SHUHUA AN, GERALD KULM and ZHONGHE WU

THE PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE OF MIDDLE

SCHOOL, MATHEMATICS TEACHERS IN CHINA AND THE U.S.

ABSTRACT. This study compared the pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics

in U.S. and Chinese middle schools. The results of this comparative study indicated
that mathematics teachers pedagogical content knowledge in the two countries differs
markedly, which has a deep impact on teaching practice. The Chinese teachers empha-
sized developing procedural and conceptual knowledge through reliance on traditional,
more rigid practices, which have proven their value for teaching mathematics content. The
United States teachers emphasized a variety of activities designed to promote creativity
and inquiry in attempting to develop students understanding of mathematical concepts.
Both approaches have benefits and limitations. The practices of teachers in each country
may be partially adapted to help overcome deficiencies in the other.

KEY WORDS: pedagogical content knowledge, mathematics teaching, students

cognition, teachers knowledge, unit fraction

During the past several decades, there has been increased attention to
comparative studies in mathematics education, especially with respect to
the movement of reforming mathematics education in the beginning of
the 21st Century. According to Robitaille and Travers (1992), compar-
ative study provides opportunities for sharing, discussing, and debating
important issues in an international context. Stigler and Perry (1988)
observe:

Cross-cultural comparison also leads researchers and educators to a more explicit under-
standing of their own implicit theories about how children learn mathematics. Without
comparison, teachers tend not to question their own traditional teaching practices and are
not aware of the better choices in constructing the teaching process (p. 199).

In 1996, U.S. eighth and twelfth graders scored below average in math-
ematics when compared with other countries in the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessment (Silver, 1998). In
1999, U.S. eighth-grade students scored slightly above the international
average in mathematics and science performance according to the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R) when
compared with students in 37 participating nations. This report indicated
that there has been improvement in the U.S. in mathematics education.
However, to compete globally and achieve a top rank internationally,

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 7: 145172, 2004.

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
146 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

mathematics education in the U.S. would benefit from continuing to

examine international mathematics education practices and research.
Teachers and teaching are found to be one of the major factors related
to students achievement in TIMSS and other studies. According to the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000), Effective teaching
requires knowing and understanding mathematics, students as learners,
and pedagogical strategies (p. 17). In an era of globalization and infor-
mation, teachers knowledge in mathematics is becoming more complex
and dynamic (Fennema & Franke, 1992). New aspects of teaching, such
as knowledge of technology, must be mastered. However, the balance and
integration of pedagogy and content knowledge, referred to as pedagogical
content knowledge (Shulman, 1987; Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman,
1995), should be the most important element in the domain of mathematics
teachers knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge addresses how to
teach mathematics content and how to understand students thinking. This
includes, taking into consideration both the cultural background of the
students as well as their preferences for various teaching and learning
styles. The purpose of this study was to examine the differences between
China and the United States of teachers pedagogical content knowledge
in mathematics at the middle school level.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Shulmans Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

According to a Chinese saying, if you want to give the students one cup
of water, you (the teacher) should have one bucket of water of your own.
Shulman (1985) believes that to be a teacher requires extensive and highly
organized bodies of knowledge (p. 47). Elbaz (1983) has the same view,
the single factor which seems to have the greatest power to carry forward
our understanding of the teachers role is the phenomenon of teachers
knowledge (p. 45).
Shulman (1987) has stated further that pedagogical content knowledge
includes knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of
educational contexts, knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values,
and their philosophical and historical bases. Pedagogical content knowl-
edge refers to the ability of the teacher to transform content into forms that
are pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability
and background presented by the students (Shulman, 1987, p. 15). The
Network of Pedagogical Content Knowledge In the current study, pedago-
gical content knowledge is defined as the knowledge of effective teaching
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 147

which includes three components, knowledge of content, knowledge of

curriculum and knowledge of teaching. This is broader than Shulmans
original designation. Knowledge of content consists of broad mathematics
knowledge as well as specific mathematics content knowledge at the
grade level being taught. Knowledge of curriculum includes selecting and
using suitable curriculum materials, fully understanding the goals and key
ideas of textbooks and curricula (NCTM, 2000). Knowledge of teaching
consists of knowing students thinking, preparing instruction, and mastery
of modes of delivering instruction.
Although all three parts of pedagogical content knowledge are very
important to effective teaching, the core component of pedagogical content
knowledge is knowledge of teaching. Figure 1 suggests the interactive
relationship among the three components and shows that knowledge of
teaching can be enhanced by content and curriculum knowledge.

Figure 1. The network of pedagogical content knowledge.

148 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

Mas study (1999) calls for teachers to have profound understanding

of fundamental mathematics. However, as indicated in Figure 1, profound
content knowledge alone is not sufficient for effective teaching. An
effective teacher must also possess a deep and broad knowledge of
teaching and curriculum or profound pedagogical content knowledge. With
this knowledge, teachers are able to connect their knowledge of content,
curriculum, and teaching in a supportive network. In this network, three
types of knowledge interact with each other and are able to make trans-
formations from one form to another around the central task of teaching.
Ultimately, these components together address the goal of enhancing
students learning. As shown in Figure 1, this network of knowledge is
impacted by teachers beliefs. Ernest (1989) and Fennema and Franke
(1992) also reveal the importance and impact of teachers beliefs on their
knowledge. Different educational belief systems produce different attrib-
utes of pedagogical content knowledge. In turn, profound pedagogical
content knowledge plays an important role in shaping teachers beliefs and
in determining the effectiveness of their mathematics teaching (An, Kulm,
Wu, Ma & Wang, 2002).
Teaching can be seen as either a divergent or a convergent process. A
divergent process of teaching is one that is based on content and curriculum
knowledge but is without focus and ignores students mathematical
thinking. A convergent process of teaching focuses on knowing students
thinking, which consists of four aspects: building on students mathe-
matical ideas, addressing students misconceptions, engaging students in
mathematics learning, and promoting students thinking mathematically.
Together, these four aspects of convergent teaching comprise the notion of
teaching with understanding, which is an essential to effective teaching
(Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999). Under a convergent process, students, not
textbooks and curriculum, are the center of teaching. Throughout the
convergent teaching process, an effective teacher attends to students
mathematical thinking: preparing instruction according to students needs,
delivering instruction consistent with students levels of understanding,
addressing students misconceptions with specific strategies, engaging
students in activities and problems that focus on important mathematical
ideas, and providing opportunities for students to revise and extend their
mathematical ideas (Kulm, Capraro, Capraro, Burghardt & Ford, 2001).
There are two kinds of teaching beliefs regarding students learning:
learning as knowing and learning as understanding. A teacher who holds
the belief of learning as knowing often assumes that mathematics is learned
and understood if a concept or skill is taught. This type of learning usually
is achieved at a surface level. Teachers are often satisfied with students
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 149

