See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267790472

PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE RELATED TO BIG IDEAS IN MATHEMATICS – AN

EMPIRICAL STUDY WITH PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS

Article

CITATIONS READS

17 912

6 authors, including:

Sebastian Kuntze Stephen Lerman

Pädagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg London South Bank University
191 PUBLICATIONS   797 CITATIONS    98 PUBLICATIONS   2,937 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hans-Stefan Siller Peter Winbourne

University of Wuerzburg London South Bank University
96 PUBLICATIONS   329 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Data-based argumentation in primary school View project

Competence assessment in teacher education (EKoL) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hans-Stefan Siller on 19 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE RELATED TO BIG IDEAS
IN MATHEMATICS –
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY WITH PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS
Sebastian Kuntze1, Stephen Lerman2, Bernard Murphy3, Elke Kurz-Milcke1, Hans-
Stefan Siller4, Peter Winbourne2
1
Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany; 2London South Bank University;
3
Mathematics in Education and Industry, U.K.; 4University of Klagenfurt, Austria

Professional knowledge of mathematics teachers related to big ideas in mathematics

and mathematics instruction can enhance teachers’ competencies of designing rich
learning opportunities in the mathematics classroom. Responding to a need of
empirical research on professional knowledge connected with big ideas in
mathematics, this study presents results of a test administered to more than 100
German pre-service teachers. The results indicate that the pre-service teachers often
were unable to discern big ideas behind mathematical contents and to link elements
of content matter according to these big ideas. The results call for an emphasis in
teacher education not only on a solid content matter knowledge base, but also on
overarching concepts and meta-mathematical ideas.

