: What mathematical
experiences do future intervention spe-
cialists have prior to entering an initial
licensure program?
Research Question 2: Do future interven-
tion specialists have basic mathemati-
cal proficiency?
Research Question 3: What are the math-
ematical beliefs and confidence levels of
future intervention specialists?
Participants
The participants for this study consisted of 26
students enrolled in a graduate program lead-
ing to an initial license in special education
in a small private institution of higher educa-
tion in southwestern Ohio. All participants
were enrolled in a graduate special education
assessment course and had completed at least
19 graduate credit hours required for licensure.
The courses completed by the participants
included introduction to special education,
educational psychology, language develop-
ment, reading methods, working with families
and communities, classroom management,
and field experience. The field-based experi-
ences gave the participants an opportunity to
observe classes that serve children with spe-
cial needs and to assist intervention specialists
(special education teachers) in the daily oper-
ation, remediation, and implementation of
lessons. Forty-five percent of the partici-
pants were employed as teachers with either
a temporary license or a long-term substitute
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
Teacher Education and Special Education 33(2)
license. In addition, 24% of the participants
already had a general education license and
were seeking a second license in special
education.
Data Collection
Three approaches to data collection were
included in this study. The first data collection
approach involved a review of the partici-
pants’ undergraduate transcripts to determine
mathematical courses completed at the college
level prior to entering the graduate teacher
preparation program. The second data collec-
tion approach included a review of test results
from the Ohio Achievement Test–Practice
Eighth Grade Mathematics (OAT-Math
Practice) that the participants completed in a
graduate assessment course as part of the
course requirement. The third data collection
approach was a belief and confidence survey
that was administered to the participants at the
conclusion of their assessment course. Each
participant anonymously completed a Mathe-
matical Survey developed by the researchers.
The survey consisted of 19 questions con-
cerning their experience, beliefs, and perception
of mathematical content and teaching. Using
a 5-point Likert-type scale, the participants
were asked to rank their experience, beliefs,
and perceptions of mathematical content and
teaching.
The reliability and validity of the Eighth
Grade OAT-Math Practice as a test for gradu-
ate students/pre-service special educators and
credentialed general educators is not avail-
able. There has not been complete statistical
analysis of the OAT that would indicate com-
parative reliability and validity. However,
quite a bit of investigation into the construc-
tion of the test and item analysis of alignment
of test content to the Ohio Academic Stan-
dards has been completed by the American
Institutes for Research (AIR Technical Team,
2008). The details of the statistical analysis of
all of the content area tests, including math,
are included in a technical report published by
the American Institutes for Research. This
report concludes that the structure of the OAT
Rosas and Campbell
Table 1. Comparison of Graduate Students in Assessment Course (in percentages) by Gender and
Ethnicity With Other Pre-Service Teachers in Ohio
Small Private College
Pre-Service
Special Education
N  26
Gender
Female 70
Male 30
Ethnicity
Caucasian 84
Persons of color 16
a
Teacher Quality Partnership (2007).
b
Gilbertson,West, Zigler, & Wahrman (2005).
conforms to the structural model of the Ohio
Academic Content Standards (AIR Technical
Team, 2008). Although the administration of
this test to graduate students enrolled in an
assessment course was the first administration
of its kind, the exact test has been repeatedly
and consistently given to eighth-grade stu-
dents across the state since 2005. In addition,
the tests taken by the participants in this study
were scored according to the same criteria
that are applied to eighth-grade students taking
the test in Ohio. These criteria are posted on
the Ohio Department of Education Web site
and are accessible to the public (Ohio Depart-
ment of Education, n.d.). The Eighth Grade
OAT-Math Practice tests administered for the
purposes of this study were scored by two
independent researchers, and the scores were
found to be interrater reliable.
Results
Demographics
Men make up 30% of the participants who
participated in this study. This percentage is
higher than the percentage of all Ohio pri-
vate and public institutions that prepare
teachers, and Ohio’s Intervention Specialists
(Gilbertson, West, Zigler, & Wahrman, 2005;
Teacher Quality Partnership [TQP], 2007).
Persons of color make up 16% of the
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
105
Ohio Private Ohio Public Ohio Intervention
Pre-Servicea Pre-Servicea Specialistb
N  2,559 N  2,747 N  1,014
79 78 85
21 22 15
95 93 NA
5 7 NA
graduate student population who participated
in this study, which is slightly larger than the
ethnic profile of Ohio in which 15% of Ohio
citizens represent people of color (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2007). In addition, the per-
centage of persons of color in the graduate
student population is higher than those of all
Ohio private and public institutions that pre-
pared teachers (TQP, 2007). The mean age
for participants in this study was 34 (SD 
8.33). Approximately half of the participants
(54%) were 31 years of age or older. Table 1
presents the gender and ethnicity of partici-
pants in the study as compared with other
participants in Ohio.
Mathematical Experience
Grade point average. A review of the par-
ticipants’ undergraduate transcripts prior to
admission into the teacher preparation pro-
gram revealed that the mean grade point
average (GPA) was 3.15 (SD  .43). Sixty-four
percent of the participants had an undergradu-
ate GPA of 3.0 or better. In contrast, only 28%
of the participants had a GPA of 3.0 or better
in mathematics. The mean undergraduate
mathematics GPA was 2.5 (SD  .63). Approx-
imately half (52%) of the participants had
math GPAs below a 2.4. A review of the par-
ticipants’ undergraduate transcripts further
revealed that three students did not have any
106 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(2)