knowing or remembering facts and skills but are not aware of students
thinking or misconceptions about mathematics. This divergent teaching
process often results in fragmented and disconnected knowledge.
A teacher who holds the belief of learning as understanding realizes
that knowing is not sufficient and that understanding is achieved at the
level of internalizing knowledge by connecting prior knowledge through
a convergent process. In this process, the teacher does not only focus
on conceptual understanding and procedural development, making sure
students that comprehend and are able to apply the concepts and skills, but
also consistently inquires about students thinking. Teachers who use this
convergent process develop systematic and effective ways to identify and
develop their students thinking. These ideas are summarized in Figure 2,
showing that with profound knowledge of students thinking, teachers can
enhance students learning substantially, leading to content mastery.

Figure 2. Two types of learning.

Although there has been some research comparing Chinese and U.

S mathematics teachers content knowledge (e.g., Ma, 1999), there has
been very little research comparing their profound pedagogical content
knowledge. Mas work (1999) focuses on comparing elementary teachers
content knowledge, without fully accounting for cultural contexts, goals
and teacher beliefs. Her study documented that Chinese teachers with
more mathematical training seemed to know more than U.S. mathematics
teachers. Many of Mas examples did provide indications about how
teachers apply their mathematics knowledge in teaching, but stopped short
of a systematic study of how mathematical and pedagogical knowledge
was integrated with knowledge of students thinking.
The current study focuses on the middle-school level, addresses mathe-
matics teachers pedagogical content knowledge within a cultural context,
and explores how this knowledge is used by teachers to understand and
develop students mathematical thinking. The question that provided the
150 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

focus for this study was: What are the differences in teachers profound
pedagogical content knowledge between middle school mathematics
teachers in China and the United States?

METHODOLOGY

Subjects
The subjects were 28 mathematics teachers in fifth- to eighth-grade levels
from 12 schools in four school districts in a large metropolitan area in
Texas and 33 mathematics teachers in fifth- and sixth-grade levels from 22
schools in four school districts in a large city in Jiangsu province in eastern
China. In order to examine the teachers profound pedagogical content
knowledge at the middle school level (particularly in the area of fraction,
ratio, and proportion), this study included U.S. teachers from fifth to eighth
grade, because U.S. mathematics curricula in these grades are similar to
those in fifth and sixth in China.1
Criteria for inclusion of teacher volunteers in the study were: (1) current
teaching of mathematics in fifth to eighth grades; (2) teaching in school
districts that have characteristics typical of each nations public schools
with respect to the students ethnic, economic, and cultural diversity; (3)
having at least three years of teaching experience at the fifth to eighth
grade levels; and (4) willing to provide the data relevant to the reliability
and validity of this study, including classroom observations and interviews.
The U.S. teachers all had bachelors degrees; three had masters
degrees. They had an average of 24 hours of mathematics course work
and an average of 13 years teaching experience. Only one participant
taught fifth-grade mathematics, 14 of them taught sixth grade, 7 were
seventh-grade teachers, and 6 were eighth-grade teachers. It should be
noted that the U.S. teachers who participated in this study only teach
mathematics. All of the Chinese teachers had three-year education degrees
at Normal schools after ninth grade; 23 also had three-year university
degrees, including 10 who majored in fields other than mathematics. The
average number of hours in mathematics courses for the Chinese teachers
was 15. For example, with a three-year degree at university, a teacher
had calculus, modern algebra, elementary mathematics methods, history of
elementary mathematics education, and Olympic elementary mathematics.
Their average length of teaching experience was 9 years. Six of them were
fifth-grade teachers, and 28 taught sixth grade. As in the case of the U.S.
teachers, all Chinese teachers in this study only taught mathematics.
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 151

The U.S. schools were located in both urban and suburban areas and
the school populations ranged from 800 to 1300 students. The ethnic
composition of the schools was similar and, on average, consisted of 30%
African American, 27% Caucasian, 27% Hispanic and 16% Asian. Schools
in China were located in urban areas and the number of students in each
school ranged from 1000 to 1200. All students were from the same ethnic
group.

Procedures
Data were collected with an author-constructed Mathematics Teaching
Questionnaire, an author-constructed Teachers Beliefs about Mathematics
Teaching and Learning Questionnaire, and interviews and observations
with selected teachers. Both questionnaires were prepared first in English,
and then translated into Chinese. This article will focus on an analysis of
the Mathematics Teaching Questionnaire.

Mathematics Teaching Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of four problems that were designed to
examine teachers profound pedagogical content knowledge in topics
of fractions, ratios, and proportion (see Figure 3). Each of the four
problems focused on one aspect of teachers knowledge of students
cognition, with attention to assessing teachers knowledge and strategies
for, namely, building on students mathematics ideas, identifying and
correcting students misconceptions, engaging students in learning, and
promoting student thinking.

Classroom Observations
After reviewing and analyzing the responses to the questionnaires, five
teachers from each country were selected for observation to confirm
that their teaching matched their responses on the questionnaire. They
were chosen so as to represent a range of education background, length
of teaching experience, and level of responses to the questionnaires
for classroom observations. The observations were conducted at a pre-
arranged date and time. Field notes and audiotape recordings were made
during the classroom observations using an Instructional Criteria Observa-
tion Checklist that was constructed as a guide. The Checklist was adapted
from criteria used for analyzing the instructional quality of mathematics
textbooks (AAAS, 2000). The observation criteria included specific activ-
ities in the categories: building on student ideas in mathematics, being
alert to students ideas, identifying student ideas, addressing misconcep-
tions, engaging students in mathematics, providing first-hand experiences,
152 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

Mathematics Teaching Questionnaire

Problem 1
Adam is a 10-year-old student in 5th grade a. What prerequisite knowledge might Adam not under-
who has average ability. His grade on the last stand or be forgetting?
test was an 82 percent. Look at Adams written b. What questions or tasks would you ask Adam, in order
work for these problems: to determine what he understands about the meaning of
fraction addition?
3 4 7 1 1 2 c. What real world example of fractions is Adam likely to
+ = 2 +1 =3
4 5 9 2 2 5 be familiar with that you could use to help him?

