The Importance of Pedagogical

Content Knowledge
Shulman (1986) introduced the idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which
suggested that teachers should not only have knowledge of the content, but also
develop their pedagogies about how to teach their students effectively. In the 2013
conference proceedings of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia
(MERGA), PCK is one of the widely discussed topics. Based on the investigation of the
published papers, the author of this paper holds the opinion that PCK in crucial for
effective teaching in secondary school mathematics. This paper will evaluate and
critically reflect on the published proceeding papers about PCK, examine the
relevant teaching and learning issues in implementing PCK into teaching practice,
and discuss about the teaching strategies for HSC Probability topic.
Hodgson (2013) suggests that teachers are enthusiastic about developing their PCK
by observing modelled lesson. In this paper, she differentiates PCK into three
subsets, which are knowledge of content and students (KCS), knowledge of content
and teaching (KCT) and knowledge of mathematics curriculum (CCK). The result of
the research shows that a large proportion of teachers focus on KCS and KCT in their
observation. It implies that the importance of pedagogical part of PCK is commonly
recognised by teachers. Furthermore, the recorded response from teachers outlines
some practical strategies from the modelled lesson, which provides ideas about
developing PCK in teaching practice. Hodgson also claims that modelled lessons
could be a supportive for teachers classroom practice. However, further research
about the effectiveness of modelled lesson in developing teachers practical PCK and
how modelled lesson impact on teachers PCK need to be conducted.
Another reason to support the importance of PCK is that a shortcoming in PCK can
hinder pre-service teachers (PST) from delivering the content to students effectively.
This point is contributed by Marshman and Porter (2013). In their paper, the authors
analysed the response to a survey about a mistake made be a students in fraction,
and found that many PSTs had difficulty in putting their explanation into word, and
only a few PSTs identified the mistake was made by students misconception in
fraction, as the result, the outlined response from PSTs were ineffective in explaining
the correct concept of fraction. According to Shulman (1986), PCK requires teachers
to develop alternative forms of representation as well as have an understanding of
students conception and preconception. Marshman and Porters research (2013)
demonstrates that a lack of PCK will result in ineffective mathematics teaching.
Similar conclusion can be obtained from Chick and Beswicks research (2013). The
purpose of this research takes the views from mathematics teacher educators (MTE)
about how to develop PSTs school mathematics pedagogical content knowledge
(SMPCK), which is identical to PCK of PST as mentioned before. However, the
depicted conversation and the authors analysis indeed manifest the issue that PSTs
still need to develop their explanation of ideas and understanding of students
misconception in teaching mathematics. From the research papers, it can be
conclude that PCK is crucial for effective teaching in mathematics.
Nevertheless, some papers in the conference proceedings hold different stance
regarding effective mathematics teaching. Livy and Herberts paper (2013) identifies
the existing issue about shortage in mathematical content knowledge (MCK). In their
research, a test conducted among 47 primary PSTs demonstrates that amount of the
primary PSTs do not have an adequate MCK up to Year 7 level. The authors further
analysed the errors made by PSTs, and find that the errors in proportion are caused
by misinterpreting of question and incorrect proportional reasoning, while the errors
in comparison of length are caused by incorrect problem solving method and lack of
knowledge in multiplication and division.
Another qualitative research also reveals the issue about PSTs lack of MCK. Daniel
and Balatti (2013) evaluated a PSTs MCK through her act and reflection in the
footages, and identified four aspects of shortcoming in MCK in teaching the topic of
area to students. The shortcoming MCK encompasses incorrect MCK, inadequate
MCK (unable to express area from a geometric point of view), imprecise MCK
(drawing a diagram that lacked a right angle symbol in the height representation),
and compressed MCK (unable to identify the source of students confusion).
Especially, the focused PST has a significant shortcoming in imprecise MCK. All
aspects of shortcoming MCK hinder the PST from effective teaching. However, this
research only focus on one PST, which makes the result less reliable and generalised.
Also, further studies are needed to investigate about how each aspects of
shortcoming in MCK might affect the teaching outcomes.
Regarding the two points of view of effective mathematics teaching, Goos (2013)
provides an evident statement that PCK takes greater influence on effective
mathematics teaching, while PCK cannot be developed without the existence of
MCK. Which means both PCK and MCK are important for PSTs. Also, Bennison and
Goos (2013) claim that both PCK and MCK are required for the Knowledge Domain of
Numeracy Teacher Identity. Furthermore, both PCK and MCK are required by
Australian education policy. The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers
(ATISL, 2011) requires teachers to know students and how they learn and know
the content and how to teach it, which encompasses both PCK and MCK. It also
prescribed that in order to become an effective teacher, PST need to develop their
PCK and MCK in studies and practice.
