How important is pre-service teachers' mathematical

content knowledge?
There has been numerous research conducted into the effect teachers mathematical content
knowledge has on student’s achievement. It has been established that this knowledge is both multi-
dimensional and contextual in nature (Bobis, Higgins, Cavanagh, & Roche, 2012; Hill, Ball, & Schilling,
2008). Additionally Shulman (1986) stated that a teachers knowledge is fundamental to a teachers work in
teaching mathematics. Furthermore, Shulman (1986) first suggests that there is a subject-matter specific
knowledge unique to teaching, this being pedagogical content knowledge. This idea builds the link
between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Due to the importance of these
knowledge bases this paper will discuss the importance of pre-service teacher’s mathematical content
knowledge by first outlining two theories into teachers mathematical content knowledge, dimensional and
cognitive views of the knowledge. The link between mathematical content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge and why they are important in the teaching of mathematics is outlined. Current
research into the importance and effects of pre-service teachers mathematical content knowledge. Finally
my opinion will be presented on how important mathematical content knowledge is to pre-service
teachers as well as examples on why this is the case.

There is an importance in the literature on how important mathematical content knowledge is for
teachers in particular pre-service teachers (Daniel & Balatti, 2013). However there are different methods
of defining mathematical content knowledge. One method by Ball and Bass (2009) described three
dimensions to mathematical content knowledge, the first of these is specialised content knowledge. This
consists of explicit and unpacked content knowledge of mathematical principles, language, representations
and procedures. The second is Horizon knowledge, this is the awareness of the mathematical landscape.
The final dimension, common content knowledge, is the foundation for horizon and specialised knowledge.
This relates to commonly required MCK required in different professions.

Another model used to view MCK is through a cognitive lenses or perspective (Linsell & Anakin,
2013). This approach views mathematical conceptual knowledge as a web–like connection of
interconnected information. This web-like structure has two distinct aspects procedural and Conceptual
(Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992). Procedural knowledge is viewed as needing little cognitive effort and is the
act of carrying out mathematical tasks through an algorithmic style. Conceptual knowledge is the ability to
decide what procedure to use in different and unfamiliar situations. These two aspects are intertwined in
the web-like view of the cognitive approach and are both required for finding solutions to mathematical
problems effectively

As suggested by Shulman (1986), there is strong link between mathematical content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge. An example of this is illustrated by Krauss et al. (2008) where they
take the example of a student understanding that a negative times a negative equals a positive number,
but the students does not understand why. While this is also a good example of procedural vs conceptual
knowledge it is also a good example of how a teacher needs not only good content knowledge but also but
need to know how to explain it to students, this is known as pedagogical content knowledge and is
necessary and essential in order to get the student to understand why this is the case. . This example
illustrates the link between mathematical content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and it is
suggested by Krauss et al. (2008) that either content knowledge is a prerequisite for pedagogical content
knowledge or that the two are merged to form a single body of knowledge referred to as domain-specific
knowledge.

Research conducted by Ma (1999) found that teachers would either view mathematics as a
collection of rules, facts and procedures, while other teachers were more concerned with how and why
mathematical procedures made senses. This emphasis on how and why, shows more of the higher order
thinking that the cognitive and dimensional models to mathematical content knowledge require. It is also
important to note that Ma (1999) observed that this profound understanding of teaching mathematics was
not demonstrated in pre-service teacher but was developed overtime. This observation of the lack of
profound mathematical understanding by pre-service teachers is also shared by Loewenberg Ball,
Thames & Phelps (2008) where they are critical of teacher education programs in particular to the
subject matter courses, viewing these as being ‘scholarly and irrelevant’ and ‘way removed from classroom
teaching’. Additionally they conclude that knowing more advanced mathematics will not better prepare
teachers to develop a profound understanding of mathematics. Instead more profound understanding of
mathematics needs to be given to preservice teachers.

While Loewenberg Ball, Thames & Phelps (2008) found that there was a significate lacking in
teacher education programs to develop pre-service teachers mathematic content knowledge in regards to
profound mathematical knowledge, there is little consensus on what teachers content knowledge is
required for effective teaching (Butterfield, Forrester, McCallum, & Chinnappan, 2013). Furthermore
there is a consensus that more research into what teacher mathematical content knowledge is required.
For example, Daniel & Balatti (2013) found that they could not attain a full pitcher of pre-service teachers
mathematical content knowledge but their methodology has the potential to provide more of a pitcher of
a given topic. Similarity Linsell & Anakin (2013), also found that current conceptions were inappropriate
for describing the knowledge that pre-service teachers need in order to build in depth knowledge over
their teaching career. This indicates that there is still an unclear pitcher of what per-service teacher need in
regards to mathematical content knowledge, researchers agree that pre-service teachers must have some
level of mathematical content knowledge in order to be an effective teacher (Daniel & Balatti, 2013;
Linsell & Anakin, 2013; Butterfield, Forrester, McCallum, & Chinnappan, 2013).