Problem 2
A fifth-grade teacher asked her students to a. What might each of the students be thinking?
write the following three numbers in order b. What question would you ask Latoya to find out if your
from smallest to largest: opinion of her thinking is correct?
c. How would you correct Roberts misconception about
3 1 2 comparing the size of fractions?
, ,
8 4 3
Latoya, Robert, and Sandra placed them
in order as the follows.

Latoya:
1 2 3
, ,
4 3 8
Robert:
2 1 3
, ,
3 4 8
Sandra:
1 3 2
, ,
4 8 3
Problem 3
You are planning to teach procedures for doing a. Describe an introductory activity that would engage and
the following type of fraction multiplication. motivate your students to learn this procedure.
b. Multiplication can be represented by repeated addition,
by area, or by combinations.
Which one of these representations would you use to
illustrate fraction multiplication to your students? Why?
c. Describe an activity that would help your students under-
stand the procedure of multiplying fractions.

Problem 4
Your students are trying to solve the following a. Describe an activity that you would use to determine
proportion problem: the types of solution strategies your students have used
The ratio of girls to boys in Math club is 3:5. to solve the problem. Here are two students solutions
If there are 40 students in the Math club, how to the problem:
many are boys?
Junes solution:
3 x
=
5 40
There are 24 girls, so there 16 boys.
Kathys solution:
3 x
=
8 40
There are 15 boys.
b. What question would you ask Kathy to determine if she
could justify her answer and reasoning?
c. What suggestion would you provide to June that might
help her correct her approach?
d. What strategy would you use to encourage your students
to reflect on their answers and solutions?

Figure 3. Mathematics teaching questionnaire.

 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 153

promoting student thinking about mathematics, guiding interpretation and

reasoning, and encouraging students to think about what they had learned.

Interviews
After each observation, an interview was conducted using a set of interview
questions. The objective of the interviews was to examine teachers beliefs
about the goals of mathematics education and the impact of their beliefs on
their teaching practices, to investigate the teaching approaches they use in
the classrooms, to learn how the teachers prepare for instruction and how
they determine their students thinking. The interview questions explored
further the teachers pedagogical content knowledge and its importance in
their teaching.

Data Analysis
Questionnaire
A constant comparative data analysis method was used in the analysis of
the Mathematics Teaching Questionnaire. In all, 18 different categories
were identified which included the responses to the four problems. The
responses were categorized into groups and assigned a descriptive code.
Two researchers used the resulting codes to analyze the responses inde-
pendently. Both sets of codes were compared, and then, through discussion
with the third researcher, the disparities were reconciled to reach valu-
able agreements on the responses. Table I lists the categories and their
definitions. In Table II, the 18 categories are grouped according to the
four components of pedagogical content knowledge in the conceptual
framework.

Interviews and Observations

Transcriptions were made of the interviews. The transcriptions were coded
using the 18 response categories and the four components of pedagogical
content knowledge. The responses to interview questions and the field
notes and checklists from the observations were also analyzed through the
use of concept mapping to clarify key teacher ideas and beliefs. These
data confirmed that the teachers responses to the Mathematics Teaching
Questionnaire were consistent with their actual classroom practices and
their knowledge and beliefs about effective teaching.

RESULTS

The responses of the U.S. and Chinese teachers to the Mathematics

Teaching Questionnaire are presented in Table III, based on the 18
154 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

TABLE I
Categories for Describing Teachers Responses to Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Questions

Category Brief definition

1. Prior knowledge: Know students prior knowledge and connect it to new

knowledge.
2. Concept or definition: Use concept or definition to promote under-
standing.
3. Rule and procedure: Focus on rule and procedure to reinforce the knowl-
edge.
4. Draw picture or table: Use picture or table to show a mathematical idea.
5. Give example: Address a mathematical idea through examples.
6. Estimation: Solve problems using estimation.
7. Connect to concrete model: Use concrete model to demonstrate mathema-
tical idea.
8. Students who do not understand prior knowledge: Students lack in
understanding of prior knowledge.
9. Provide students opportunity to think and respond: Promote students to
think problems and give them chances to answer questions.
10. Manipulative activity: Provide hands-on activities for students to learn
mathematics.
11. Attempts to address students misconceptions: Identify students miscon-
ceptions.
12. Use questions or tasks to correct misconceptions: Pose questions or
provide activities to correct misconceptions.
13. Use questions or tasks to help students progress in their ideas: Pose
questions or provide activities to increase the level of understanding for
students.
14. Provide activities and examples that focus on student thinking: Create
activities and examples that encourage students to ponder questions.
15. Use one representation to illustrate concepts: Apply repeated addition to
address the meaning of fraction multiplication, or use area to address the
geometrical meaning of fraction multiplication.
16. Use both representations to illustrate fraction multiplication: Apply both
repeated addition and area to address the meaning of fraction multiplica-
tion.
17. Unintelligible response: Provide response that is not relevant to the
question.
18. Incorrect: Provide a wrong answer.
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 155
TABLE II
Categories for Describing Four Aspects of Teaching to Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Questions

Pedagogical content Essential components Category

knowledge Number

Building on students 1. Connect to prior knowledge 1,8

math ideas 2. Use concept or definition 2
3. Connect to concrete model 7
4. Use rule and procedure 3

Addressing students 1. Address students misconceptions 11

misconceptions 2. Use questions or tasks to correct misconceptions 12
3. Use rule and procedure 3
4. Draw picture or table 4
5. Connect to concrete model 7

Engaging students 1. Manipulative activity 10

in math learning 2. Connect to concrete model 7
3. Use one representation (area) 15
4. Use both representations (area & repeated 16
addition)
5. Give example 5
6. Connection to prior knowledge 1

Promoting students 1. Provide activities to focus on students thinking 14

thinking about 2. Use questions or tasks to help students progress 13
in their ideas
mathematics 3. Use Estimation 6
4. Draw picture or table 4
5. Provide opportunity to think and respond 9

categories and four components of pedagogical content knowledge. Since

each teachers responses could be coded into more than one of the 18
categories, the resulting total percentage is greater than 100 for each
problem.
On the one hand, the results show that both groups of teachers have
extensive and broad pedagogical content knowledge and are able to apply
various methods to help students learn mathematics. However, there are
some important differences in each of the four components of teaching
156 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

TABLE III
Percentage of U.S. and Chinese Teachers for Each Category of Response to Problem 1
to 4

