ZDM (2018) 50:601–612

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0906-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers

of mathematics
Michael Neubrand1 

Accepted: 20 December 2017 / Published online: 16 January 2018

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Abstract
Different conceptualizations exist about the components of the knowledge teachers need to teach mathematics with pro-
fessional consciousness, and a researcher needs to describe and assess that knowledge. The fact, however, is that different
conceptualizations respond to different needs, and thus, the variety is even a chance to develop the field further, the field
of mathematics-related knowledge for teachers and for teaching. This paper sketches basic ideas of selected theoretical
approaches, their goals, their fields of application, and their methods. First, three quite influential projects are introduced:
The “Michigan Project” (US), “COACTIV” (Germany), and “TEDS-M” (international). Then three conceptualizations
with particular approaches are presented: “Mathematics-for-Teaching” (Canada), Rowland’s “Knowledge Quartet” (UK),
and Lindmeier’s “Structure Model” (Germany). The paper closes with some remarks concerning horizons: The first remark
points to the restriction of all models of evaluating teachers’ professional knowledge, namely, the everlasting gap between the
knowledge per se and the need for acting in the classroom. The second remark reads the recently discussed idea of theory-
building as a somewhat neglected aspect of professional knowledge. Thirdly, I discuss briefly how far the seminal CK/PCK
distinction could really be an appropriate way into perceiving teachers’ professional knowledge. Finally, I close with a few
words on the need not to forget the policy issues of our work. The basic overall idea of the paper is to create—within the
limited space—a sufficiently broad spectrum of the issue itself, and what was done in recent years to find a basis for research
into teachers’ knowledge as a salient issue for the effective teaching of mathematics.

Keywords  Professional knowledge of teachers · Knowledge for the teaching of mathematics · Professionalism of teachers ·
Teaching mathematics at the secondary level · Content knowledge · Pedagogical content knowledge

1 A wide perspective: what from. Following e.g., Hoyle (2001) and Shulman (1998),
is a “profession”? What, therefore, and especially Kunter et al. (2013, Chaps. 1, 2), one can call
is needed to think about the issues those occupations “profession” which manage societal goods
of teachers’ knowledge and knowledge such as physical or mental health, justice, or—in the case
for teaching? of teaching—education. There are some characteristic fea-
tures of an occupation being a profession (Kunter et al. 2013,
We often speak of professional knowledge, even though we p. 27): (1) The core is that professions are obliged to serve
sometimes do not reflect what the term “profession” implies, others, which also embraces some personal responsibility.
and where the specialty of the teachers’ profession comes (2) To that end, they need an understanding of a scholarly
or theoretical kind, i.e., a profession refers to a domain of
This paper is based on the invited survey lecture in the Topic skilled performance or practice. (3) Professionals are used to
Study Group 46: ‘Knowledge in/for teaching mathematics at exercising judgments under conditions of unavoidable uncer-
secondary level’ at the International Congress on Mathematical tainty. (4) They therefore need learning from experience,
Education ICME-13, 2016 in Hamburg.
as theory and practice in a profession always interact. (5)
* Michael Neubrand Finally, professionals need systematically organized training
michael.neubrand@uni‑oldenburg.de and are part of a professional community to monitor quality
and aggregate knowledge.
1
Institut für Mathematik, Carl-von-Ossietzky-University,
26111 Oldenburg, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 M. Neubrand
602

Especially regarding the profession of teachers, it 2 The shift in mathematics education

follows that any thinking about the knowledge teach- from researching students to researching
ers need, immediately enters into a complex field. The teachers: the foci on content
actual demands of the practice of teaching include, from and pedagogy
the “professional” standpoint, a bundle of different per-
spectives. At least, one can associate the aforementioned Putting our question once more, expanding it from just
features of professionalism with different aspects of the another viewpoint into a bigger context, the movement of
wished-for capabilities: The scholarly domain (in the the whole field of mathematics education in, say, the last
sense of 2 above) needs knowledge of the specific field 50 or even 100 years, shows several shifts of attention.
to be taught, mathematics or at least certain branches of Our discipline, mathematics education, started with some
mathematics in our case, and the main (and often quite mathematicians (e.g., Felix Klein, Georg Pólya) caring and
specific) goals of the school curriculum. The obligation to writing about issues of mathematics learning and teaching,
serve others (cf. 1) requires knowledge about the personal the reform of schools, the contents of the curriculum, etc.
and intellectual development of the learners, individu- From psychology (e.g., Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky), we
ally and in social contexts, and implies that the teacher were informed how mathematical thinking of individu-
assumes responsibility for the learner. Skilled practice als develops as a part of the intellectual growing of the
and judgment in unclear contexts, and often within a short child. Hans Freudenthal focuses more on content, i.e., spe-
reaction time (cf. 2 and 3) can be tackled only by a sound cifically mathematics, and systematically delves into the
knowledge of teaching under the conditions of a class as a observation of learning processes, within the classroom,
social system. Since the professional community calls for or outside the school. And mathematics education broad-
knowledgeable members (cf. 4 and 5), mathematics teach- ens further towards social issues, language questions, and
ers ought to be conscious of various quality needs and sociological considerations (cf., e.g., the entries in Ler-
how this quality can be reached and recognized, which man’s Encyclopedia 2014).
also means that teachers should after the initial training Concerning methods, we had the shift from the (ongo-
be ready for further development. ing) qualitative discourse to an increasing number of quan-
Such a complex bundle of issues, however, is surely not titative studies, especially in the last 20 years, not at least
ready to be described by only affirmative statements, nor under the growing influence of the development of psycho-
assessed by only simple questionnaires alone. Any con- logical methods. These studies started again with the focus
ceptualization of such kinds of professional capacities, on the students, especially in studying what mathemati-
therefore, calls for constantly making transparent what the cal achievement could be, and how it can be measured;
targets and the limits of specific concepts are, how these TIMSS and PISA are prominent under such studies. It was
concepts relate to certain aspects of practice, and how a then only consequent, to ‘draw the lessons’ (Baumert et al.
certain concept interplays with other conceptualizations. 2004); thus, the origins of mathematical achievement espe-
One always should bear in mind the system as a whole, cially through teaching, and the conditions of its growth,
even when a specific question needs to be focused on a come into consideration. Many such origins can be thought
narrowed concept. of, but without doubt, one significant source, albeit not the
But still a second characteristic facet should be added: only one, for developing mathematical achievement of the
Teaching as the core of a teacher’s profession entails students is the quality of teaching they receive, and that
acting, not only knowledge per se. The recent literature quality depends, among other influences, but particularly,
therefore takes into account the term “competence”, i.e., on the knowledge and the competence (in a broad sense,
the personal capacity to cope with specific situational see above) of the teachers.
demands, and to act according to them. The term “pro- Seen from outside mathematics education, it is surely
fessional competence” was coined by Weinert (2001), true that Lee Shulman’s address as a President of the
who included in the theoretical construct also the aspect AERA (Shulman 1986) was something like an initial
of action competence. Competence therefore combines impulse to more intensely consider in the educational sci-
intellectual abilities, content-specific knowledge, cogni- ences, both the fact that teaching is the core of the busi-
tive skills, domain-specific strategies and routines, moti- ness, and that teaching cannot even be thought of without
vational tendencies, volitional control systems, personal appealing the subject’s specific aspects. Shulman proposed
value orientations, and social behaviors into a complex to distinguish three fundamental dimensions of teacher
system (following Weinert 2001, p. 51). Competence is, knowledge: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical con-
by this definition, learnable and teachable. tent knowledge (PCK), and generic pedagogical knowl-
edge (PK). The close connection of Shulman’s model