Drawing from the research and my personal experience it is clear that to be an effective
mathematics teacher there is a high need to content specific knowledge. This requirement is supports by
Linsell & Anakin (2013). who states that a solid base in mathematics is required for by all pre-service
teachers in order to build their knowledge and practice of mathematics teaching. Additionally, Butterfield,
Forrester, McCallum, & Chinnappan (2013) echos this by stating that teacher continued development of
content knowledge is necessary for teachers to support deep mathematical understanding. However just
knowing the content is not enough, there needs to be a higher level of understanding. This is the ability to
link specialised, horizon and Common dimensions of content knowledge or the procedural and conceptual
aspects of mathematical content knowledge, when viewing it through a cognitive lens.

This requirement for mathematic teachers to have a high level of mathematical content knowledge
is extremely evident when you consider the teaching of advance topics in stage 6. For example, consider
the teaching of differentiation and integration in the Advanced Mathematical course, a teacher with no or
limited knowledge on the subject will have common or procedural knowledge but will lack the horizon
knowledge or conceptual knowledge of the subject. This teacher may be able to pass on the basic
knowledge of differentiation and integration but will lack the knowledge or ability to pass on deeper
knowledge of the subject that will allow students to develop their conceptual knowledge and build links
and deeper understanding. This example links heavily with, Krauss et al. (2008) example of multiplying
negative numbers, a teacher with limited content knowledge may be able to present the concept but they
will lack the in-depth knowledge to explain the concept to students. Additionally, as suggested by
(Shulman, 1986), this is another example of how a teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge is also
essential to teaching students.
 Fact Sheet – Pre-survive Teachers Mathematical
Content knowledge
 Knowledge is both multi-dimensional and contextual in nature (Bobis, Higgins, Cavanagh, & Roche,
2012 ; Hill, Ball & Schilling, 2008).
 teachers content knowledge is fundamental to a teachers work in teaching mathematics (Shulman,
1986)
 there are two models of what mathematical content knowledge looks like;
o Dimension model – has three dimensions, specialised, horizon and common content
knowledge (Ball & Bass, 2009);
 Specialised content knowledge, this is knowledge of mathematical principles,
language, representations and procedures,
 Horizon content knowledge, this is the awareness of the mathematical landscape or
how mathematics fits into the world,
 Common content knowledge, is the foundation in which mathematics is built.
o cognitive perspective – is based on a web-like structure which has two distinct aspects,
procedural and conceptual (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992),
 Procedural, is the act of carrying out mathematical tasks through an algorithmic style
or currying out steps to complete a problem,
 Conceptual, ability to decide what procedure to use in different and unfamiliar
situations.
 There is a strong link between mathematical content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge (Krauss et al., 2008; Shulman, 1986).
 It is suggested that either content knowledge is required for pedagogical content knowledge, or,
the two are merged to form a single body of knowledge (Krauss et al., 2008).
 High quality mathematics teachers tend to emphasis the how and why a procedure works rather
than teaching that a procedure works (Ma, 1999).
 It takes many years for pre-service teachers to develop this understanding (Ma, 1999).
 It has need clearly noted in the literature that there is not a common consensus of what
mathematical content knowledge is required by pre-service teachers (Linsell & Anakin, 2013).
 The literature all agree that pre-service teacher require mathematical content knowledge to be an
effective teacher (Daniel & Balatti, 2013; Linsell & Anakin, 2013; Butterfield, Forrester,
McCallum, & Chinnappan, 2013).
 References
Daniel, L., & Balatti, J. (2013). Thoughts behind the Actions: Exploring Preservice Teachers'
Mathematical Content Knowledge, 1-8.

Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2009, March). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Knowing Mathematics for
teaching to learners’ mathematical futures. Paper prepaired based on keynote address at the 43 rd
Jahrestagung Fur Didaktik der Mathematik, Oldenburg, Germany.

Linsell, C., & Anakin, M. (2013). Foundation Content Knowledge: What Do Pre-Service Teachers Need
to Know?, 1-8.

Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and Teaching with Understanding. In D. A. Grouws (ed.),
Handbook of Research on Mathematical Teaching and Learning (pp. 65-97). New York: MacMillan

Bobis, J., Higgins, J., Cavanagh, M., & Roche, A. (2012). Professional Knowledge of practising teachers of
mathematics. In B. Perry, T. Lowrie, T. Logan, A. MacDonald & J. Greenless Eds.), Research in mathematics
education in Australasia 2008-2011 (pp. 313-340). Rotterdam, Neatherlands: Sense.

Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and
measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Reaseach in Mathematics Education,
39(4), 372-400

Butterfield, B., Forrester, T., McCallum, F., & Chinnappan, M. (2013). Use of Learning Trajectories to
Examine Pre-Service Teachers' Mathematics Knowledge for Teaching Area and Perimeter: E merging
Issues, 1-8.

Krauss, Stefan, Brunner, Martin, Kunter, Mareike, Baumert, Jurgen, Neubrand, Michael, Blum,
Werner, & Jordan, Alexander. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of
secondary mathematics teachers.(Author abstract)(Report). Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(3), 716-725.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher.,
15(2),4-14

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Loewenberg Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What
Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
- `