Pedagogical content Essential components Problem Category US China

knowledge number number % %

Building on students 1. Connect to prior knowledge

math ideas Forget prior knowledge 1.a 1 46 27
Does not understand prior 1.a 8 11 55
knowledge
2. Use concept or definition 1.b 2 29 51
Concept 29 21
Unit fraction 0 30
3. Connect to concrete model 1.c 7 93 42
4. Rule and procedure 1.b 3 25 76
5. Unintelligible response 1.b 17 12 3

Addressing students 1. Address students 2.a 11 86 97

misconceptions misconceptions
2. Use questions or tasks to 2.c 12 61 100
correct misconceptions
3. Use rule and procedure 2.c 3 11 42
4. Draw picture or table 2.c 4 29 30
5. Connect to concrete model 2.c 7 26 12
6. Unintelligible response 2.b 17 79 39

Engaging students in 1. Manipulative activity 3.a 10 39 18

math learning 2. Connect to concrete model 3.a 7 36 64
3. Use one representation (area) 3.b 14 64 28
4. Use both representations 3.b 15 11 67
(area & repeated addition)
5. Give example 3.a 5 4 91
6. Connect to prior knowledge 3.a 1 7 45
7. Unintelligible response 3.c 17 25 24

Promoting students 1. Provide activities to focus on 4.d 14 68 94

students thinking students thinking
about mathematics 2. Use questions or tasks to 4.b 13 57 100
help students progress in
their ideas
3. Use estimation 4.c 6 4 6
4. Draw picture or table 4.a 4 14 15
5. Provide opportunity to think 1.b 9 61 79
and respond
6. Unintelligible response 4.b 17 43 0
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 157

for understanding between the U.S. and Chinese teachers. A discussion of

each difference between the two groups of teachers follows.

Building on Students Ideas about Fractions

Understanding and Forgetting
As shown in Table III, 46% of the responses of the U.S. teachers to
Problem 1(a) indicated that, in their view, Adam forgot the prerequisite
knowledge of finding common denominators, while 55% of the responses
of the Chinese teachers had an opposite view, namely, that Adam did not
understand the prerequisite knowledge of finding common denominators.
For example, Mrs. Ross mentioned that Adam forgot prior knowledge:
Adam does not remember that to add, you must add like denominators,
and fourths and fifths are not alike. He does not remember to make
equivalent fractions using the lowest common denominator.
Mrs. Wang pointed out that Adam did not understand the fraction
because he seemed to separate numerator and denominator into inde-
pendent parts. Furthermore, Mrs. Sheng, Mrs. Wang, and Mr. He indicated
that only with like units can two numbers be added, such as 3 books + 5
books = 8 books. The Chinese teachers realized that three books cannot be
added to 4 desks because book and desk are different units. A fraction
is a number, so only with like unit fractions can two fractions be added;
therefore with unlike unit fractions, two fractions cannot be added. Adams
mistake indicated that he did not understand the concept of like units and
could not see the connection between whole number and fraction, which
may misdirect him to think fraction as something else but not a number.
Here forgot and did not understand have two distinct meanings
for the teachers. The teachers who said the student forgot did not know
their students thinking about fraction addition and did not understand the
challenges students are likely to encounter in learning fraction addition.
They appeared to believe that learning simply consists of knowing or not
knowing; that is, remembering or forgetting. In contrast, teachers who
said that the student did not understand showed evidence of knowing
students thinking about fraction addition.
A large percentage of Chinese teachers connected prior knowledge of
whole number addition to fraction addition, that is, that numbers with like
units can be added. This means that no matter what numbers they are
(such as whole numbers, decimals and fractions) as long as the numbers
have the same unit, they can be added together. This connection not only
helps students to see a fraction as a number, but also helps students to
understand and to use the rule of fraction addition easily. Understanding
also means that students are able to internalize a concept and use it in
158 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

different situations, such as understanding like units in whole number

addition and applying like units in fraction addition. Internalizing and
connecting knowledge about like units into a coherent whole provides a
close link that makes learning easier and leads to mastery.

Use of Models to Develop Concepts and Procedures

The results in Table III show that the 93% of the U.S. teachers tended to
build on students ideas of addition of fractions with various approaches,
by focusing on the connection with concrete or pictorial models. In
contrast, only 42% of Chinese teachers used concrete models. Most of
them used definitions or the unit fraction concept to develop students
knowledge of addition of fractions by emphasizing procedural develop-
ment and the following of rules.
The U.S. teachers used a wide variety of concrete and pictorial models,
including pizzas, pies and cakes, a Hershey bar, an egg carton, crayon
boxes, measuring cups, sports, money, time, and fraction pieces. The use
of concrete models and pictures helps students to visualize and explore
a mathematics concept and to connect learning with their experiences.
This learning will be meaningful and will make sense to students. This
approach is supported by research showing that mathematics should serve
students needs to make sense of experience arising outside of mathematics
instruction (Fennema & Romberg, 1999).
For Chinese teachers, conceptual understanding is very important in
learning. As shown in Table III, only 29% of the U.S. teachers empha-
sized concepts in developing students fraction ideas, while 51% Chinese
teachers focused on concepts to build understanding. Of these, 30% used
the unit fraction concept. The Chinese teachers believed that the unit frac-
tion is a critical concept in learning fractions and is more easily understood
by children. For example, Mrs. Li, a sixth grade teacher, suggested the
following four questions when responding to part (b) of Problem 1:

1. What is the unit of the fraction?

2. What fractions can be added directly? Give the problems 1/5 + 2/5, 1/3
+ 2/3, and 5/61/6 to Adam. Can you give a picture problem for this?
3. What does it mean to find the common denominator? Why do you need
to find the common denominator? And how do you find the common
denominator?
4. How do you add fractions with unlike denominators?
Mrs. Li provided an example and explained it with Figure 4 and
Figure 5: Look at the example 1/3 + 1/2. 1/3 + 1/2 does not have a
common denominator; in other words, the unit fractions are unlike, so
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 159

numerators cannot be added directly. Figure 4 shows that 1/3 and 1/2 do
not have equal sized parts.

Figure 4. Circles for comparing unit fractions.

To help the students find the like unit fractions, Mrs. Li explained
further: To divide the unit 1, a circle, into 6 equal-sized parts, the unit
fraction becomes 1/6 for both circles. The unit fraction is now the same
(see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Circles for like unit fractions.