INTRODUCTION
There is a consensus that designing rich learning opportunities in the mathematics
classroom can be supported by an emphasis on big ideas associated with mathematics
and mathematics instruction. Awareness of such big ideas requires professional
knowledge of teachers, especially in the areas of content knowledge (CK) and
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). However, empirical research on professional
knowledge connected with big ideas in mathematics is scarce, even though evidence
is needed, e. g. for designing teacher education programs on an empirical base.
Consequently, this study concentrates on components of professional knowledge
linked to big ideas. A test and questionnaire instrument has been developed in the
EU-funded teacher education and research project ABCmaths (“Awareness of Big
Ideas in Mathematics Classrooms”) for this purpose and has been used in a first
approach to assess the knowledge of 117 pre-service teachers. The results show that
the pre-service teachers were often not able to link mathematical contents according
to selected big ideas and to communicate about these ideas. There is hence a need of
supporting reflective competencies of teachers with respect to mathematics-related
overarching concepts like big ideas.
In the following first section we give an overview on the theoretical background,
presenting both a working definition of big ideas and an outline of the theoretical
model of professional knowledge components used in this study. The second section
leads to the research interest of the study. After having given information about
research design and sample in the third section, we report on results in the fourth
section of this paper. The fifth section concludes with a short discussion of the
evidence and of its implications.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Big ideas related to mathematics and mathematics instruction
Providing rich learning opportunities in the mathematics classroom is essential for
instructional quality and the development of competencies of students. Many
researchers have emphasised the role of overarching concepts or fundamental ideas in
mathematics and its teaching and learning for creating conceptually rich learning
opportunities (e.g. Schweiger, 1992, 2006; Bishop, 1988). Supporting these goals, the
aims of national standards in many countries (e.g. Office of Qualifications and
Examinations Regulation, 2002; KMK, 2003; NCTM, 2000) can be associated with
such implicitly shared underlying “big ideas”. According to the working definition of
big ideas in the teacher education project ABCmaths, big ideas associated with
mathematics in the classroom anchor, link and constitute mathematical knowledge in
contexts (within maths, the curriculum and/or beyond maths) and foster making sense
of and communicating this knowledge in a more general way. Following a pragmatic
approach, which aims above all at encouraging teachers’ reflection on overarching
concepts in mathematics and on their potential for learning, four important aspects
have been collected that may help to identify big ideas (ABCmaths team, in
preparation). Big ideas can be characterised as:
• Ideas that should have a high mathematics-related potential of encouraging
learning with understanding of conceptual knowledge (including orientation,
linking and anchoring of knowledge)
• Ideas that should have a high relevance for building up meta-knowledge about
mathematics as a science (adapted to the target group of learners) including
knowledge necessary for interdisciplinary comparisons
• Ideas that should support abilities of communicating meaningfully about
mathematics and providing mathematics-related arguments
• Ideas that should also encourage reflection processes of teachers connected
with designing rich and cognitively activating learning opportunities as well as
with accompanying and supporting learning processes of students.
These aspects can be seen as a pragmatic answer to a partly divergent discussion of
multiple approaches in the area of big ideas: In the German-speaking discussion for
example, the diversity of the notions of “fundamental ideas” (e.g. Schweiger, 1982,
2006), “central ideas” (Schreiber, 1983), “universal ideas” (Schreiber, 1983), “core
ideas” (Gallin & Ruf, 1993), “leading ideas” (e.g. Vollrath, 1978) and “basic
ideas/basic conceptions” (“Grundvorstellungen”, e.g. v. Hofe, 1995) give a
heterogeneous picture and call for an integrative and sufficiently open perspective
like suggested by the criteria given above.
Three examples of big ideas are the following:
• Using multiple representations: This big idea reflects strategies used and
required in many mathematical domains that have to do with the use of
different ways of representing mathematical facts or concepts as well as with
changing representations and linking them.
• Giving arguments/proving: Mathematics as a science can be characterised by
the forms of argumentation and proof used in this discipline (cf. Heinze &
Reiss, 2003). As a consequence, argumentation plays an important role in all
domains of mathematics.
• Dealing with infinity: This big idea highlights the significance of exploring
phenomena linked with infinity in mathematics, strategies of maintaining
generality in thoughts in order to include an arbitrary, often infinite number of
cases as well as patterns and structures that bear infinity often in themselves.
Big ideas associated with pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) support teachers
when designing rich conceptual learning opportunities for encouraging mathematical
thinking. More detailed considerations about these big ideas and examples are
provided in (ABCmaths team, in preparation). The big ideas “using multiple
representations” and “giving arguments/proving” appear both in the domains of CK,
i.e. as mathematics-related big ideas, and PCK.
Professional knowledge related to big ideas
Professional knowledge about big ideas is not only “horizon knowledge” (Ball,
Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Ball & Bass, 2009) – it has strong links to different areas of
CK and PCK (Shulman, 1986). For
example, using multiple representations
requires CK in various domains. This can
be seen e.g. when looking at a sample
task published by the group of D. Ball
(s. Ball & Bass, 2009) which relates to
professional knowledge about the idea of
multiple representations, clearly requires
CK and which focuses on knowledge
relevant for teaching in the mathematics
classroom (Figure 1). Fig. 1: Sample item in Ball & Bass (2009)
Hence, knowledge about big ideas is central for many components of professional
knowledge and potentially links different components. For this reason, the teachers’
awareness of big ideas in mathematics and mathematics instruction appears to be
crucial not only for designing learning opportunities, but also for the ongoing
professional learning of teachers.
As a base of reference for this study, we refer to a framework for the description of
components of professional knowledge (shown in Figure 2) that includes instruction-
related views held by individual mathematics teachers (Kuntze, submitted; Kuntze &
Kurz-Milcke, 2010). This model of professional knowledge integrates the spectrum
between knowledge on the one hand and convictions/beliefs on the other, because a
dichotomous theoretical distinction between knowledge and beliefs is impossible (cf.
Pajares, 1992). Hence, both are considered as being contained in the notion of
professional knowledge. The distinction between different domains of professional
knowledge as suggested by Shulman (1986) appears in the vertical columns (see Ball,
Thames, & Phelps, 2008, for the possibility of further refinement into domains).
Taking into account that individual professional knowledge is often organised in an
episodic structure (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Bromme, 1992), we consider
furthermore different levels of globality (Törner, 2002; Lerman, 1990; Kuntze &
Reiss, 2005). Besides global components of professional teacher knowledge, e.g., a
general cognitive constructivist view of mathematics teaching and learning (Staub &
Stern, 2002), content domain-related components are considered relevant, e.g., views
linked with content domains like geometry or decimals. Further, studies by Biza,
Nardi and Zachariades (2007) as well as by Kuntze (accepted) focus on views of
teachers related to concrete tasks, hence are specific to a particular content. Finally,
views of teachers concerning (videotaped) instructional situations have also been
included in empirical studies (e.g. Lerman, 1990; Kuntze & Reiss, 2005).
Professional knowledge related to big ideas is relevant for different levels of
globality, as they are important for mathematics and mathematics instruction as a
whole but also relevant for many specific contents and instructional situations.
„knowledge“ (declarative and procedural)
convictions / beliefs