13
Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics 603

to subject-specific thinking can already be found in his outside school). This focus has two aspects: On one side,
descriptions. As Content Knowledge he declares: “The there must be a differentiation between the age groups
teacher need not only understand that something is so; to be taught; thus, we find conceptualizations specific to
the teacher must further understand why it is so, on what primary teaching, and those for secondary teaching. On
grounds its warrant can be asserted, and under what cir- the other side, being mathematics specific implies going
cumstances our belief in its justification can be weakened into the details of the content itself and the implications
and even denied.” (Shulman 1986, p 9). He distinguished of how to learn it (cf., Even 1990, as an early example;
further: see later in this paper at the end of Sect. 3.2 the hints
of some recent work, e.g., by; Bass 2017, or by; Weiss
Within the category of pedagogical content knowledge
and Herbst 2015, addressing how deeper aspects of our
I include the most useful forms of representation of
content should be regarded as well; cf. also; Dreher et al.
a subject area’s ideas, the most powerful analogies,
2016 with a discussion of how to conceptualize CK; cf.
illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstra-
also Pino-Fan et al. (2015), using an overarching semi-
tions, in a word, the ways of representing and formulat-
otic, and mathematics specific teaching-learning model
ing the subject that makes it comprehensible to others.
to characterize teachers’ knowledge).
Since there are no single most powerful forms of rep-
2. The studies to be conducted, and consequently the
resentation, the teacher must have at hand a veritable
frameworks to be created, should accomplish the pro-
armamentarium of alternative forms of representation,
duction of empirical evidence, equally on the case study
some of which derive from research whereas others
level and on a larger scale. Which kind of empirical evi-
originate in the wisdom of practice (Shulman 1986,
dence should be chosen depends on the aims of the study
p. 9).
and on the characteristics that rule the population in a
Thus, Shulman’s central aspect of CK is largely also study’s center of attention. Studies with international
determined by the pedagogical needs, and conversely his and/or structural intentions therefore try to be as inde-
PCK conceptualization draws heavily from content driven pendent of personal and cultural parameters as possible,
considerations and reflections. However, if the content whereas some studies try to unfold just these param-
really plays a decisive role depends on the viewpoint of the eters (cf., as an example, Yang 2014; he describes how
researcher. From the viewpoint of cognitive-based instruc- conceptions of expertise are influenced by the cultural
tion, Kirschner et al. (2017) recently challenged this claim. context).
Paul Kirschner sets the antithesis, that the general issues 3. To measure the appropriateness and effectiveness of
of learning govern the field, not the special influences of assessing and developing teachers’ professional knowl-
the content, even and especially in mathematics; he rather edge, a single indication does not cover all aspects:
emphasizes that general learning issues dominate the ways Growth and sustainability of students’ mathematical
teachers teach and students learn. I personally do not agree achievement is one and surely the most important target.
with this view; however, it is worth discussion (see the end The classical studies (see later the Michigan, COAC-
of the paper). TIV and TEDS-M studies) normally take the results of
Staying within mathematics education, the shift from achievement tests as the dependent variable. But equally
studying students’ learning to research into teachers’ com- one can look for further outcomes related to or triggered
petencies happened in the last 20–30 years, not to ignore that by the professional knowledge of the teachers. A few of
we always had discussions on how teachers (do, can, could) those outcomes are as follows: the students’ (mathemati-
behave in the class. The recent discourses on teachers’ cal) behavior in the class, the capability of the teachers
knowledge in mathematics, however, go far beyond the for- for creating lessons under certain (content and socially
mer scope (cf., e.g., Neubrand and Seago 2009). One should related) conditions, the readiness of teachers to include
be aware that researching teachers’ professional knowledge advanced thinking skills (e.g. problem solving) into the
in mathematics education has some wider implications, con- classroom, or the openness of the teachers towards new
cerning both the set-up of the studies and the interpretation developments and further education (e.g., in professional
of the results. Among them, some specific foci, or maybe communities). It is an ongoing challenge in all studies to
even more sharply, challenges, should be highlighted: further differentiate the outcomes of their measures of
teachers’ professional knowledge. But some steps have
1. Study programs on teachers’ knowledge cannot be mean- already been accomplished. COACTIV has also gained
ingful, and cannot be applied to the teaching processes, data about teachers’ enthusiasm (cf. Kunter et al. 2011)
as long they ignore the specific aspects of the mathemat- and motivational issues (Kunter et al. 2013); TEDS-M,
ical content, which equally relates to the content per se, and COACTIV as well, had beliefs on the screen (see
and the various issues of developing the content (in or Tatto 2008, 2012); Knievel et al. (2015) assess action

13
 M. Neubrand
604

related competencies of teachers, and therefore use cognitive nature; social issues, the action in the classroom,
videos in their methodology; Schlump and Neubrand and the dynamics of the personal development of the teach-
(2013) show the diversity of teachers’ ideas about how ers are not in the foreground. From the implications and
to structure problem solving sequences in their lessons; challenges mentioned at the end of Sect. 2, points (1), being
Goos (2014) highlights the significance of professional content specific, and (2), searching for empirical evidence,
learning communities of teachers; etc. are definitely present in these three studies, while point
(3), is mostly confined to the outcomes in mathematical
achievement.
3 Sketches of some frameworks for teachers’
knowledge and knowledge for teaching: 3.1.1 The Michigan project “Mathematical knowledge
towards a broad spectrum for Teaching”