The questions that Mrs. Li asked, involving the unit fraction concept,
were intended to help Adam understand the meaning of fraction addition.
The example by Mrs. Li shows that applying the unit fraction concept
in teaching fractions makes the concept of fraction addition more rigorous
and meaningful than the part-whole relationship. Using unit fractions
to build conceptual understanding connects fractions to students prior
knowledge of the concept of whole number and helps students to construct
fractions in a continuous and systemic way. In addition, it places numerator
and denominator in the context of a number and it also links numer-
ator and denominator by multiplication and repeated addition, which are
components of the prior knowledge of fractions.
In contrast, in answering part (b) of Problem 1, U.S. teachers tended to
use a concrete model to build the concept of fraction addition. For example,
Mrs. William used the fraction pieces to help Adam. She said:
Have Adam use fraction pieces to show 3/4 and 4/5 and ask: What must we do in order to
combine 3/4 and 4/5? Lets use the fraction pieces to work together to find what size pieces
fourths and fifths share, then find equivalent fractions and add.
160 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

This approach helps students to visualize the size of fractions and

look for equivalent fractions, but it emphasizes less the why of finding
equivalent fractions, and it puts fractions in a separate and non-continuous
domain. With this approach, questions such as Why can equivalent frac-
tions be added? What are the connections between addition of fraction
and the concept of parts of whole? could not be answered clearly.
Sowder et al. (1998), agreed that the notion of a fraction as a quantity,
as a number, is important for understanding. In contrast, Kerslake (1986)
argued that some teachers and children have difficulty conceiving of a
fraction as a number and considered it either as two numbers or not as
a number. Some Chinese teachers in this study also believed that a student
might not think of a fraction as a number at all. But this misconception
of fraction can be corrected by understanding the unit fraction concept.
One of the key reasons for students having misconceptions and confu-
sion about fractions is the way fraction concepts are taught. Teachers or
textbooks in the U.S. typically introduce fractions as parts of a whole.
This concept separates a fraction into two parts, and increases confusion
between numerator and denominator. This difference between the U.S. and
Chinese teachers in developing fraction ideas may produce the disparity in
the knowledge of students thinking, which is illustrated in the teachers
responses to part (a) of problem 1.
Table III indicates that in their responses to part (b) of Problem 1, 76%
of Chinese teachers focused on procedures and rules to build students
ideas about fractions. In contrast, far fewer U.S. teachers (25%) believed
that using procedures and rules were effective in building fraction ideas.
This result is not surprising, since Chinese teachers focus on developing
skills as an integral part of learning. The history of mathematics develop-
ment in China has had a great impact on mathematics teaching in China.
Under the influence of the classic work Arithmetic in Nine Chapters, the
main characteristic of Chinese mathematics is the development and prac-
tice of accurate and efficient means of computation and to apply these in
real life. In general, Arithmetic in Nine Chapters has defined the tradi-
tional mathematics style as useful in applications and calculation (Li &
Chen, 1995). In addition, under the influence of the Chinese examination
system, in order to help most students to pass the examinations, teachers
not only pay attention to students conceptual understanding, but also work
extremely hard to build students proficiency in computation and solving
non-routine problems. Chinese teachers believe that developing proficient
procedural skills helps to reinforce what students have learned and allows
them to transfer skills easily to new knowledge. Most importantly, it aids
students confidence in their ability to understand mathematics.
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 161

Addressing Students Misconceptions

Models and Connections
Table III shows that, in their responses to Problem 2, 86% the U.S. teachers
had understood each students thinking on the comparison of fractions. In
response to part (c), they used various activities, graphs, manipulatives,
and procedures to help students to correct misconceptions, focusing on
the use of concrete models. For example, Mrs. Nelson would show Robert
physical examples of a candy bar. By seeing the sections of 2/3, 1/4, and
3/8, Robert would be able to conceptualize concretely each fraction.
The U.S. teachers helped students correct a misconception about
comparing fractions by using experience with a variety of models. The
use of various models helps students build ideas about abstract mathema-
tical concepts. This approach is supported by NCTM (2000) that says that
concrete models provide students with concrete representations of abstract
ideas and support students in using representations meaningfully.
In contrast, Chinese teachers dealt with students misconceptions by a
variety of activities, but they focused on developing the explicit connection
between the various models and abstract thinking. For example, to correct
Roberts misconception about ordering fractions, Mrs. Jian presented the
following approach:
Have Robert cut two equal-sized ropes, one in 7 pieces, and one in 2 pieces. Then have him
compare a section from each rope to find out which one is longer. Help him summarize the
rules: take one part from each rope, the one with the short part has a larger denomin-
ator, and the fraction is smaller. Therefore, compare fractions by not only looking at the
denominator; a large denominator does not mean the fraction is larger.

In this example, Mrs. Jian not only used a concrete model to help Robert
build understanding, but also connected the model to abstract ideas and the
rules for ordering fractions.

Use of Questions
Asking questions is one of the effective ways to engage students
thinking and learning. Probing questions involving misconceptions can
guide students in identifying errors by themselves and develop a deep
conceptual understanding. Carroll (1999) found that probing questions
are effective in identifying student errors through engaging students in
reasoning and thinking processes. In addition, questions assess learning,
promote discussion, and provide direction for teachers in planning.
Posing questions in mathematics teaching is another feature of Chinese
education, which is a reflection of Arithmetic in Nine Chapters. In the
book, teachers are urged to develop and use sequences of questions,
answers, and principles during planning and instruction. In this study,
162 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

the questioning strategies were displayed extensively in the responses of

Chinese teachers. As shown in Table III, 100% of Chinese teachers were
able to use questions or tasks to correct the misconceptions posed in
Problem 2, compared with 61% of the U.S. teachers. We take an example
from Mrs. Wu: Can you directly order fractions by comparing numerators
only while the numerators and denominators are all different? Have Latoya
use the same-sized paper to fold 1/4, 2/3, 3/8, and then compare these three
pieces. Furthermore, Chinese teachers not only asked focusing questions
to identify each student thinking, but also understood students thinking
in different ways.
As indicated in Table III, 79% of the U.S. teachers did not pose
appropriate questions in order to identify students thinking and help
students progress their mathematics ideas on comparing fractions, while
only 39% of Chinese teachers had similar problems. Questions asked by
U.S. teachers consisted of How did you order these? and Explain why
you put the fraction in that order and provide a chance for Latoya to think,
but do not directly lead her to recognize her misconception.