general / global

content domain-specific

related to particular content

related to a specific
instructional situation
pedagogical knowledge
(cf. Törner 2002; fourth level of
situation-specific components of pedagogical content knowledge
professional knowledge added) content matter knowledge
curricular knowledge (Shulman 1986; Bromme 1992)

Figure 2: Model for components of professional knowledge (Kuntze, submitted)

Together these components of professional knowledge are likely to influence
instruction and hence learning opportunities for students in mathematics classrooms.
Thus, evidence about teachers’ professional knowledge can help to design teacher
education programmes with the aim of helping teachers to improve their teaching.

RESEARCH INTEREST
Against this theoretical background, the project ABCmaths (“Awareness of Big Ideas
in Mathematics Classrooms”, www.abcmaths.net) aims at investigating professional
knowledge of mathematics teachers related to big ideas as those introduced above and
at its further development through both pre-service and in-service teacher
professionalisation programmes at the level of CK and PCK. For this purpose it is
necessary to explore the status quo of professional knowledge in this area in so-called
analysis of needs studies. Moreover, new test and questionnaire instruments had to be
developed and piloted.
This paper presents an analysis of needs study with pre-service teachers. Further
research in ABCmaths will include in-service teachers and evaluation research on
effects of teacher professionalisation programmes. In order to get insights into the
professional knowledge of pre-service teachers, we focus on the three mathematics-
related big ideas introduced above, namely “using multiple representations”, “giving
arguments/proving”, and “dealing with infinity”. At later stages of ABCmaths, the
research will be extended to further big ideas. Hence, this study aims at providing
evidence for the following research question: What professional knowledge related to
the big ideas “using multiple representations”, “giving arguments/proving” and
“dealing with infinity” do German pre-service teachers have?
More explicitly, the study focuses on professional knowledge about big ideas related
to linking contents and examples of subject matter with big ideas, as well as
analysing them against the background of specific big ideas. This component of
professional knowledge is likely to play a key role for competencies of designing rich
learning opportunities in the classroom and it requires also mathematics-related meta-
knowledge about specific big ideas.

SAMPLE AND METHODS

In order to find out about the research question above, a test was administered to 117
German pre-service teachers (78 female, 35 male, 4 without data) before the
beginning of a university course. The pre-service teachers had a mean age of 22.33
years (SD = 3.56 years) and had been studying on average for 2.19 semesters
(SD = 1.12). 61 pre-service teachers were preparing for being teachers in primary
schools, 35 in secondary schools for lower-attaining students, and 15 for working in
schools for students with special needs.
Corresponding to the aspects emphasised in the previous section, the test focused
especially on analysing contents and perceiving links across contents according to big
ideas. The test instrument concentrated on the ideas, “dealing with infinity”, “giving
arguments/proving”, and “using multiple representations”.
A sample task related to the idea “using multiple representations” is shown in Figure
3. In this task, the pre-service teachers were given an example of two representations
of the definition of square numbers and asked to give other examples of mathematical
contents where definitions can be based on different representations.

On the right, there is a graphical representation of the

definition of “square number”. This representation
affords an additional access compared to the symbolic
definition (“if q=n2 for a positive integer n, the q is called
a square number”).
Can you think of other mathematical concepts, for which
a symbolic definition can complement with a non- „A number that can be
symbolic representation in a similar way? visualised like shown
here in the form of a
Please give as many examples as possible. square is called a square
number.“

Figure 3: Sample task related to the idea “multiple representations” (task 6)

The answers of the pre-service teachers were collected in an open format. There were
two tasks related to the big idea of “dealing with infinity”, and three tasks for the
ideas “using multiple representations” and “giving arguments/proving”, respectively.
The pre-service teachers were given as much time as they liked to devote to
answering the test.
For gaining an overview of the quality of the answers of the 117 pre-service teachers,
a top-down coding method was used. The coding categories concentrated on the
aspects of existence of a codable answer, the quality and transfer level related to the
examples provided, and the embedding of these examples. For an easier
understanding, more details about the codes are reported together with the
corresponding results in the following section.