Table 2. Grade Point Average (GPA; in Mathematical Proficiency

percentages) of Participants for Undergraduate
Degree and Math Courses In an attempt to determine the presence of a
basic level of proficiency in mathematics
Undergraduate Math
among the participants in the study, the
Degree Undergraduate
OAT-Math Practice was administered to 26
GPA GPA pre-service teachers. The practice test was
obtained from the Ohio Department of Edu-
GPA Range (N  26) (N  26)
cation Web site and is available to teachers,
Below 1.9 0 24 students, and parents for their use in prepara-
2.0–2.4 4 28 tion for the full-length Eighth Grade OAT,
2.5–2.9 32 20 which is administered in May to eighth grad-
3.0–3.4 40 24 ers throughout Ohio. Although the contents
3.5–3.9 24 0
of the upcoming test each year are confiden-
4.0 0 4
tial, the practice test, used in this study, as
well as the previous released tests, adminis-
tered each year since the inception of state
Table 3. Undergraduate Mathematics Course testing, are available online and are a very
Level Completed by Participants close approximation of the test given to all
eighth graders in math as part of the NCLB
Percentage of
Course Level Participants Registered (2001) requirements for state testing. The
eighth-grade test was chosen to determine
100 or below 7 basic mathematical proficiency for the par-
100–199 70 ticipants because the students may have taken
200–299 16 a variety of math courses at varying levels of
300–399 0 difficulty throughout high school and under-
400 or above 7
graduate programs.
N  26. The eighth-grade math OAT was selected
not only as a measure to assess mathematical
background knowledge but also to provide
math course requirement for their undergrad- the participants with the opportunity to
uate degree. Table 2 presents the participants’ become familiar with the state’s standardized
undergraduate overall GPA and GPA for test and the test construct. Many students and
mathematics. adults are very anxious about performance on
The mean number of math courses com- high stakes tests and, therefore, one of the
pleted by participants in this study was 3.06 ways “to alleviate anxiety about the achieve-
(SD  2.09). The mean course withdraw rate ment tests is to make the tests less mysterious”
was 2.25 (SD  .57). Approximately 77% of (see http://www.nctm.org/). To assure that
the participants registered for courses at the all stakeholders know what is expected of
199 level or below. Most institutions of higher Ohio students, the Ohio Department of Edu-
education consider 100-level courses to be at cation holds “Take the Test” events for parents
an introductory level or remedial level for and community members to participate in
those entering college. Three participants did taking one of the content area/grade-level
not take any undergraduate math course(s) as tests. Therefore, the participants in this study
it was not required for the undergraduate had the opportunity to experience the test as
degree. Only 7% took courses at the 400 or well as to measure their mathematical con-
above level. Table 3 presents the undergradu- tent knowledge. Table 4 presents the results
ate mathematics course level as noted in the of the participants’ scores on the OAT-Math
transcripts of participants in the study. Practice.