There are many existing studies and frameworks concerning This project was among the first to take seriously the math-
our topic. For a more extended and systematic overview, see ematics-specific research into the professional knowledge of
for example the following: the four Volumes of the Hand- teachers. The authors call it a “practice-based theory of the
book of Wood et al. (2008); the ICMI-Study of Even and mathematical resources entailed by the work of teaching”
Ball (2009); the collection of Rowland and Ruthven (2011); (Ball and Bass 2009). That means, the categories emerged
the paper of Depaepe et al. (2013) dealing in considerable from the observation that there are “recurrent tasks of teach-
detail with special aspects like CK and PCK; or the report of ing mathematics” (Ball and Bass 2003, 2009) entailed in a
Cochran-Smith and Zeichner (2005) taking the perspective teacher’s preparation. Indeed, the study began by consider-
of general education. ing real mathematical tasks from (primary) classrooms, and
Within the limited space of this paper, I will select here discussing their implications, be they mathematical, peda-
only those characteristic and influential examples which can gogical, or concerning the way the students understand and
create a spectrum broad enough to show how diverse the deal with those tasks.
field is. I concentrate on short descriptions of the diverse An important reference was—see above—Shulman’s dis-
frameworks, goals, and theorizations, and do not deal exten- tinction between content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical
sively with the operative research methods used. However, I content knowledge (PCK). However, more and more facets
give some hints of the variety of methods used by these con- appeared as influential and even necessary for good “math-
ceptualizations. One can learn from this variety that—as in ematical knowledge for teaching”, going far beyond the orig-
many areas of mathematics education—flexibility of meth- inal coarse categories of CK and PCK. The reason for that
ods is the way to react to the different aims of the studies. was that one recognizes “three central responsibilities” of
Depending on these various aims, we encounter in this the teacher in the mathematics class: “(1) To provide effec-
section classical empirical studies, both those of smaller tive opportunities to learn substantial mathematics […]; (2)
scale (Sect. 3.1.1 Michigan), and large scale on the national to take seriously student thinking […]; and (3) to be com-
(Sect. 3.1.2 COACTIV) and international levels (Sect. 3.2.3 mitted to the learning of every student […].” (Ball and Bass
TEDS-M), addressing primary (Michigan) or secondary 2009, p 12). Thus, knowledge about the curriculum, its goals
mathematics teaching (COACTIV and TEDS). Further, one and specifications of the content, knowledge about the learn-
can find out how far interpretive approaches are the appro- ing of the students, and not least, knowledge about the wider
priate method (Sect. 3.1.1 MfT, Canada), or what happens horizon of the mathematics dealt with in the class turned out
when lesson observation becomes the pivot (Sect. 3.1.2 to be necessary. How far-reaching, especially, “knowledge
Knowledge Quartet). Also structuring the whole field ena- at the mathematical horizon” can go, is illustrated when
bles the identification of methods which suit the intended we deal at the end of this paper with theory-building as an
aims, for instance video studies (Sect. 3.2.3 Lindmeier). important, but neglected, activity in mathematics lessons.
All these many aspects of professional knowledge are sum-
3.1 Conceptualizations built around CK, PCK, marized and arranged in “the Egg” (Fig. 1).
and PK Concerning methods, one characteristic feature should be
highlighted. Many of the insights into teachers’ professional
The first three conceptualizations mentioned here, seem knowledge were gained by what one can call the scenario-
to have set the stage since the beginning of the century method: Imagine a student …, imagine a situation …, and
for a series of following investigations. They all are built show how you can or would react as a teacher. Seen from
upon Shulman’s seminal distinction of CK, PCK, and PK, the test construction viewpoint, the project still mainly used
although over time the classifications became more and classical questionnaire approaches. But the project consid-
more extended. Thus, the kernel of their theories is of ered carefully what should be targeted by this study: The

13
Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics 605

These unique circumstances and procedures (cf. details in

Kunter et al. 2013), allowed us to realize a program designed
for the purpose of moving from the descriptive achievement
tests closer to some causal relations between teachers’ teach-
ing and students’ performance (Baumert et al. 2004): How
do students and teachers (differently) perceive the teaching
of mathematics in the class? Do mathematics teachers of
greater professional knowledge really reach better progress
in students’ achievement? How is the professional knowl-
edge of teachers distributed over the sample? These ques-
tions could be tackled for the first time in Germany on the
basis of a really representative sample, being as representa-
Fig. 1  “The Egg”: Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (Ball and tive as the student sample of PISA is, since we had in this
Bass 2009, p 15) sample nearly all (about 300) “PISA-teachers”, i.e., the
teachers of the PISA-students, across the country.
intention was to characterize the mathematical knowledge The COACTIV project was a challenge also with respect
necessary “to carry out the work of teaching mathematics” to the framework to be set up, and in consequence, also
(Hill et al. 2005, p 373). Then it turned out, “that a meas- with respect to the setting up of instruments which could
ure composed of multiple-choice items representing these map what was going on mathematically in the classroom.
teaching-specific mathematical skills can both reliably dis- The first references considered were Shulman, and Ball and
criminate among teachers and meet basic validity require- Bass; but Ball and Bass, i.e., the Michigan project, confined
ments for measuring teachers’ mathematical knowledge for themselves to primary teaching, and Shulman was subject-
teaching” (p 373). The study used teachers’ scores as a pre- emphasizing but not mathematics-specific. Furthermore, the
dictor of students’ mathematics achievement, and found that aim of the COACTIV study was broader than only to see the
“teachers’ mathematical knowledge was significantly related influence of teachers’ knowledge on students’ mathematical
to student achievement gains in both first and third grades achievement. COACTIV also aimed to have some insight
[…]” (Hill et al. 2005, 371). Then it could be argued, that into the learning and teaching of mathematics in the class-
improving teachers’ mathematical knowledge could lead to room. We avoided direct observation, but wanted neverthe-
better students’ achievement, a message which was impor- less to judge how mathematics was taught in the classes (and
tant for the inner-US policy debate on teacher education in how students perceived that teaching).
primary grades. Thus, instruments were needed which could measure the
essential content-related features in the mathematics class-
3.1.2 The COACTIV project (Germany) room. To that end, it could be drawn on some previous work
in Germany and in the international context: The TIMSS-
COACTIV reacted to certain unique circumstances in 2003 Video-Study (Stigler et al. 1999; Neubrand 2006) made evi-
in Germany. When setting up the PISA study for the year dent that, even with the cultural differences, the selection
2003 (OECD 2004; Prenzel et al. 2004), the national options and orchestration of mathematical tasks in the classroom
of the PISA project allowed Germany to extend the students’ are the salient instances of how teachers influence the les-
achievement study in 2003 (when mathematics was the son. The potential of a lesson for, as it was called, “cognitive
major domain) to several other aspects: The PISA-interna- activation in the classroom” can effectively be pictured by a
tional sample draws on single students, but we were allowed suitable task analysis (Neubrand 2002). Such a task analysis
to take into account also the achievement test results of the was also done during the first PISA cycle, internationally
whole classes from which these students were drawn (as (OECD 1999), and especially in an extended and differenti-
far as they came from Grade 9); we additionally could ask, ated form by an extra framework of the German PISA math-
by extensive questionnaires, the students of these classes ematics group (Neubrand et al. 2001). “Cognitive activation”
and their teachers many questions about the ways they were thus became an indispensable dimension that was necessary
taught and how they taught mathematics in the classroom. to incorporate into the otherwise content-poor framework of
Furthermore, we could keep these classes in the research instructional research (Klieme et al. 2009). But this dimen-
focus a year longer to observe the learning progress in math- sion became substantiated and measurable by the analysis
ematics from grade 9 to grade 10. With this background of the cognitive potential of the tasks. The system of clas-
we had a good basis to add at the end of the second year an sification of tasks in COACTIV (Neubrand et al. 2013; i.e.,
ample questionnaire designed for those teachers in math- Chap. 7 in; Kunter et al. 2013) thus becomes one of the
ematics who taught these classes over the 2 years. kernel features of the methodology of COACTIV (for the