Engaging Students in Mathematics Learning

Use of Representations
The results show that there are differences in the way the U.S. and Chinese
teachers engage students in mathematics learning. Most U.S. teachers
suggested engaging and motivating the students to learn the procedure
of multiplication through various activities, such as manipulatives, and
pictorial representations. In their responses to Problem 3, as shown in
Table III, 64% of the U.S. teachers would prefer to use one representation
area to illustrate fraction multiplication while 67% of Chinese teachers
use two representations area and repeated addition.
By applying manipulatives, such as cutting a paper circle, singing a
fraction song, playing with money, using base ten blocks, or drawing and
coloring areas, the U.S. teachers sparked their students interest in frac-
tion multiplication and engaged students in a meaningful and concrete
learning process. This learning by doing approach encourages students
to acquire knowledge through inquiry and creative processes and fosters
students creativity and critical thinking. The use of manipulatives in frac-
tion multiplication is supported by Sowder et al. (1998), who reported the
effectiveness of the use of paper folding to learn fraction multiplication.
This study reported that most U.S. teachers used area representations to
illustrate fraction multiplication.
In contrast, most Chinese teachers used both area and repeated addi-
tion to illustrate fraction multiplication, and they understood when and
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 163

how to use each representation. For example, Mrs. Yian provided a clear
explanation of how to use different representations for multiplication: (a)
If a fraction multiplies a whole number, using repeated addition is easier
for students to understand, (b) If a fraction multiplies a fraction, using
the area graph is better for visualization, (c) For fractions that are mixed
numbers use both methods. This example shows that Mrs. Yian knows
which representations can be helpful for students in solving multiplication
problems in particular situations.

Connections in Introductory Activities

Chinese teachers connected concrete models and stories related to
students life more frequently than did the US teachers in their responses
to part (a) of Problem 3. As shown in Table III, 91% of Chinese teachers in
this study would engage and motivate their students to learn the procedure
of multiplication by giving examples, which connect to concrete models
(64%) and students life experiences, such as examples of stories, in addi-
tion. By providing examples related to students real life, manipulatives,
and concrete models, Chinese teachers were able to make a connection
between manipulatives and the strategy of solving problems, and build
understanding for students through developing rigorous procedures. For
example, Mr. Wang designed an introductory activity:
In the class, 56 students were divided into four groups with 14 students in each group.
The teacher has a student divide a colored paper into 4 pieces, so each group gets 1/4 of
the paper. To illustrate the procedure of fraction multiplication, lets use group one as an
example first: In order to share 1/4 of the paper among 14 students in group one, 1/4 of this
paper will be divided equally into 14 pieces. How much paper will each student in group
one get? How do you write this expression? It should be expressed as

1 1

4 14
Figure 6. 1/14 of 1/4 paper.

Mr. Wang continued to explain the procedure of multiplication fractions:

If all 4 groups do the same, every student in class will get one part of the paper. How much
paper will each student get? To find 1/14 of 1/4, a student can divide 1/4 into 14 parts,
taking one part of it, which means the student divide one paper into 4 14 parts and have
one of 4 14, the result can be expressed as:

1 11
1=
4 14 4 14
Figure 7. One part of 1/14 of 1/4 paper.
164 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

Therefore,

1 1 11 1
= =
4 14 4 14 56
Figure 8. The equivalent of the whole number 1 multiplying a fraction.

For two students, they will get 2/14 of 1/4 paper, i.e.

1 1 14 2
2= =
4 14 2 14 56
Figure 9. Two parts of 1/14 of 1/4 paper.

So two students get 2/56 of paper.

Mr. Wang concluded:

Now we can arrive at a conclusion: when multiplying fractions, the numerator will be the
product of numerators, the denominator will be the product of denominators.

1 2 12 2
= =
4 14 4 14 56
Figure 10. The rule of multiplying fractions.

At last, Mr. Wang applied the above conclusion to direct students to solve
the part (c) of Problem 3:
3 2 32 6
= =
4 3 43 12
Figure 11. The solution of part (c) of Problem 3.

This activity addressed visually the connection between a concrete

model and procedure of fraction multiplication, which provides clear steps
for fraction multiplication and also promotes students engagement in
learning. Notice that the notation from the above is different from that
of U.S. notation. In Chinese textbooks, the multiplication of fractions is
represented differently: dividing1/4 of the paper into 14 pieces is written
the same as to find 1/4s 1/14 (Chinese language expression) and its
expression is 1/4 1/14, while in U.S. it would be to find 1/14 of 1/4
and its expression is 1/14 1/4. The Chinese way of defining fraction
multiplication seems to have the same order between the meaning and
expression (i.e., first having 1/4, and then having 1/4s 1/14) which comple-
ments student thinking more effectively, while the U.S. way of defining
fraction multiplication tends to produce confusions for students.
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 165

Although 36% of responses from U.S. teachers focused on connecting

to the concrete model, and 39% of them related to manipulatives activities,
the U.S. teachers again often ignored developing the connection between
manipulative activities and abstract thinking. For example, Mrs. Parker
would direct students to, Cut a circle (paper) into 3 pieces. Take 2/3.
Cut each one of these 2 pieces into 4 and take 3 of each one. You have 6
out of 12 pieces. She failed to connect the manipulative explanation and
procedure of multiplying fractions. The lack of such connection would fail
to build a bridge for students to understand why they use the manipulative
and how the activity would help them to use the procedure in doing the
multiplication. Only 4% of responses of U.S. teachers showed examples
with connecting concrete models or manipulatives to the procedure of
multiplying fractions.

Use of Prior Knowledge

In the introduction of new concepts, using prior knowledge not only helps
students to review and reinforce the knowledge being taught, but also helps
them to picture mathematics as an integrated whole rather than as separate
knowledge. It develops generalizations and helps students to solidify what
they have learned and allow them to transfer the knowledge to new situ-
ations (Suydam, 1984). Linking the new and prior knowledge in context
will also help students know why and how to learn the new topic and grasp
new knowledge with better understanding. This is supported by NCTM
(1989), Connection among topics will instill in students an expectation
that the ideas they learn are useful in solving other problems and exploring
other mathematical concepts (p. 84). Furthermore, NCTM (2000) points
out, Because students learn by connecting new ideas to prior knowledge,
teachers must understand what their students already know (p. 18).
In this study, 45% of the Chinese teachers focused on the importance of
determining students prior knowledge; in contrast, very few U.S. teachers
(7%) gave examples for prior work to help students learn fraction multi-
plication. For example, Mrs. Zhong presented the following introductory
story, which connects addition:
The monkeys mother bought a watermelon and cut it into 9 pieces; every monkey ate 2/9
of the pieces. How many pieces did four monkeys eat? How do you express this problem
in addition? How do you express this problem in multiplication? Which method is easier?