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015

Rosas and Campbell
Table 4. Points Earned on Ohio’s Eighth Grade
Mathematics Half-Length Practice Test from
Participants
Number of Points Earned Percentage
1–5 points
6–10 points
11–15 points
16–19 points
N  26.
The OAT-Math Practice test is made up of
19 questions. Fifteen of the questions are
multiple choice and are worth 1 point each.
Two questions on the test are considered
short answer questions and are worth a maxi-
mum of 2 points. One extended response
question is worth a maximum of 4 points.
There are 25 total points possible. None of
the 26 participants in this study who took the
OAT-Math Practice received the maximum
possible points. The majority of the partici-
pants (76%) received 15 points or less.
Approximately one fourth (24%) of the par-
ticipants scored between 16 and 20 points.
The highest score obtained by an individual
was 20 points. The lowest score earned by
two participants was 4 points.
The OAT-Math Practice is divided into five
topics that are aligned with the Ohio Content
Standards in Mathematics and the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM;
see http://www.nctm.org/) standards. These
include measurement, geometry, data and
probability, patterns/algebra, and number
sense. Table 5 presents the items correct by
mathematical area from the participants who
completed the test.
Results of the test indicate that geometry
was an area of strength for 76% of the partici-
pants as they correctly answered a minimum
of 75% of this section correctly. Measure-
ment, data and probability, patterns/algebra,
and number sense are areas of weakness for
the participants. The majority of the partici-
pants (61%-69%) correctly answered 50% or
below in each of the areas.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
107
Mathematical Beliefs
and Confidence Level
A survey consisting of 19 questions concerning
the participants’ perceived experience, beliefs,
12 and perception of mathematical content and
32 teaching was developed by the researchers and
32 administered to the participants (N  23) at the
24 conclusion of the graduate assessment course.
Three students were not present at the last class
meeting; therefore, they did not complete the
survey. Prior to completing the survey, the par-
ticipants reviewed their test results of the OAT-
Math Practice. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale,
the participants were asked to rank their
experience, beliefs, and perceptions of mathe-
matical content and teaching. Survey questions
pertaining to four specific themes were extrapo-
lated for analysis.
The first theme extrapolated for analysis
was the participants’ perceived confidence in
teaching Ohio’s Content Standards in Math-
ematics. Ohio’s math content standards were
adopted in 2001 and are aligned with national
standards and major studies in mathematics.
In addition, the mathematical topics that
make up the Ohio Content Standards repre-
sent the content and processes that all students
should know and be able to use as they
progress through school. The topics are also
aligned with NCTM standards (see http://
www.nctm.org/).
Table 6 presents the participants’ perceived
confidence in teaching Ohio’s Math Content
Standards.
Results of the survey indicate that approx-
imately half (56.5%) of the participants feel
that they have the content knowledge to
teach number/number sense and operation.
The mean score was 2.6 (SD  1). More than
half of the participants (68.2%) indicated
that they feel they have the content back-
ground to teach measurement. The mean
score was 2.4 (SD  1). In contrast, less than
half of the graduate students surveyed
(43.4%) feel that they have the content back-
ground to teach analysis and probability. The
mean score was 2.95 (SD  1.4). More than
108 Teacher Education and Special Education 33(2)

Table 5. Participants’ Items Correct by Area (in percentages) from Ohio’s Eight Grade Mathematics
Half-Length Practice Test

OAT Area 100% Correct 75% Correct 50% Correct 49% or Below Correct

Measurement 4 27 42 27
Geometry 38 38 12 12
Data and probability 4 35 46 15
Patterns/algebra 4 30 12 54
Number sense 4 27 23 46
N  26.

Table 6. Participants’ Perceived Confidence in Teaching Ohio’s Math Content Standards (means and
standard deviations)

Belief Statement M SD N

I feel I have the content background to teach number/number sense & 2.6 1.00 23
operations.
I feel I have the content background to teach measurement. 2.4 1.00 22
I feel I have the content knowledge to teach analysis and probability. 2.95 1.40 23
I feel I have the content background to teach algebra. 2.52 1.07 23
I feel I have the content knowledge to teach patterns, relations, & functions. 2.86 1.14 23
I feel I have the content knowledge to teach geometry. 2.95 1.37 23
Math survey results composed of a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to neither agree nor
disagree (3) to strongly agree (5).