13
 M. Neubrand
606

details and for display of the full range of the methodology field of professional knowledge of teachers. Rather it has
see also Chap. 5 in Kunter et al. 2013). Especially based on to look for robust and generally acknowledged measures,
the work of J. Neubrand (2002), this classification allows both from the point of view of the theoretical conceptu-
the recognition, for example, of how conceptual thinking is alizations and the quantitative approaches a large-scale
incorporated in a lesson, how teachers select the tasks, and study can realize. Professional knowledge of teachers is
if that selection really influences the learning progress of under those conditions an indicator of the outcomes of
the students. Indeed, it does: A more professional teacher, national teacher preparation programs. Measuring that
as measured by the CK-PCK-PK-questionnaires, attains knowledge means the specification of the outcomes, and
enhanced learning progress of her/his students, and she/he the theoretical considerations behind the concepts have
can accomplish it, as one could reconstruct from the task to inform the item developers how to write items for that
analysis, mainly by the selection of cognitively challenging purpose.
tasks in the classroom (Baumert et al. 2010). Indeed, TEDS-M specifies the success of teacher edu-
Besides cognitive activation, COACTIV considered two cation programs by the dimensions knowledge of math-
more core dimensions, namely, support of individual learn- ematics, knowledge of mathematics pedagogy, and gen-
ers, since posing cognitively challenging tasks should be eral knowledge for teaching. But TEDS-M also included
accompanied by a teacher’s personal support for students’ a number of so-called beliefs items, namely, beliefs about
learning, and the (classical) issues of classroom manage- the nature of mathematics as a discipline, about learning
ment. All three core dimensions appear again in one of the mathematics and about mathematical achievement. As a
main results as specific elements mediating students’ learn- comparison with expected policy impact, TEDS-M asked
ing progress (Baumert et al. 2010). the teachers also for their opinions about how prepared
COACTIV produced some more specific results, e.g., they felt for teaching mathematics, how they thought about
concerning teachers’ enthusiasm, motivation, beliefs, all the effectiveness of the teacher preparation programs they
incorporated into a “multicriteria analysis of instructional visit or visited, and what their opportunities were to learn
quality” (Kunter et al. 2013, Chap. 6). Thus, COACTIV set the relevant things, and which these were. (Tatto et al.
the stage for numerous following studies, and not least also 2008, 2012) Besides these specifications, TEDS-M pro-
for the setup of the necessarily broader picture an interna- vided also a big overview of the various institutional fea-
tional overview like TEDS-M can draw (see below). COAC- tures which underlie teacher education in the participating
TIV also indirectly induced some theoretical and empirical countries.
considerations aimed at further differentiation of the central From the detailed results (Tatto et al. 2012, p. 203 ff)
concepts used. For example, Dreher et al. (2016) inspected two aspects should be highlighted. The one is that a
more closely what CK could be between school mathematics teacher preparation program that intends to be mathemat-
and academic mathematics. They proposed (and tested) a ics-specific in both CK and PCK, is more likely to produce
construct called school-related content knowledge (SRCK), well prepared teachers. The other interesting finding is that
tapping the interrelations of academic and school mathemat- “policies of assuring the quality of future teachers” were
ics into a professional CK. positively related to the “scores in the TEDS-M tests of
mathematics content knowledge and mathematics peda-
3.1.3 TEDS‑M (international, by IEA) gogy knowledge” (Tatto et al. 2012, p. 206). In a word,
concentration in the teacher preparation courses on math-
The “Teacher Education and Development Study in Math- ematics CK and PCK really counts.
ematics” (TEDS-M) is also a good example of the shift The central question after TEDS-M, and with various
of attention described in the preceding paragraph. After positive insights from TEDS-M, however, seems to be the
TIMSS, the ongoing study concentrating on comparing measurement of the effectiveness of teacher education pro-
worldwide mathematics achievement of students, the well- grams. Since this question contains many context, content,
reputed IEA agency seeks also “for an in-depth investigation and realization factors, it is not easy to answer. Blömeke
of teacher preparation and training, particularly in terms of et  al. (2008) pointed out that “the discovery [of latest
the subject area of mathematics” (Tatto et al. 2008, p. 9). Of research as TEDS-M; MN] that it is possible to organize
course, the framework of TEDS-M has to take into account things differently is of special relevance. It sheds new light
the various aspects of teachers’ professional knowledge, on fundamental cultural concepts behind teacher education
however within the special setting of a ‘big’ international which are usually taken for granted.” (Blömeke et al. 2008,
overview and comparison. p. 729) TEDS-M is one of the universal contributions to
As an overarching international study, TEDS-M could this aspect of the question of effectiveness of teacher edu-
not be a study to create theoretical breakthroughs in the cation programs.

