Development and validation of a survey instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

References

• Australian Council for Educational Research for the TEDS-M International Study Centre. 2011. “Released Items: Future Teacher Mathematics Content Knowledge (MCK) and Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge (MPCK) - Primary.” International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. ERIC.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. 1988. “Knowledge and Reasoning in Mathematical Pedagogy: Examining What Prospective Teachers Bring to Teacher Education.” PhD diss., Michigan State University. https://deborahloewenbergball.com/publications#Papers.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. 2000. “Bridging Practices: Intertwining Content and Pedagogy in Teaching and Learning to Teach.” Journal of Teacher Education 51: 241–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, D., S. Lubienski, and D. Mewborn. 2001. “Research on Teaching Mathematics: The Unsolved Problem of Teachers’ Mathematics Knowledge.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 433–456. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D., M. Thames, and G. Phelps. 2008. “Content Knowledge for Teaching” Journal of Teacher Education 59 (5): 389–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, T. 2003. “Validity and Assessment: A Rasch Measurement Perspective.” Metodologia de las Ciencias del Comportamiento 5 (2): 179–194.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, T., and C. Fox. 2007. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Callingham, R., and K. Beswick. 2011. “Measuring Pre-Service Teachers Knowledge of Mathematics for Teaching.” Paper presented at the annual conference for the Australian Association for Research in Education, Hobart, Tasmania.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, T., and E. Foster. 2010. Who Will Teach? Experience Matters. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. ERIC.
   Google Scholar
• Cheang, W. K., J. Yeo, E. Chan, and S. K. Lim-Teo. 2007. “Development of Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Student Teachers.” The Mathematics Educator 10 (2): 27–54.
   Google Scholar
• Chick, H. 2003. “Pre-service Teachers’ Explanations of Two Mathematical Concepts.” Paper presented at the annual conference for the Australian Association for Research in Education, Auckland, NZ.
   Google Scholar
• Chick, H., T. Pham, and M. Baker. 2006. “Probing Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Lessons from the Case of the Subtraction Algorithm.” Paper presented at the annual conference for the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Canberra, ACT.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran, K., J. DeRuiter, and R. King. 1993. “Pedagogical Content Knowing: An Integrative Model for Teacher Preparation.” Journal of Teacher Education 44 (4): 263–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drost, E. 2011. “Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research.” Education Research and Perspectives 38 (1): 105–123.
   Google Scholar
• Fleiss, J., B. Levin, and M. Paik. 2003. “The Measurement of Interrater Agreement.” In Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 3rd ed., edited by W. Shewart, and S. Wilks, 598–626. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, J., N. Wallen, and H. Hyun. 2015. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar.
   Google Scholar
• Geertzen, J. 2012. Inter-rater Agreement with Multiple Raters and Variables. https://mlnl.net/jg/software/ira/.
   Google Scholar
• Gess-Newsome, J. 1999. “Pedagogical Content Knowledge: An Introduction and Orientation.” In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and its Implications for Science Education, edited by J. Gess-Newsome, and N. G. Lederman, 3–20. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gisev, N., J. Bell, and T. Chen. 2013. “Interrater Agreement and Interrater Reliability: Key Concepts, Approaches, and Applications.” Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 9 (3): 330–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, M., A. Milanowski, and J. Miller. 2012. “Measuring and Promoting Inter-rater Agreement of Teacher and Principal Performance Ratings.” Center for Educator Compensation Reform.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, P. 1990. The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H., and D. Ball. 2004. “Learning Mathematics for Teaching: Results From California’s Mathematics Professional Development Institutes.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 35 (5): 330–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Test Commission. 2014. “ITC Guidelines on Quality Control in Scoring, Test Analysis, and Reporting of Test Scores.” International Journal of Testing 14 (3): 195–217.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., and L. Christensen. 2017. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre, J. 2012. A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch-model Computer Programs: Program Manual (Version 3.74.0). Citeseerx.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre, J. 2014. WINSTEPS Rasch Measurement Computer Program (Version 3.81). Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com.
   Google Scholar
• Marks, R. 1990. “Pedagogical Content Knowledge: From a Mathematical Case to a Modified Conception.” Journal of Teacher Education 41 (3): 3–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, D. A. 2017. “The Impact of Problem-based Learning on Pre-service Teachers’ Development and Application of their Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge.” PhD diss., University of Southern Queensland, Australia. https://eprints.usq.edu.au/32851/.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. 2010. Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Washington, DC: Center for Education, Division of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education. https://www.nap.edu/read/12882/chapter/1.
   Google Scholar
• OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education). 2005. The National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and the Primary Curriculum. London: Ofsted nationalarchives.gov.uk/.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, S., A. Hill, and R. Callingham. 2015. “Construction and Validation of a Survey Instrument to Determine the Gender-related Challenges Faced by Pre-service Male Primary Teachers.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 38 (2): 184–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, W., M. Tatto, K. Bankov, S. Blömeke, T. Cedillo, L. Cogan, and L. Paine. 2007. The Preparation Gap: Teacher Education for Middle School Mathematics in Six Countries: Mathematics Teaching in the 21st Century. East Lansing: Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, Michigan State University. http://www.educ.msu.edu/content/sites/usteds/documents/MT21Report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Segall, A. 2004. “Revisiting Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Pedagogy of Content/The Content of Pedagogy.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (5): 489–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senocak, E. 2009. “Development of an Instrument for Assessing Undergraduate Science Students’ Perceptions: The Problem-Based Learning Environment Inventory.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 18 (6): 560–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. 1986. “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educational Researcher 15 (2): 4–14.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform.” Harvard Educational Review 57 (1): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemler, S. 2004. “A Comparison of Consensus, Consistency, and Measurement Approaches to Estimating Interrater Reliability.” Practical Assessment.” Research and Evaluation 9 (4): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Tatto, M. T., J. Schwille, S. Senk, L. Ingvarson, R. Peck, and G. Rowley. 2008. Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, Practice, and Readiness to Teach Primary and Secondary Mathematics. Conceptual Framework. East Lansing: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University. https://msu.edu/~mttatto/documents/TEDS_FrameworkFinal.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• TEMAG (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group). 2014. Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education and Training.
   Google Scholar
• Withrow, B. 2013. Research Methods in Crime and Justice. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B., and M. Stone. 1979. Best Test Design. Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B., and M. Stone. 1999. “Fit Analysis.” In Measurement Essentials. 2nd ed. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range Inc. https://www.rasch.org
   Google Scholar
• Zubairi, A., and N. Kassim. 2006. “Classical and Rasch Analyses of Dichotomously Scored Reading Comprehension Test Items.” Malaysian Journal of ELT Research 2 (1): 1–20.
   Google Scholar