Table 7. Participants’ Perceived Confidence in Teaching Ohio’s Math Content to Various Grade Bands
(means and standard deviations)

Belief Statement on Ability to Teach at Various Grade Bands M SD N

I feel I have the content knowledge to teach mathematics in Grades K-3. 1.78 1.90 23
I feel I have the content knowledge to teach mathematics in Grades 4-8. 2.26 1.21 23
I feel I have the content knowledge to teach mathematics in Grades 9-12. 3.47 1.37 23
Math survey results composed of a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to neither agree nor
disagree (3) to strongly agree (5).

half of the participants (60.8%) surveyed
feel that they have the content background to
teach algebra. The mean score was 2.52 (SD 
1.07). Less than half of the students (39%)
surveyed feel that they have the content
knowledge to teach patterns, relations, and
function. The mean score was 2.86 (SD 
1.14). Less than half of those surveyed
(43.5%) feel that they have the content knowl-
edge to teach geometry. The mean score was
2.95 (SD  1.37).
The second theme extrapolated for analysis
was the participants’ confidence in teaching
math content to various grade bands. Table 7
presents the results of the participants’ per-
ceived confidence in teaching math content to
various grade bands.
Results of the survey indicate that the
majority of students surveyed (78%) feel
that they have the content knowledge to
teach mathematics in Grades K through 3.
The mean score was 1.78 (SD  1.9). In

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015

Rosas and Campbell 109

Table 8. Participants’ Perception of Experience in Mathematics (means and standard deviations)

Perception of Mathematics Experience M SD N

My experience with learning math in K-12 was positive. 2.39 1.07 23

My undergraduate degree provided a solid founding in math. 2.95 1.29 23
Math survey results composed of a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to neither agree nor
disagree (3) to strongly agree (5).

Table 9. Participants’ Perceived Confidence in Ability to Teach Math Content (means and standard
deviations)

Belief Statement on Ability to Teach Math Content M SD N

I feel I have the content knowledge to teach mathematical representation. 2.65 1.3 23
I feel I have the content knowledge to teach mathematical problem solving. 3.04 1.3 23
I feel I have the content knowledge to teach mathematical communication processing. 3.04 1.3 23
I feel I have the content knowledge to integrate mathematics with other subject areas. 2.69 1.3 23
I feel comfortable teaching math concepts to student groups that are mixed in ability. 2.7 1.3 23
I feel I have the content background to teach connections between mathematical 3.4 1.3 23
ideas (e.g., connections among algebra, trigonometry, etc.).
Math survey results composed of a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to neither agree nor
disagree (3) to strongly agree (5).

addition, 60% of the students surveyed feel
that they have the content knowledge to
teach mathematics in Grades 4 through 8.
The mean score was 2.26 (SD  1.21). In
contrast, only 25.4% feel that they have the
content knowledge to teach mathematics in
Grades 9 through 12. The mean score was
3.47 (SD  1.37).
The third theme extrapolated for analysis
was the participants’ perception of their expe-
rience with mathematics. Table 8 presents the
results of the participants’ perception of their
experience in mathematics.
Results of the survey indicate that 56.5%
had a positive experience with learning math
in Grades K through 12. The mean score
was 2.39 (SD  1.07). In contrast, only
34.8% of those surveyed indicated that their
undergraduate degree provided a solid foun-
dation in math. The mean score was 2.95
(SD  1.29).
The fourth theme extrapolated for analysis
was the participants’ confidence in teaching
math content. Table 9 presents the results of
the participants’ perceived confidence in their
ability to teach math content.
Results of the survey indicate that 47.7%
of the participants feel that they have the
content knowledge to teach mathematical
representation; the mean score was 2.65
(SD  1.3). In the area of mathematical
problem solving, 43.5% of the participants
indicated that they perceive they have the
content knowledge to teach mathematical
problem solving; the mean score was 3.04
(SD  1.3). In the area of mathematical
communication processing, 30.4% of the par-
ticipants feel that they have the knowledge to
teach this area; the mean score was 3.04
(SD  1.3). Less than half of the participants
(43.4%) feel that they have the knowledge
to integrate mathematics with other subject
areas; the mean score was 2.69 (SD  1.3).
Slightly half (52.2%) of the participants feel
comfortable teaching groups that are mixed in
ability; the mean score was 2.7 (SD  1.3).
Less than a quarter of the participants (21.7%)
feel that they have the content knowledge
to teach connections between mathematical
ideas; the mean score was 3.4 (SD  1.3).
The last area surveyed was the participants’
enjoyment of math. The majority (67%) of the