13
Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics 607

3.2 Three particular conceptualizations of the field

Among the many studies on professional knowledge of

teachers and for teaching there exist also conceptualizations
that are different in comparison to the many other studies
taking CK and/or PCK aspects more or less as their main
and foregrounded orientations. Three of them are selected
here, again to give an impression of the variety of concep-
tualizations and the diversity of methods we can find in the
field. Above all, these studies draw their relevance from the
special purposes they aim to serve. Seen from the perspec-
tives of the implications and challenges at the end of Sect. 2,
it is now—compared to the previous section—point (3), the
wideness of outcomes that should be considered, that comes
increasingly into the focus of these three more studies.

3.2.1 “Mathematics‑for‑Teaching” (Canada)

Similarly to the Michigan Project, the considerations of the

“Mathematics-for-Teaching” project stick to the distinction
that there are content specific (i.e., specific to mathemat- Fig. 2  Stable and dynamic aspects of mathematical knowledge and its
acquisition (Davis and Simmt 2006, p. 298)
ics, in the sense of Sect. 2 of this paper) and pedagogical
aspects in the knowledge of teachers. However, the relation-
ship between these two sides of teachers’ knowledge must takes the challenges of having multiple indicators for profes-
be viewed as highly complex in its nature, and, therefore, sional knowledge (see end of Sect. 2, this paper) seriously in
any description should best be grounded on general aspects a very specific way. The model provides both an overview
of complexity. Thus, all categories used in the conceptu- of the dynamics, and a way to order and express the experi-
alization of this project do not have sharp boundaries, are ences and thoughts of the teachers. Especially, it is essential
intertwined and nested, and have always a ‘history’. Such that teachers get “strong senses of these dynamics” as this
nesting starts from the individual understanding, which is is “critical to effective pedagogy and a core aspect of their
embedded in the classroom collectivity, which again relies mathematical knowledge”. Thus, “insights into the historical
on curriculum structures, which themselves are nested in emergence of core concepts, interconnections among ideas,
formal mathematics (cf. Davis and Simmt 2006, p. 296 ff). and the analogies and images that have come to be associ-
However, the dynamics of these categories over time is ated with different principles are of significance” (Davis and
the key issue. The distinction “between the relatively stable Simmt 2006, p. 297).
aspects of mathematical knowledge itself and the somewhat Consequently, the methodological approach takes up this
more volatile qualities” (Davis and Simmt 2006, p. 297) of aim:
the acquisition of that knowledge is crucial. Therefore, one
We have developed an interpretive approach that
should read Fig. 2 in this way: The picture gives the (main)
enables us to attend to both explicit and tacit aspects
categories, but the key is to realize the distinction between
of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. This method
the more stable aspects (developed in timescales of decades)
is organized, in part, around extended, group-based
and the more rapidly changing aspects (developed within
engagements with seemingly narrow tasks—ones that
timescales even of seconds).
often appear to have immediate and well-established
First, it should be noted that pointing to the (episte-
responses (Davis and Simmt 2006, p. 299).
mological) dynamics of a subject is quite in tune with the
ideas of Shulman about the essence of CK for teachers (see The questions, however, can and should be quite general
above; cf. also the following studies, which the develop- to provoke shared interpretations by the students, in order
ing perspective also take into consideration). However, in to enable the “researchers to map out some of the contours
the “mathematics-for teaching” project the goal is not to of their mathematical knowledge” (p. 299). As an example,
measure in a quantitative sense possible effects on students’ Davis and Simmt take the noticeably open question “What
achievement, but the model is used as a starting point for is multiplication?”. Of course, such a research methodol-
the discourse, and an object of reference for the teachers in ogy calls for “elaborations of understandings” (p. 299), and
teacher professional development programs; i.e., this project “is necessarily recursive in the complexity science sense”

13
 M. Neubrand
608

(p. 299). In short, as Davis and Simmt (p. 299) summarize category are articulated which options of a lesson are taken
it, “the method is educative”. (or not) by the teacher, especially when unexpected events
In a sense, the Canadian project “Mathematics for Teach- occur (Rowland 2008b, esp. Table 1).
ing” is also intended to give teachers words and concepts for The four dimensions of the KQ apparently seem to react
professional communication. This is a vivid issue, and an to the broad band of possible actions a teacher is exposed
experience we (Kunter et al. 2013) also encountered in the to before and during the giving of a lesson. Indeed, the KQ
COACTIV project, when we started our questionnaire with works quite well in interpreting what can be seen in a math-
the statement that we, as the researchers, wanted “to come ematics lesson from outside. A striking experience in that
into contact with you, the teacher, as an expert in teach- respect was the Research Forum at PME-2009 (Ball et al.
ing”—and teachers highly appreciated such an approach 2009). According to the reactors, Ruhama Even and Michael
since it gave them the opportunity to “reflect their practice Neubrand, the KQ deliberately detected essential facets of
in a defined language” as one of the teachers reported. the lessons discussed in the Forum.

3.2.2 The knowledge quartet (KQ) by Rowland

3.2.3 The Structure model by Lindmeier
The “Knowledge Quartet” (Rowland 2008a, b) comes from
the needs of direct and personal lesson observation, a view- By creating a structural model, Anke Lindmeier’s disser-
point which is partly, but not systematically present in the tation (2011) aims to substantiate and empirically confirm
Michigan project, but which is absent in the other models some of the ideas brought up in the recent debates about
described above. If one wishes to identify, describe and the German Standards of mathematics teacher education. In
develop the mathematical and subject-bound pedagogical Germany, parallel to the mathematics achievement Stand-
knowledge of future teachers, one option beyond just test- ards for the schools, the government set up in 2004 also
ing that knowledge by questionnaires could be to observe Standards for (general) teacher education. To apply these
how the knowledge learned in the teacher education program Standards to mathematics, the Associations of teachers and
really plays out in the classroom. However, to judge that mathematicians promoted a document which built on some
knowledge needs a framework that can be used rationally to of the frameworks existing at that time. But there was no
analyze lesson observations under the perspective of how approach of a theoretical nature to the categories. The Struc-
professional knowledge works. This is, in a UK context, the ture Model is understood to be a “synthesis and extension
starting point for the KQ (Rowland 2008b); the project origi- of approaches that focus on teacher knowledge and those
nally and mainly relates to teaching in the primary grades that focus on teacher tasks” (Lindmeier 2011, p. 103). Both
but is gradually also found to be applicable to secondary components should appear in an integrated way, and in
mathematics. KQ research is aimed at investigating “ways in such a way that empirical evidence could be established.
which elementary teachers’ mathematics content knowledge As a consequence, some classical distinctions, e.g., between
can be observed to ‘play out’ in their practical teaching” CK and PCK, seem not properly fitting since an integra-
(Rowland 2008a, p. 152). Thus, lesson observation does not tion (within the knowledge as well as within the acting of
call for knowledge per se but for identifying situations in the teacher) calls for organizing the competencies in a more
which the knowledge would result in action. KQ used vide- general order.
otaped lessons to identify those aspects of teachers’ actions The Structure Model consists of three ample, but theo-
“that could be construed to be informed by the student teach- retically (and later also partly empirically) separable com-
ers’ mathematics content knowledge or their mathematical ponents, namely, basic knowledge, reflective competencies,
pedagogical knowledge” (Rowland 2008a, p. 152). In a way and action-related competencies. The basic knowledge com-
that is typical for the methods of grounded theory research, ponent contains both, knowledge about mathematics and
the KQ detected four salient dimensions, called foundation, knowledge about how students do mathematics. The reflec-
transformation, connection, and contingency. tive competencies component comprises the abilities to cope
By foundation the issues of knowledge (CK as well as consciously with pre-instructional processes, such as plan-
PCK), beliefs, and all academic or theoretical matter a ning a lesson, sequencing the tasks, or the post-instructional
teacher commands, are addressed. The transformation cat- analyses of students’ learning processes; it also includes
egory deals with knowledge-in-action aspects, i.e., it con- various forms of evaluation, and drawing the consequences
tains the planning activities of the teacher and the act of of that. The third component, action-related competencies,
teaching itself, as for instance, the choice and use of exam- aims to tap into those activities that—often spontaneously
ples in the class. Connection expresses how content and and under time pressure—are necessary to keep the continu-
students’ understanding are specifically bound together to ity of the lesson. All three components have to be seen from
create coherence in the lesson. Finally, in the contingency a mathematics-related perspective.