RESULTS
In order to get an overview of the number of codably answered tasks, an initial
coding assigned the answers to the categories “no answer given to the task”,
“irrelevant answer given, i.e. no detectable semantic relationship between answer and
the task” and “codable answer with respect to quality codes”. The frequencies of
codes for this initial coding are displayed in Figure 4. An over-all observation is that
the frequencies of codable answers were low: For almost all tasks, more than a third
up to about two thirds of the pre-service teachers could not give an answer at all.
For task 6, which is the sample task given in Figure 3, we give a more detailed
picture of the findings, in order to provide more in-depth information about the
professional knowledge of the pre-service teachers.
 no answer given
80 irrelevant answer, no relationship can be detected between task and answer
70 codable answer
60

50
40
30

20
10

0
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8

Dealing w ith infinity Giving arguments/proving Using multiple representations

Figure 4: Frequencies of answers to tasks

In the task, the participants were asked to provide other examples related to multiple
representations. In a corresponding coding of the quality of these examples provided,
65.8% of the answers were classified in the code “no example given”, 17.1% of the
answers were coded as “ ‘peripheral’ relationship of example with big idea visible,
but substantial gaps or disruptions / inadequate character of the example given” (an
example of an answer classified in this code is presented in Fig. 4), 10.3% of the pre-
service teachers gave one adequate example, 6.0% provided two adequate examples
and 0,9% gave more than two adequate examples.
An additional coding relating to the quality of the answers focused on their transfer
level. As an example was given in the task, the coding distinguished whether the pre-
service teachers gave adequate examples in other content domains which were not
‘close’ to the given example – an indicator whether teachers are able to link contents
according to big ideas across content domains. In case of more than one example
provided in the answer, the highest category was coded. Out of the 17.2% of answers
with at least one adequate example, a majority of 89.5% gave at least one adequate
example from another content domain, which is 15.4% of all pre-service teachers.
Finally, the level of embedding or argumentation linked with the examples given was
coded for the 17.2% of answers with at least one adequate example. Out of these
answers, 55% did not have any embedding or reflecting comments on the examples
provided, whereas in the remaining 45% of the answers, embedding comments for the
examples were given. The category of “adequate argumentational embeddings/
justifications/analysing comments e.g. about how the example fits to the big idea”
turned out to be hypothetical for this sample of pre-service teachers, as 0% of the
answers fulfilled this criterion.
Figure 5 shows some sample answers. The first answer was coded as an appropriate
example close to the given example, as the given example is just modified. In the
second example, possibilities of representing fractions graphically or as partitions of
a cake are used as an example,
which was still coded as an
appropriate example, even though
the example seems neither
completely developed, nor linked or
embedded by explanatory terms.
The last answer in Figure 5 was
coded not to be an appropriate
answer, because the representations “The same example in three dimensions”
can not replace each other but one
“Fractions, e.g. slices of a cake, a football ground etc.
might be used as an illustration or
(1 cake for 4 persons)”
specification only, even if a correct
and complete diagram of the
geometrical situation had been
given. Beyond the findings related
“Pythagorean theorem”
to the coding, all examples are
relatively short and seem not to
correspond to high skills of mathe-
matics-related communication. Figure 5: Sample answers

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that pre-service teachers were not able to give a lot of examples
for mathematical contents linked to the big ideas considered in the test instrument. As
answers referring to relatively simple mathematical contents were possible, this can
be interpreted as a lack of awareness of big ideas in the professional knowledge of the
pre-service teachers.
The results seem to suggest that the tasks were too difficult for the pre-service
teachers. Indeed, the tasks were also designed to be used with in-service teachers,
which raises research questions about the role of instructional experience for
professional knowledge related to big ideas. However, from a theoretical viewpoint,
the tasks focus on knowledge that teachers really should have – ideally already as a
consequence of their school mathematics experience, which should have provided
them with a base of examples and networking knowledge linking these contents to
ideas. The results however indicate that there is a need for professional development
in this area, potentially both for a content knowledge base of examples and
networking skills or reflection knowledge related to big ideas that can organise
knowledge and help to develop rich learning opportunities.
Further attention should be devoted to research questions concerning the knowledge
of in-service teachers, possibilities of developing professional knowledge by teacher
education programs, extensions to other big ideas, and the role of culture.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project ABCmaths is funded with support from the European Commission (503215-LLP-1-
2009-1-DE-COMENIUS-CMP). This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
We acknowledge the contribution of Martin Rauscher, who has been working in the project
ABCmaths as a student assistant and who has helped in the coding process of the data presented in
this paper. Moreover, we acknowledge the cooperation of Karl-Josef Fuchs, Anke Wagner, Claudia
Wörn, Christiane Vogl, and Michael Schneider who collaborate in the ACBmaths project team.