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015

110
participants (n  22) indicated that they liked
math; the mean score was 2.27 (SD  1.6).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine
the mathematical background, beliefs, and
perceptions of future intervention specialists.
The first research question was, What math-
ematical experiences do future intervention
specialists have prior to entering an initial
licensure program? The results of this study
indicate that the participants had limited expe-
riences in mathematics and many of their
experiences would not be considered positive.
For example, during the review of undergrad-
uate transcripts, it was evident that several
students failed, repeated, and/or withdrew
from low-level courses. Three participants in
the study did not enroll in or complete any
math courses as part of their undergraduate
degree. In addition, participants in this study
had a lower mathematical GPA than their
overall undergraduate GPA. Results of this
study support the research that mathematical
literacy for educators is “not significantly dif-
ferent than those of other college graduates”
(Barth, 2002, p. 15). The average education
major takes approximately two semester
courses, which often are at the remedial level
(Barth, 2002). This study supported the
research conducted by the Center for the Study
of Teaching and Policy that indicated that
teachers do not have subject area mastery
for the content that they teach and are often
“unqualified” as a result. “In the 1999-2000
school year 38% of all 7-12th grade school
teachers who taught one or more math classes
did not have either a major or a minor in math,
math education, or related disciplines”
(Ingersoll, 2003, p. 14). “Despite all the reform
efforts . . . out-of-field teaching does not
appear to be decreasing” (p. 17). According to
the National Assessment of Educational Pro-
grams (2007), large numbers of students
continue to score below basic levels in math-
ematics. Lack of teachers’ content knowledge
in mathematics has been suggested as one
factor resulting in poor mathematical
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
Teacher Education and Special Education 33(2)
knowledge for children in Grades K through 12
(National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).
The second research question was, Do
future intervention specialists have basic math-
ematical proficiency? Results of this study
indicate that a majority of participants were
lacking in basic mathematical proficiency as
evidenced by a review of the participants’
transcripts and their results on the OAT–Math
Practice. The National Mathematics Advisory
Panel (2008) indicated that study results are
mixed in the relationship between math
courses taken by teachers as a “proxy” for
mathematical knowledge and the mathemati-
cal achievement of elementary and middle
school students. At the secondary level, how-
ever, studies suggest that there is “some effect
of teachers’ content knowledge when it is
measured in terms of teachers’ course-taking”
(p. 36). Furthermore, research does provide
evidence to support that teachers’ knowledge
of math is one of the most important factors
in student achievement (Darling-Hammond,
Baratz-Snowden, 2005; National Mathemat-
ics Advisory Panel, 2008). “The effects of a
well prepared teacher on student achievement
can be stronger than the influences of student
background factors such as poverty, language
background, and minority status” (Darling-
Hammond, 1999, p. 37). Legislation such as
NCLB mandates that teachers be highly
qualified in the content area they teach and
requires that teachers demonstrate mastery
through subject matter majors, certification,
number of content courses completed, passage
of standardized tests, and professional devel-
opment. To date there are not any studies that
clearly indicate that these measures assess
teachers’ content knowledge. Measures to
assess teachers’ mathematical knowledge have
resulted in mixed results due to “a historical
lack of high-quality measures of mathematics
content knowledge” (National Mathematics
Advisory Panel, 2008, p. 36). Yet, the research
is clear that teachers must know in detail the
mathematical content they are responsible for
teaching as it is pivotal to their ability to
provide effective mathematical instruction
(National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).
Rosas and Campbell
The OAT-Math Practice test, which was
administered to participants in this study,
may be used as an effective measure to assess
teachers’ mathematical knowledge of the con-
tent they are required to teach. Although the
OAT has not been normed for in-service or
pre-service teachers, it does show promise as
a measure of the content knowledge that
teachers must have to instruct a particular
grade level. The OAT-Math Practice is reflec-
tive of the Ohio Content Standards in
mathematics and the curriculum required by
the state of Ohio for mastery by students in
all public schools. The OAT-Math Practice is
available for Grades 3 through 8, which allows
teachers the opportunity to use this measure to