13
Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics 609

An empirical, video-bounded study with prospective and as we learned, e.g., from the already mentioned TIMSS
in-service teachers reveals that there are complex relation- Video Study, surely does not “address mathematics teacher
ships between the three components; however, it is not as knowledge explicitly”, but it “significantly shape[s] ways
clear as is often assumed that basic knowledge does sim- of thinking about how teachers develop as professionals”
ply predict the other components, albeit it “is found to be (Rowland 2014, p. 238).
a crucial and valuable factor” (Lindmeier 2011, p. 188). It The affective component Looking only at the cognitive
seems furthermore that action-related competencies develop implications of teachers’ knowledge, say at PCK, can equally
not just as kinds of application of reflective competencies: narrow the perspectives. It “might ignore affective aspects,
“The reflective and action-related competencies seem to be such as teachers’ identity and care for the subject and the
substantially different” (Lindmeier 2011, p. 188). students” (Depaepe et al. 2013, p. 22).
The investigation of the action related competencies, All these (and more) limitations call for always bearing in
which are surely central, seen from the practical teacher mind also the wider perspectives on teachers’ professional
education perspective, still challenges the development of knowledge. In the research context, the idea of triangula-
tests. Knievel et al. (2015) show that using video vignettes in tion, i.e., using data from different and diverse sources, is
the test instrument could be a promising way. But to be suc- sometimes useful (cf. Depaepe et al. 2013). Similarly, as
cessful, one must tackle the problems of coding and scoring, Rowland (2014) emphasizes, it is a permanent task of math-
and address the validation problem. For example, a video ematics education research to consider conceptual connec-
vignette of a teaching sequence can open the field to vari- tions between the vocabularies used, not only in the inter-
ous answers, however then many problems remain to relate cultural context.
the answers to knowledge or to competence aspects, or to
action related competencies. Knievel et al. (2015) tried out 4.2 Theory‑building as an often‑neglected aspect
a “holistic coding of the open answers” and stated that such of professional knowledge
an approach can meet a competence approach to teachers’
professional knowledge. The previous paragraph already pointed to the fact that
there is more than just knowledge in a narrow sense that
guides teachers when teaching. Thus, in a way we come
4 Concluding remarks: limitations, back to the considerations in the first section. We empha-
extensions, controversies, consequences sized two essential components within a teacher’s profes-
sional knowledge, namely, being interested in the personal
4.1 Knowledge‑driven approaches are of limited and intellectual development of the learners, and being
reach informed about the foundational elements that rule the
scholarly domain of teaching. In mathematics, therefore,
Many authors state that the prerequisites for such a com- the mechanisms of doing mathematics, i.e., the “practices,
plex process as teaching cannot be described based only on sensibilities, and ways of thinking of mathematics” (Bass
knowledge, however diversely this knowledge is defined. 2017, p. 229), should also be part of the professional knowl-
The contextual factors which are also typical for “a profes- edge of teachers.
sion” (see the first section of this paper) bring along some Two recent papers, by Hyman Bass (2017) and Weiss
limitations one should bear in mind, especially when models and Herbst (2015), draw attention to that connection. Both
of knowledge are going to be applied in the field, and when deal with geometry teaching, both claim that mathematical
they are used as a basis for decisions. To note only a few of sensibility is an important focus, and both start with the
such limitations, consider the following: observation that “such a sensibility can play a crucial role
The gap between knowing and acting For instance, in supporting the practice of effective teachers” (Weiss and
Depaepe et al. (2013, p. 22) report “that training teachers is Herbst 2015, p. 206). The practice of theory-building is a
reduced when teaching PCK disconnected from the class- complex construct with many facets, as Bass (2017) points
room context in which it is used”, since one has to take the out; it includes “creative acts of recognizing, articulating,
“situated nature of classroom life” into account. Using case and naming a mathematical concept or construct that is
studies, Hillje (2012) showed that a cognitive test like the demonstrably common to a variety of apparently different
one in COACTIV gives only a rough orientation, but the mathematical situations, a concept or construct that, at least
realization in the classroom towards cognitive activation fol- for those engaged in the work, might have had no prior con-
lows also personal preferences and some actions temporarily ceptual existence” (p. 230).
favored in the teachers’ communities. Even if these principles are used for the starting of the-
The cultural context Rowland (2014) adds a further oretical constructions, some empirical, case-study-like,
“caveat”. The cultural embedding of mathematics teaching, and partly quantitative examples can show the range of

