Correlations between teachers’ MKT in different

content areas

Arne Jakobsen, Janne Fauskanger, Reidar Mosvold and Raymond Bjuland

Disposition
• History and background
– Professional development programs to
meet teachers’ needs
– Mathematical knowledge for teaching
(MKT)



Our project research question: What are the possibilities and
challenges of using the MKT measures in Norway?
•
• The project so far
– Translation
– Pilot: 142 teachers measured and 7 focus
group interviews

•
• NORMA 2011: What are the correlations between teachers’
MKT score in the three content areas: number concepts
MKT - the «egg»

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008, p. 403).

Translation and adaptation

Mosvold, R., Fauskanger, J., Jakobsen,

A., & Melhus, K. (2009).
The multiple-choice format
Focus group interviews.


How can Norwegian teachers’ reflections about



the MKT items contribute to our

understanding of challenges related to
the multiple-choice format?


•
•
Item Responce Theory (IRT)
• How can information about items psychometric
properties give new insight when adapting U.S.
developed MKT measure for use in Norway?
•
• An item performance is described by an item
characteristic function (with different difficulty
and slopes).
•
• Monotonically increasing function – as the MKT
increase the probability of correct answer
increase.
•
• Slope and difficulty is of importance.
Item performance
IRT findings
We found that items can be divided into three


groups:


1) Items that do not seem to function in Norway

2) Items that function well, but have relatively high
difference in item characteristics in
Norway compared to the U.S., and
3) Items that seem to function well and that have
item characteristics close to what is
reported in the U.S.



Quantitative + qualitative analyses!
1)
Teachers’ MKT
Focus group interviews:



We expected that teachers with strong MKT in
one content area would be strong in other
content areas relevant for their level of
teaching.



The teachers argued that some of the content
areas were not relevant and more difficult
compared to others



- our motivation to study correlations
•
•
Correlation between NCOP and GEOMETRY is 0.701 (p-
value < 0.0005).
 Correlations (Pearson, p-value<0.005)

Correlations


• Teachers’ MKT scores

NCOP PFA
in different content
GEOM 0.701 0.673
areas are correlated
PFA 0.580
•
• All correlations are
significant –
weakest correlation
between PFA and
NCOP
•
Conclusion


• We find that teachers’ MKT scores in the three

content areas are correlated


– Teachers with high MKT in one content area

have high MKT in other content areas and
vice versa
–
– Despite comments from teachers that not
finding PFA items relevant for their teaching,
their PFA MKT is related to MKT in the other
content areas
Questions

• How can the MKT measures be used when

designing professional development for
Norwegian teachers?



Discussing items as part of professional
development to learn more about
teachers’ MKT?
•
• Framework and other theories?
•
• Possibilities and limitations?
•