assess their mathematical knowledge of the
content that they are required to teach. The
eighth-grade level of the OAT in mathematics
was selected for this study because the partici-
pants would be required to know and/or teach
within their K-12 licensure.
With regard to the final research question,
What are the mathematical beliefs and confi-
dence levels of future intervention specialists?
there was a noticeable inconsistency in the
participants’ self-reported confidence with
mathematical content and their documented
mathematical experiences and ability. The par-
ticipants were given the opportunity to view
their scores on the OAT–Math Practice
prior to completing the confidence survey;
therefore, they were fully aware of their
performance on the test. In addition, the
participants were personally aware of their
undergraduate transcripts noting courses
taken and grades received in mathematics.
With this in mind, it was surprising that
students rated their confidence at such high
levels. This fact points to a disconnect between
their perceptions, their background knowl-
edge, and their documented mathematical
performance as measured by the OAT-Math
Practice. This disconnect is consistent with
Foss and Kleinsasser (1996) in which the find-
ings indicate that “conceptions of mathematics
teaching and learning must be moved to a
conscious level with all involved in mathemat-
ics teacher education and teacher education
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
111
research” (p. 441). In this study, the partici-
pants’ confidence in teaching mathematics for
grade bands K-3 and 4-8 is inconsistent with
the statewide data on pre-service and in-
service teachers’ perception of preparedness
to teach mathematics (TQP, 2007). TQP
(2008) reported that results of the survey on
preparedness to teach mathematics indicated
that all pre-service teachers (N  5,243) rated
their preparedness as 3.3 and in-service teach-
ers (N  1,069) rated their preparedness as
3.24 on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from strongly agree (5) to neither agree nor
disagree (3) to strongly disagree (1).
Limitations
There are three limitations to this study. The
first limitation was the sample size. Twenty-
six participants (convenient sample) were
included in this study; therefore, the extent
of external validity is questionable. The
small sample size may lead to vulnerability to
other statistical applications such as correla-
tional analyses across the three measures used
in this study. Further research that includes a
larger sample population is needed for gener-
alizability. A second limitation of the study
was the use of the OAT as a measure to assess
the participants’ eighth-grade mathematical
content knowledge. The OAT was developed
as an instrument to assess 308 students’ con-
tent knowledge based on Ohio’s standards.
This measure was selected as part of this
study due to the absence of a valid and reli-
able measure pertaining to the attributes of
mathematics instruction. Because teachers
are responsible for providing mathematical
instruction that would prepare students for
success on standardized tests such as the
OAT-Mathematics, the Practice OAT pro-
vided a measure to assess teachers’
mathematical content knowledge. Further
research on the use of the OAT as a measure
to assess teacher’s content knowledge is
needed. A final limitation of the study was
the questionable validity and reliability of
the Likert-type scale and Belief and Confi-
dence Survey. Surveys tend to be weak on
112
validity and strong on reliability. Careful
wording, format, and content in the creation
of the Likert-type scale and survey were
intended to increase validity and reliability of
the instruments.
Implications
This study sought to add to the body of knowl-
edge in the field of mathematical instruction
for special education, however, results of this
study can also be applied to the body of
mathematical instruction for general educa-
tors. The OAT- Math Practice shows promise
as a possible measure of pre-service and in-
service teachers’ mathematical knowledge
for the content level and area they are respon-
sible to teach. Further research with a larger
population that includes both general and
special education in-service teachers is
needed to determine if there is a relationship
between the teachers’ mathematical knowl-
edge as measured by the OAT-Math Practice
and their students’ scores on the OAT Math
Test. The OAT-Math Practice may also serve
as a viable entrance exam for teacher prepa-
ration institutes as they admit individuals in
teaching licensure programs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of inter-
est with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Financial Disclosure/Funding
The authors received no financial support for
the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
AIR Technical Team. (2008). Validity evidence
based on internal structure: Examination of the
factor structure of the Ohio Achievement Tests.
Retrieved May 1, 2009, from http://www.ode
.state.oh.us
Barth, P. (2002). Add it up: Mathematics education