13
 M. Neubrand
610

possibilities, realizations, and reactions, especially of teach- often point to the fact that such mathematical knowledge is
ers and student teachers. Weiss and Herbst (2015) come to indeed a good indicator for successful mathematics teaching.
the conclusion, “that while the disposition towards problem
solving is well-represented in the discourse of teachers, its
dialectical partner (theory building) lacks a customary role 4.4 Studies should provide evidence in the policy
in the practice of teaching geometry” (p. 225). Thus, the field
conceptualization of what appropriate CK—or is it PCK?—
could be, is not yet finished. To conclude, I want to reiterate a thought I found concisely
expressed in a quotation of Beswick and Goos (2012). They
4.3 Is CK‑PCK the right key to professional wrote that it is necessary to relate the conceptualizations we
knowledge? develop on teachers’ professional knowledge to our teacher
education programs, since the data from the studies “may
In the previous parts of this paper, Shulman’ well known provide important insights into validity of the measures and
distinction of CK and PCK often served as the starting point the subtleties of the impacts of teacher education programs.
of the conceptualization of a study. Is it right to do so with- Whether or not this proves to be the case, the current policy
out retroactive questioning? In an interview (see Kirschner environment makes evidence-based teacher education a pri-
et al. 2017), Paul Kirschner doubted the efficacy of the CK- ority” (p. 87). Thus, for studies on teachers’ professional
PCK approach. He claimed that the issues of learning—from knowledge there exist further boundary constraints: These
a cognitively informed instructional viewpoint—are much studies should, on the one hand, be close enough to the real-
more defined and influenced by general instructional design ity of teaching; however, on the other hand, they should be
principles than by content specific aspects. Thus, thinking as distant as the scientific approach to a field needs to be.
about learning mathematics from a decisively mathematical This balance is not as easy as it seems. Researchers in our
perspective does not address the central problems, rather it field must be aware that their approaches will be taken for
relates to some subtleties. This may be true within the cogni- granted despite the fact that the conceptualizations of the
tive psychology-based framework. studies necessarily carry special foci with them, and have
However, learning in school, and therefore also the prepa- certain implications, which limits their applicability (cf. the
ration for teaching in schools, is bounded by what we want conditions discussed at the end of Sect. 2 in this paper).
to achieve in compulsory education. It is more than learning Nevertheless, we must consider that the results may be used
for daily life, it includes also disciplinary knowledge, at least outside the ambit of the studies, often simplified and adopt-
to a certain degree. Thus, there are instances that plead for ing seemingly easy conclusions. Being aware of these social
some mathematically specific considerations in the design mechanisms is therefore also something to think about if we
of instructional processes. Kirschner claims the opposite: want to serve as evidence providers for policy makers.
“Understanding a graph or a function in mathematics is not
substantially different from understanding a graph or a func-
tion within economics or psychology” (p. 639). Yes, it is
true, but only from an instrumental view on mathematics. References
The previous remarks, based on the work of Bass, Weiss,
and Herbst, point to the other side of mathematical instruc- Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of
mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt
tion in schools. It should not be denied that creating a critical (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Cana-
picture of mathematics as a whole is also a goal of teaching dian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton:
mathematics (cf. Neubrand 2000), and targeting that goal CMESG/GCEDM.
needs more than categories rooted in instructional design Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2009). With an eye on the mathematical hori-
zon: Knowing mathematics for teaching to learners’ mathematical
only, but needs to be informed about central mathematical futures. In M. Neubrand (Ed.), Beiträge zum Mathematikunter-
practices. richt 2009: Vorträge auf der 43. Tagung für Didaktik der Math-
It is not the right place here for a detailed analysis of the ematik vom 2.-6. März 2009 in Oldenburg (Vol. 1, pp. 11–22).
Kirschner controversy, but at least, I would say that a sig- Münster: WTM-Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.mathema-
tik.tu-dortmund.de/ieem/cms/de/forschung/bzmu/bzmu6.html.
nificant part of teachers’ professional knowledge should be Accessed 13 Jan 2018.
devoted to building up specific mathematical knowledge, not Ball, D. L., Charalambous, Ch, Thames, M., & Lewis, J. (2009).
sheer instrumental knowledge, but in direct relation to the Research Forum 1: Teacher knowledge and teaching: Viewing
educational issues a teacher is faced with during teaching. a complex relationship from three perspectives. In M. Tzekaki,
M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd
The conceptualizations we found in Sect. 3 are therefore a Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
good foundation for taking mathematics seriously and spe- Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol 1, pp. 1/121–1/150). Thes-
cifically in educational research. The empirical results, then, saloniki: PME.