Nevertheless, the paper of Averill et al. (2013) conducts a profound study about the
priority of MCK and PCK. The research differentiate cohort of PST into two groups,
which are the groups of primary PSTs and secondary PSTs. Their perceptions of
learning within the rehearsal and coaching sessions shows that primary PSTs focus
more on the development of mathematical content, while secondary PSTs focus
more on the pedagogies of effective mathematics teaching. This finding implies that
for different groups of PST, the emphasis on PCK and MCK is different. Livy and
Herberts research (2013) provides a potential reason behind this result as a large
proportion the primary PSTs have a lack of MCK. Therefore, the research of Averill et
al. (2013) provides the significant suggestion that PCK is more important than MCK
for secondary mathematics PSTs. However, further studies that exploring the level of
secondary PSTs MCK is required to support this conclusion, as insufficient MCK will
hinder the develop of PCK for all teachers (Goos, 2013).
Another point to support the priority of PCK of current PSTs comes from the
education policy. The entry requirement of teacher education course (BOSTES, 2016)
prescribes that in order to become a mathematics PST, a school leaver must achieve
at least Band 5 in HSC mathematics, whilst a graduate student must have completed
at least four mathematics undergraduate courses with 2 of the courses are at level 2
or higher. This entry requirement maintains the level of mathematical knowledge for
PSTs in their teaching. The introduction of this education policy provides a solution
to the issue that teachers have a shortcoming in MCK and insufficient level of
mathematics study as identified by some research in the conference proceedings
(Livy and Herbert, 2013; Daniel and Balatti, 2013; Averill et al., 2013). However, the
high level of entry requirement do not necessarily guarantee the level of MCK for
PSTs. Linsell and Anakins paper (2013) claimed that reliance on procedural rather
than conceptual knowledge is one of the problems of those PSTs who have a lack of
mathematics knowledge. This finding implies that achievement of mathematics
exams is inadequate to represent PSTs MCK as the exams assess more on
procedural knowledge. Linsell and Anakin also introduce the concept of Foundation
Content Knowledge and articulate that MCK should be regarded as foundation of
mathematics teaching. However, this paper does not give suggestion on how to
measure PSTs foundation content knowledge. Thus, the current entry requirement
policy is still optimal to maintain PSTs level of MCK relatively.
Providing that current secondary PSTs are filtered to have sufficient MCK, the main
focus on effective teaching is about how to develop their PCK. The first suggestion
based the conference proceeding papers is to further develop PSTs MCK. Baseed on
Goos research, MCK is essential for development of PCK. Linsell and Anakins
research indeed informs PSTs satisfactory of the pre-requisite does not necessary
means adequate MCK. Livy and Herbert (2013) provide three suggestions for
developing MCK for PSTs. First, PSTs can share their methods of solutions in a range
of mathematical problems. Second, PSTs are encouraged to represent answers to in
multiple ways. Third, PSTs must avoid misinterpretation of mathematical problems.
The second facet of developing PCK is understanding the students. Shulmans PCK
(1986) requires teachers to understanding students conception and preconception.
Marshman and Porters paper (2013) suggests that PSTs should explore students
misconceptions in some topics. Another aspect of understanding the students is
contributed by Easey (2013), which suggests that teachers should understanding the
learning needs of students in order to engage students effectively.
In addition to PCK, Getenet and Beswicks idea (2013) about Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), which involves technology in developing
the pedagogies for mathematics teaching. However, the research of MTEs
perception is still on-going. Other papers in the conference proceedings verify the
effectiveness of using technologies in classrooms. Robson and Kennedys research
(2013) suggests that students can get peer instruction and feedback by the use of
tablets. Highfield and Goodwin (2013) suggests that Apps can enrich the learning
material for students. However, they outline the issue about difficulty in accessing
and critiquing the Apps for educators.
All the three facets discussed above can inform the teaching and learning pedagogies
in designing the activities in the HSC topic of Probability. In the textbook of Goos et
al. (2008), the challenges in understanding probability are articulated as intuition
about randomness, procedural knowledge, integrating contextual knowledge,
and interpreting the graph. Based on the research papers and learning issues, the
theoretical foundations for designing the learning activities in probability
encompasses three facets. First, teachers should have an expertise in conceptual and
procedural knowledge of probability. As claimed by Reaburn (2013), some PSTs have
a shortcoming of both conceptual and procedural knowledge in statistics. The
knowledge can be obtained from specialised probability course or sharing ideas with
colleagues. Second, teachers can develop an in-depth understanding of their
students from research papers and past assessment data to explore the actual
difficulties in students probability learning. In the proceeding papers, Prodromou
(2013) suggests that students difficulties in the learning of the topic area of statistics
come from misunderstanding of statistical concepts and lack in procedural
knowledge. Third, teachers should be able to choose digital technology and software
that are appropriate for teaching probability, and know how to represent the
content using the technology.