REFERENCES
Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2009). With an Eye on the Mathematical Horizon:
Knowing Mathematics for Teaching to Learners’ Mathematical Futures.
[keynote address at the 43rd Jahrestagung für Didaktik der Mathematik held in
Oldenburg, Germany, March 1 – 4, 2009, http://www-personal.umich.edu/
~dball/presentations/032309_oldenburg.pdf].
Ball, D., Thames, L., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching:
What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematics education in its cultural context.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19, 179–191.
Biza, I., Nardi, E., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using Tasks to Explore Teacher
Knowledge in Situation-Specific Contexts. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 10, 301-309.
Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Zur Psychologie des
professionellen Wissens. [The teacher as an expert. On the psychology of
professional knowledge]. Bern: Huber.
Gallin, P., & Ruf, U. (1993). Sprache und Mathematik in der Schule. Ein
Bericht aus der Praxis. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 12(1), 3-33.
Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2003). Reasoning and Proof: Methodological
Knowledge as a Component of Proof Competence. Proceedings of CERME 3,
Bellaria, Italy. [www.lettredelapreuve.it/CERME3Papers/Heinze-paper1.pdf]
v. Hofe, R. (1995). Grundvorstellungen mathematischer Inhalte. Heidelberg
Berlin Oxford: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK). (2003). Bildungsstandards im Fach
Mathematik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. [http://www.kmk.org/].
Kuntze, S. (accepted). In-service and prospective teachers’ views about
modelling tasks in the mathematics classroom – Results of a quantitative
empirical study. [Proceedings book of ICTMA 14].
 Kuntze, S., & Reiss, K. (2005). Situation-specific and generalized components
of professional knowledge of mathematics teachers. In H. L. Chick & J. L.
Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psych.
of Mathematics Education (PME), Vol. 3 (pp. 225-232). Melbourne: PME.
Kuntze, S., & Kurz-Milcke, E. (2010). Content domain-related and task-
specific views of mathematics teachers in the area of statistics. In Pinto, F.M.
& Kawasaki, T.F. (Eds.), Proc. of the 34th Conf. of the Int. Group for the
Psych. of Math. Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 193-200) Belo Horizonte, Brazil: PME.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78, 75-95.
Lerman, S. (1990). Alternative perspectives of the nature of mathematics and
their influence on the teaching of mathematics. British Educational Research
Journal, 16 (1), 53-61.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (Ed.). (2000).
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (2002). GCE Adv. Subs.
(AS) / Adv. (A) Level Specifications. Subject Criteria for Mathematics.
[http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/2002-12-gce-maths-subject-criteria.pdf].
Pajares, F.M. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning
Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Schreiber, A. (1983). Bemerkungen zur Rolle universeller Ideen im
mathematischen Denken. Mathematica didactica, 6, 65-76.
Schweiger, F. (1992). Fundamentale Ideen. Eine geistesgeschichtliche Studie
zur Mathematikdidaktik. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 13, 199-214.
Schweiger, F. (2006). Fundamental Ideas: A Bridge between Mathematics and
Mathematical Education. In J. Maaß & W. Schlöglmann (Eds.), New Math.
Educ. Research and Practice (pp. 63–73). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Staub, F., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teacher’s pedagogical content
beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: quasi-experimental evidence
from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educ. Psychology, 94 (2), 344-355.
Törner, G. (2002). Mathematical Beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G.
Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education? (pp. 73-
94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Vollrath, H.-J. (1978). Rettet die Ideen! MNU, 31(8), 449–455.

View publication stats