in the U.S. does not compute. Thinking K-16,
6(1), 11. Presented at the 12th Educational
Trust National Conference, Washington, DC.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
Teacher Education and Special Education 33(2)
Boe, E. E. (2006). Long term trends in the national
demand, supply, and shortage of special educa-
tion teachers. The Journal of Special Education,
40(3), 138-150.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences.
(2001). The mathematical education of teachers.
Providence, RI, and Washington, DC: American
Mathematical Society and Mathematical Asso-
ciation of America.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and
student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Seattle: University of Washington,
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J.
(Eds.). (2005). A good teacher in every class-
room: Preparing the highly qualified teachers
our children deserve. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.).
(2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world: What teachers should learn and be able
to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice
elementary teachers’ views of pedagogical and
mathematical content knowledge. Teaching &
Teacher Education, 12(4), 429-442.
Gilbertson, S., West, M., Zigler, T., Wahrman, J.
(2005). The Demand for Alternate Teacher
Licensing in Ohio. Data collected as part of
Ohio’s 5-year longitudinal Teacher Quality Part-
nership study. Ohio Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, Fall 2005.
Heritage, M., & Vendlinski, T. (2006). Measur-
ing teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Los
Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles,
National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Teaching.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005).
Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge
for teaching on student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Out-of-field teaching and
the limits of teacher policy: A research report.
Retrieved December 23, 2009, from http://www
.teaching-point.net/Out%20of%20Field%20
Teaching.pdf
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008).
Foundations for success: The final report of
Rosas and Campbell
the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Assessment of Educational Programs.
(2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathemat- ics,
Retrieved May 12, 2009, from http://nces
.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/
National Assessment of Educational Programs.
(2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathemat-
ics, Retrieved May 12, 2009, from http://nces
.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/
Teacher Quality Partnership. (2007 October). TQP
graduate survey progress report. Presented at
the spring Ohio Confederation of Teacher Orga-
nization Conference, Columbus, OH.
U.S. Census (2007). State and County Quick Facts:
Ohio. Retrieved May 12, 2009, from http://
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). State and
local implementation of the No Child Left
Behind Act, Volume II—Teacher quality under
NCLB: Interim report. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsec-
ondary Education. (2005). The secretary’s fourth
annual report on teacher quality: A highly qual-
ified teacher in every classroom. Washington,
DC: Author.
Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ char-
acteristics: Research on the indicators of qual-
ity. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.),
Studying teacher education: The report of the
AERA panel on research and teacher education
(pp. 157-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on June 4, 2015
113
Bios
Clarissa Rosas, PhD, is an Associate Professor
and the Director of the Graduate Multicultural Spe-
cial Education Program at the College of Mount
Saint Joseph, Cincinnati Ohio. She is an accom-
plished educator with a doctorate in Bilingual/
Multicultural Special Education. Dr. Rosas has a
strong background in general and special educa-
tion; English as a second language, bilingual
education, multicultural education, educational
leadership and online course delivery. Her exper-
tise includes developing innovative programs to
prepare preservice and inservice teachers to meet
the social and educational challenges of children
with special needs who come from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Lisa Campbell, EdD, provides consultation ser-
vices in the areas of curriculum, assessment, and
response to intervention at Hamilton County Edu-
cational Service Center, Cincinnati Ohio and is a
part time faculty at the College of Mount Saint
Joseph, Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Campbell has a doc-
torate in literacy education with an emphasis in
educational leadership. She has extensive experi-
ence in grades K-12 as a classroom teacher, lead
teacher, instructional coach, and curriculum spe-
cialist. Dr. Campbell designs and provides
professional development experiences for teachers
at a local, state, and regional level.