This example helps students transfer prior knowledge of repeated addi-

tion to multiplication with better conceptual understanding of fraction
multiplication.
In reviewing prior knowledge, one can, according to Confucius, always
find new knowledge (Cai & Lai, 1994). Mathematics education in China
166 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

has been following this idea for classroom teaching for centuries. Obser-
vation of classrooms in this study showed that Chinese teachers spent at
least one-third of the time reviewing prior knowledge at the beginning or
during class. One of the teachers said that she only teaches a new lesson 5
to 10 minutes every day; the rest of the time is spent reviewing and rein-
forcing the knowledge. The review process not only promotes continuity
and attains a more comprehensive view of topics previously covered, but is
also a diagnostic tool that helps teachers to identify student strengths and
weaknesses and provides valuable insight for future instruction (Suydam,
1984).

Promoting Students Thinking about Mathematics

Visual Activities and Abstract Thinking
The results in Table III show different emphases on approaches to promote
students thinking: U. S. teachers tend to use charts and tables, concrete or
pictorial models, and manipulatives, while Chinese teachers tend to build
students abstract thinking using procedures. For example, in response to
Problem 4, Mrs. Flores displayed this chart for a proportion activity:

Girls: 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Boys: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Using a chart to write equivalent ratios shows a pattern and makes

problems easier for students to understand.
In Chinese texts, simple equation and direct/indirect variation are intro-
duced at the sixth grade in 11th & 12th elementary math textbooks
(Jiangsu, 1998). The similar content areas in U.S. 6th grade textbook
(Glencoe, 2000) used by teachers in this study was also introduced to
6th grade students. However, teachers responses in this study showed that
Chinese teachers tend to use the algebraic approach in solving proportion
problems more than do U.S. teachers. For example, Mrs. Wang used the
following approach:

The ratio of girls to boys is 3:5, which means the girls are 3/5 of boys and boys are 5/3 of
girls. So if the ratio of boys to girls is more than one, it will be a direct variation. Let the
number of boys be x; the number of girls will be (40-x), so the ratio of girls to boys = x:
(40-x). Therefore, from the following proportion:
3 x
=
5 40 x
We can find the number of boys.
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 167

Mrs. Zhen explained the procedure without using proportion:

Since girls are 3 parts and boys are 5 parts, the total is 8 parts with 40 students. Every part
has 40/8 = 5 students. So boys will be 5 parts time 5 students, i.e., 25 students.

Furthermore, Table III shows that 43% of U.S. teachers in this study
provided general questions that probably would not provide insight into
students thinking. A question such as Do you have the problem set up
correctly? could prompt a student to look at problem again, but places
less focus on students misconception. In contrast, all Chinese teachers in
this study used probing questions at various levels, which help teachers
to explore students thinking directly in different ways and encourage
students thinking deeply and critically. Mrs. Wang would ask her students:
What measurements are being compared in the ratio of 3:8? Girls are being compared to
the whole.
What measurements are being compared in the ratio of x: 40? Boys are being compared to
the whole.
How can we use unequal ratios to make a proportion? How can we make changes in order
to get two equivalent ratios?

As a basis for understanding questions she asked, Mrs. Wang would direct
her students to solve the problem using two different ways:
Method 1. Let x be the number of boys, so 5/8 = x/40
Method 2. Let x be the number of girls, so 3/8 = x/40
Effective teachers know how to ask questions (NCTM, 2000, p. 18) and
how to use these questions to enhance the students thinking.

Self-reflection and Communication

NCTM (2000) views communication as an essential part of mathematics
teaching and learning: Reflection and communication are intertwined
processes in mathematics learning (NCTM, 2000, p. 61). In this study,
the U.S. teachers tended to provide students with opportunities to discuss
and share their ideas. Mrs. Baker always asks students to explain
their answers. Mrs. Larson would have students engage in discussion,
reworking, discourse, and remembering and learning from their mistakes.
Chinese teachers in this study also encouraged students thinking and
communication, but focused on developing reflection. Chinese teachers
encouraged their students to think about problem solving, to substi-
tute their answers into the original equations, and to check to see if it
makes sense. Reflection occurs when students check and analyze their
work and thinking and helps students to reorganize knowledge and find
168 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

their errors by themselves. Importantly, reflection develops a deep under-

standing and fosters good learning habits and has been viewed as a critical
learning strategy constantly taught in mathematics classrooms in China.
The importance of reflection was noted by Fennema and Romberg (1999)
who stated that reflection plays an important role in solving problems,
and a critical factor of reflection is that teachers recognize and value
reflection. In this study, Chinese teachers Mrs. Wang and Mrs. Lu encour-
aged students to be a mathematics doctor, which means to reflect and
to examine the errors in problem solving. They also valued reflection
by giving praise to students who do well on checking procedures and
answers.
In this study, neither group of teachers used estimation very often. For
example, in their response to Problem 4, only 4% of the U.S. teachers
and 6% of Chinese teachers mentioned using estimation to help students
thinking. Estimation is an important skill in the thinking and reasoning
process. It fosters a good number sense, helps students to think and reason
logically, and develops proficient skills in computations and problem
solving.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Four Aspects of Analysis of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Comparative study can increase our understanding of how to produce
educational effectiveness and enhance our understanding of our own
education and society (Kaiser, 1999). However, it is difficult to conduct a
valid comparative study between different cultures without setting essen-
tial components as a norm in analysis of data. This study included
comparisons and contrasts of teachers pedagogical content knowledge
between the U.S. and China by using four aspects of pedagogical content
knowledge of students thinking: building on student ideas in mathematics,
addressing students misconceptions, engaging students in mathematics
learning, promoting student thinking about mathematics. Each of these
aspects consists of several essential components (see Table II). By analysis
of these essential components, this study provided suggestions as to how
to set up dimension and scope for further cross-cultural comparative
studies. Although the four aspects in this study are only a part of pedago-
gical content knowledge, namely, knowledge of students thinking, this
study addressed a critical way of assessing teachers knowledge regarding
students thinking.
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 169