13
Conceptualizations of professional knowledge for teachers of mathematics 611

Bass, H. (2017). The role of theory building in the teaching of sec- Hoyle, E. (2001). Teaching as a profession. In P. Baltes & N. Smelser
ondary geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(3), (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral
229–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9747-y. sciences (Vol. 26, pp. 15472–15476). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Baumert, J., Blum, W., & Neubrand, M. (2004). Drawing the lessons Kirschner, P. A., Verschaffel, L., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2017).
from PISA-2000: Long term research implications. Gaining a There is more variation within than across domains: An inter-
better understanding of the relationship between system inputs view with Paul A. Kirschner about applying cognitive psychology-
and learning outcomes by assessing instructional and learning based instructional design principles in mathematics teaching and
processes as mediating factors. In D. Lenzen, J. Baumert, R. learning. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 49(4), 637–643. https://
Watermann, & U. Trautwein (Eds.), PISA und die Konsequen- doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0875-3.
zen für die erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung. Zeitschrift Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study:
für Erziehungswissenschaft, Beiheft 3/2004, pp. 143–158. (ISBN Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and Ger-
978-3-8100-4024-4) man mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, Th, Jor- power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in
dan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y. the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster: Waxmann.
(2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive acti- Knievel, I., Lindmeier, A., & Heinze, A. (2015). Beyond knowledge:
vation in the classroom, and student progress. American Measuring primary teachers’ subject-specific competences in and
Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. https://doi. for teaching mathematics with items based on video vignettes.
org/10.3102/0002831209345157. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
Beswick, K., & Goos, M. (2012). Measuring pre-service teachers’ 13(2), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9608-z.
knowledge for teaching mathematics. Mathematics Teacher Edu- Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neu-
cation and Development, 14(2), 70–90. https://www.merga.net. brand, M. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics
au/ojs/index.php/mted/article/view/154. Accessed 13 Jan 2018. classroom and professional competence of teachers (Mathemat-
Blömeke, S., Felbrich, A., Müller, C., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. ics Teacher Education, Vol. 8). New York: Springer. https://doi.
(2008). Effectiveness of teacher education: State of research, org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5.
measurement issues and consequences for future teachers. ZDM– Kunter, M., Frenzel, A., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011).
Mathematics Education, 40(5), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Teacher enthusiasm: Dimensionality and context specificity. Con-
s11858-008-0096-x. temporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 289–301. https://doi.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.07.001.
education. The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Lerman, S. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of mathematics education.
Teacher Education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dordrecht: Springer.
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: an ongoing Lindmeier, A. (2011). Modeling and measuring knowledge and com-
investigation of the mathematics that teachers (need to) know. petencies of teachers: A threefold domain-specific structure model
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3), 293–319. https://doi. for mathematics. Münster: Waxmann.
org/10.1007/s10649-006-2372-4. Neubrand, J. (2002). A classification of mathematics tasks for the anal-
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical ysis of instructional situations: Independent work during phases
content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the of student work in the TIMSS Video Study lessons. In Eine Klas-
concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teach- sifikation mathematischer Aufgaben zur Analyse von Unterrichts-
ing and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. situationen: Selbsttätiges Arbeiten in Schülerarbeitsphasen in den
tate.2013.03.001. Stunden der TIMSS-Video-Studie. Hildesheim: Franzbecker.
Dreher, A., Lindmeier, A., & Heinze, A. (2016). Conceptualizing pro- Neubrand, J. (2006). The TIMSS 1995 and 1999 Video Studies: In
fessional content knowledge of secondary teachers taking into search for appropriate units of analysis. In F.K.S Leung, K.-D.
account the gap between academic and school mathematics. In Graf & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in dif-
C. Csíkos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the ferent cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and
40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology the West. The 13th ICMI Study (New ICMI Study Series (Vol. 9,
of Mathematics Education PME (pp. 219–226). Szeged: PME. pp. 291–318). Berlin: Springer.
Even, R. (1990). Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case Neubrand, M. (2000). Reflecting as a Didaktik construction: Speak-
of functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 521–544. ing about mathematics in the mathematics classroom. In I. West-
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00315943. bury, ST. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective
Even, R., & Ball, D. L. (Eds.). (2009). The professional education and practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 251–265). Mahwah;
development of teachers of mathematics. The 15th ICMI Study London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(New ICMI Study Series, Vol. 11). Berlin: Springer. Neubrand, M., Biehler, R., Blum, W., Cohors-Fresenborg, E., Flade,
Goos, M. (2014). Communities of practice in mathematics teacher edu- L., Knoche, N., Lind, D., Löding, W., Möller, G., & Wynands, A.,
cation. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics educa- Deutsche PISA-Expertengruppe Mathematik. (2001). Grundlagen
tion (pp. 82–84). Dordrecht: Springer. der Ergänzung des internationalen PISA-Mathematik-Tests in der
Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ math- deutschen Zusatzerhebung. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Math-
ematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. Ameri- ematik, 33(2), 33–59.
can Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406. https://doi. Neubrand, M., Jordan, A., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Löwen, K. (2013).
org/10.3102/00028312042002371. Task analysis in COACTIV: Examining the potential for cogni-
Hillje, M. (2012). Fachdidaktisches Wissen von Lehrerinnen und Lehr- tive activation in German mathematics classrooms (Chap. 7). In
ern und die didaktische Strukturierung von Mathematikunterricht: M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss & M.
Fallanalysen zur kognitiven Aktivierung in Unterrichtsplanungen Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics class-
und realisiertem Unterricht. [Pedagogical content knowledge of room and professional competence of teachers (pp. 125–144).
teachers and the structuring of mathematics lessons: Case studies New York: Springer.
on cognitive activation in planned and realized lessons]. Olden- Neubrand, M., & Seago, N., in collaboration with Agudelo-Val-
burg: Carl-von-Ossietzky University. Retrieved from http://oops. derrama, C, DeBlois, L., & Leikin R. (2009). The balance of
uni-oldenburg.de/id/eprint/1603. Accessed 13 Jan 2018. teacher knowledge: Mathematics and pedagogy. In R. Even &

13
 M. Neubrand
612

D. L. Ball (Eds.), The professional education and development problem-solving competence. In A. Lindmeier, & A. Heinze
of teachers of mathematics. The 15th ICMI Study (New ICMI (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37rd Conference of the International
Study Series, Vol. 11, pp. 211–225). Berlin: Springer. https://doi. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME)
org/10.1007/978-0-387-09601-8_21. (Vol. 5, p. 5/266). Kiel: PME.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
(Ed.) (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills. A new teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
framework for assessment. Paris: OECD. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of profes-
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) sionals. The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511–526.
(Ed.) (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, St, & Serrano, A.
PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. (1999). The TIMSS Video Tape Classroom Study: Methods and
Pino-Fan, L., Assis, A., & Castro, W. (2015). Towards a methodol- findings from an explanatory research project on eighth-grade
ogy for the characterization of teachers’ Didactic-Mathematical mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan and the United
Knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Tech- States. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics
nology Education, 11(6), 1429–1456. https://doi.org/10.12973/ (NCES) (Publ. NCES 1999–074).
eurasia.2015.1403a. Tatto, M., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M., Reckase,
Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehmann, R., Leutner, D., Neu- M., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., & Peck, R. (2012). Policy, prac-
brand, M., Pekrun, R., Rolff, H.-G., Rost, J., & Schiefele, U. tice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics
(Eds.) (2004). PISA 2003: Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in in 17 countries: Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and
Deutschland: Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs. Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam: IEA.
Münster: Waxmann. Tatto, M., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G.
Rowland, T. (2008a). The purpose, design and use of examples in (2008). Teacher education and development study in mathematics
the teaching of elementary mathematics. Educational Stud- (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and
ies in Mathematics, 69(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/ secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing,
s10649-008-9148-y. MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study
Rowland, T. (2008b). Researching teachers’ mathematics disciplinary Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.
knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: a conceptual clarifica-
beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development. The tion. In D. Rychen & L. Saganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key
international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 1, competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
pp. 273–298). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Weiss, M., & Herbst, P. (2015). The role of theory building in the teach-
Rowland, T. (2014). Frameworks for conceptualizing mathematics ing of secondary geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
teacher knowledge. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of math- 89(2), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9599-x.
ematics education (pp. 235–238). Dordrecht: Springer. Wood, T., et al. (2008). The international handbook of mathematics
Rowland, T., & Ruthven, K. (Eds.) (2011). Mathematical knowledge teacher education (Vols. 1, 2, 3, 4). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
in teaching (Mathematics Education Library, Vol. 50). Dordrecht: Yang, X. (2104). Conception and characteristics of expert mathematics
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8. teachers in China. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Schlump, S., & Neubrand, M. (2013). Teachers think about
how to structure mathematics lessons to develop students’

13