After being equipped with theoretical foundations, learning activities of HSC
Mathematics Probability topic can be designed. The HSC Mathematics Probability
Syllabus requires teachers to teach the properties and calculations of probability,
union and intersection of probability, and the illustration of probability (Board of
Studies, 2008). In teaching practice, I will provide clear conceptual explanation of
probability, for example, P(A U B) will be explained as the existence of any of the
two events should be counted. Also in the calculating P(A U B) = P(A) + P(B)
P(AB), I will show a Venn diagram to make students aware that the overlapping
part between A and B is counted twice. This strategy can be used to deal with the
issues suggested by Prodromous paper (2013). To synthesise the content of
probability topic, I will design an activity that ask students to explore the real
weather data as an example. The data in an Excel file describe the weather
conditions, which are categorised as sunny, cloudy and rainy, of a whole year.
Students are required to use Excel command to count of frequency of each event
and calculate the probability. Then I will ask students to construct a pie chart the
events, which develop their understanding of part to whole concept in probability.
Finally, I will ask students to investigate the probability of two sunny days in three
successive days by drawing a decision tree. The use of graphic illustration develop
students conceptual understand of sequential probability. Also the use the Excel
allows student to explore real world big data, which reflect TPACK, and align with the
idea of Goos et al. (2007) that technology is a master of teaching and learning.
In conclusion, the conference proceeding paper from MERGA 2013 suggests that PCK
is crucial for effective secondary mathematics teaching. In order to develop PCK,
PSTs need to have an adequate MCK, obtain knowledge about students learning
theories and their learning needs. The participation of technology further develop
PSTs PCK into TPACK, which enriches the learning of Year 12 Probability for
students. However, the socioeconomic status (SES) is a potential societal issue
behind this teaching theory as students access to technology is influenced by SES.
(Goos et al., 2007).
References

ATISL (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-
teachers/standards/list.
Averill, R., Drake, M. & Harvey, R. (2013). Coaching Pre-service Teachers for Teaching
Mathematics: the Views of Students. Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Bennison, A. & Goos, M. (2013). Teacher Identity and Numeracy: Developing an
Analytic Lens for Understanding Numeracy Teacher Identity. Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne,
Australia. Retrieved from https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
BOSTES (2016). How to Become a High School Teacher. Retrieved from
http://nswteachers.nsw.edu.au/future-returning-teachers/become-a-
teacher/high-school/.
Board of Studies (2008). Mathematics 2/3 Unit Year 11-12. Retrieved from
https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/f
ile?cmd=view&content_id=_2686334_1&course_id=_20688_1.
Chick, H. & Beswick, K. (2013). Educating Boris: an Examination of Pedagogical
Content Knowledge for Mathematics Teacher Educators. Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne,
Australia. Retrieved from https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Daniel, L. & Balatti, J. (2013). Thoughts behind the Actions: Exploring Pre-service
Teachers Mathematical Content Knowledge. Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia.
Retrieved from https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Easey, M. (2013). Teachers Perspectives Regarding the Decline in Boys Participation
in Post-Compulsory Rigorous Mathematics Subjects. Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia.
Retrieved from https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Getenet, S. T. & Beswick, K. (2013). Measuring Mathematics Teacher Educators
Knowledge of Technology Integrated Teaching: Instrument Development.
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia Conference 2013,
Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Goos, M., Stillman, G., & Vale, C. (2007). Teaching secondary school mathematics:
Research and practice for the 21st century. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen &
Unwin.
Goos, M. (2013). Knowledge for Teaching Secondary School Mathematics: What
Counts? International Journal of Mathematical Education and Technology,
44(7), 972-983. DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2013.826387

Highfiled, K. & Goodwin, K. (2013). Apps for Mathematics Learning: A Review of

Educational Apps from the iTunes App Store. Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia.
Retrieved from https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Hodgson, L. (2013). What Teachers See when Watching Others Teach. Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne,
Australia. Retrieved from https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Linsell, C. & Anakin, M. (2013). Foundation Content Knowledge: What Do Pre-Service
Teachers Need to Know? Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Livy, S. & Herbert, S. (2013). Pre-Service Teachers Responses for Ratio and
Proportion Items. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia
Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Marshman, M. & Porter, G. (2013). Pre-Service Teachers Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: Implications for Teaching. Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australia Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Prodromou, T. (2013). How Pre-Service Teachers Integrate Knowledge of Students
Difficulties in Understanding the Concept of the Arithmetic Mean in Their
Pedagogy. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia Conference
2013, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.
Reaburn, R. (2013). Pre-Service Teachers Understanding of Measure of Centre: When
the Meaning Get Lost? Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia
Conference 2013, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.merga.net.au/node/38?year=2013.