Importance of Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Teacher knowledge of mathematics is not isolated from its effects on
teaching in the classroom and student learning (Fennema & Franke, 1992).
Teachers pedagogical content knowledge combines knowledge of content,
teaching, and curriculum, focusing the knowledge of students thinking.
It is closely connected with the content knowledge, connected with the
way of transformation of content knowledge in the learning process and in
the way in which teachers know about the students thinking. This study
indicated that deep and broad pedagogical content knowledge is important
and necessary for effective teaching. Teaching for understanding includes
a convergent process in which teachers build students mathematics ideas
by connecting prior knowledge and concrete models to new knowledge,
focusing on conceptual understanding and procedure development. In
addition, teachers should be able to identify students misconceptions
and be able to correct misconceptions by probing questions or using
various tasks. Teachers should engage students in learning by providing
examples, representations and manipulatives. Finally, effective teaching
requires the effort of promoting students thinking by a variety of focusing
questions and activities. The results of this study supported the idea that
a balance is needed between the use of manipulatives and developing
procedures. Although manipulatives develop conceptual understanding
of mathematics, procedural learning is an essential learning process for
reinforcing understanding and achieving mathematical proficiency and is
a necessary step for problem solving. Without developing firm under-
standing and skill with procedures, students will not be able to solve
problems efficiently and confidently. Last and most importantly, atten-
tion to learners cognitions is a key component in teachers pedagogical
content knowledge and effective teaching. Knowledge of students mathe-
matical thinking helps teachers to enhance their own knowledge of content
and curriculum, prepare lessons thoroughly, and teach mathematics effec-
tively. Without knowledge of students thinking, teaching cannot produce
learning; it may instead be like playing piano to cows (a Chinese
idiom).

Conclusion
The results of this study indicated that mathematics teachers pedagogical
content knowledge in the two countries differed markedly and this has a
deep impact on teaching practice. The Chinese system emphasizes gaining
correct conceptual knowledge by reliance on traditional, more rigid devel-
opment of procedures, which has been the practice of teaching and learning
170 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

mathematics content for many years. The United States system emphasizes
a variety of activities designed to promote creativity and inquiry to develop
concept mastery, but often has a lack of connection between manipulatives
and abstract thinking, and between understanding and procedural develop-
ment. Both approaches have shown benefits and limitations in teaching
and learning mathematics, and also illustrate the different demands on
teachers pedagogical content knowledge.
This study cannot necessarily be generalized to all mathematics
teachers in the United States and China because the samples included only
one city from each country, with 23 schools from China and 12 schools
from the U.S. However, this is an internal comparative study and, with a
centralized education system in China, one city may represent the whole
system of education in China. With a locally controlled education system
as in the U.S., one city may not reflect the whole United States. There-
fore, the results cannot necessarily be applied to teachers in the United
States. Nevertheless, these results do point to the importance, from an
international perspective, of pedagogical content knowledge and to the
essential components that can promote further understanding of effective
mathematics teaching.

NOTE
1 7th and 8th graders in China have already learned Algebra I.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2000). Middle grades mathematics
textbooks: A benchmarks based evaluation. Washington, DC: Author.
An, S., Kulm, G., Wu, Z., Ma, F. & Wang, L. (October, 2002). A comparative study of
mathematics teachers beliefs and their impact on the teaching practice between the
U.S. and China. Invited paper presented at the International Conference on Mathematics
Instruction, Hong Kong.
Cai, X.Q. & Lai, B. (1994). Analects of confucius. Beijing: Sinolingua.
Carpenter, T.P. & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning with understanding. In E.
Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding
(pp. 1932). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carroll, W.M. (1999). Using short questions to develop and assess reasoning. In L.
Stiff (Ed.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12: 1999 NCTM yearbook
(pp. 247253). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Education Department of Jiangsu Province (1998). Mathematics: 11th textbook for
elementary school. Nanjing, JS: Jiangsu Educational Publisher.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.
 MATHEMATICS TEACHERS PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 171

Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.),
Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249254). New York: The Falmer Press.
Fennema, E. & Franke, M.L. (1992). Teachers knowledge and its impact. In D.A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147164). New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Fennema, E. & Romberg, T.A. (1999). Mathematics classrooms that promote under-
standing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glencoe. (2000). Mathematics: Applications and connections, Course 1. Glencoe:
McGraw-Hill.
Kaiser, G. (1999). International comparisons in mathematics education under the
perspective of comparative education. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna & I. Huntley (Eds.), Inter-
national comparisons in mathematics education (pp. 115). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer
Press.
Kerslake, D. (1986). Fractions: Childrens strategies and errors. Windsor, England:
NFER-Nelson.
Kulm, G., Capraro, R.M., Capraro, M.M., Burghardt, R. & Ford, K. (April, 2001). Teaching
and learning mathematics with understanding in an era of accountability and high-
stakes testing. Paper presented at the research pre-session of the 79th annual meeting
of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Orlando, FL.
Li, J. & Chen, C. (1995). Observations on Chinas mathematics education as influenced by
its traditional culture. Paper presented at the meeting of the China-Japan-U.S. Seminar
on Mathematical Education. Hongzhou, China.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Pinar, W.F., Reynolds, W.M., Slattery, P. & Taubman, P.M. (1995). Understanding
curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Robitaille, D.F. & Travers, K.J. (1992). International studies of achievement in math-
ematics. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 687709). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Shulman, L. (1985). On teaching problem solving and solving the problems of teaching. In
E. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research
perspectives (pp. 439450). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 122.
Silver, E.A. (1998). Improving mathematics in middle school: Lessons from TIMSS and
related research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Sowder, J. & Philipp, R. (1999). Promoting learning in middle-grades mathematics. In E.
Fennema. & T.A Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding
(pp. 89108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sowder, J.T., Philipp, R.A., Armstrong, B.E. & Schappelle, B.P. (1998). Middle-grade
teachers mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Stigler, J.W. & Perry, M. (1988). Cross-cultural studies of mathematics teaching and
learning: Recent finding and new directions. In D. Grouws & T. Cooney (Eds.),
172 SHUHUA AN ET AL.

Effective mathematics teaching directions (pp. 194223). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Suydam, M.N. (1984). The role of review in mathematics instruction. ERIC/SMEAC
Mathematics Education Digest, 2 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED260891).

Department of Teacher Education Shuhua An

California State University
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840-2210
USA
E-mail: san@csulb.edu

Department of Teaching Gerald Kulm

Texas A&M University Zhonghe Wu
Learning and Culture
College Station, TX 77843
USA
E-mail: gkulm@coe.tamu.edu
johnwu@tamu.edu