Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 133-180

  Baumert, Jürgen ^a   Kunter, Mareike ^a   Blum, Werner ^b   Brunner, Martin ^c   Voss, Thamar ^a   Jordan, Alexander ^d   Klusmann, Uta ^a   Krauss, Stefan ^b   Neubrand, Michael ^e   Tsai, Yi Miau ^f  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG   (Luxembourg)

^d BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive activation; Hierarchical modeling with latent variables; Instruction; Mathematics; Teacher education; Teacher knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951478560     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831209345157     Document Type: Article

References (131)

1. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369-387.
2. American Council on Education. (1999). To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51-71.
4. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
5. Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject-matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2. Teachers' knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 1-48). Greenwich: JAI Press.
6. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3-14). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group/Groupe Canadien d'étude En Didactique des Mathématiques.
7. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers' mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433-456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
8. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College Record, 102(1), 5-27.
9. Baumert, J., & Schümer, G. (2001). Familiäre Lebensverhältnisse, Bildungsbeteiligung und Kompetenzerwerb [Family background, educational participation, and competency acquisition]. In J. Baumert, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, et al. (Eds.), PISA 2000: Basiskompetenzen von Schulerinnen und Schulern im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 323-407). Opladen, Germany: Leske 1 + Budrich.
10. Berliner, C. D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
11. Blömeke, S., Felbrich, A., & Muller, C. (2008). Messung des erziehungswissenschaft- lichen Wissens angehender Lehrkräfte [Assessment of student teachers' pedagogical knowledge]. In S. Blömeke, G. Kaiser & R. Lehmann (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer-Wissen, Uberzeugungen und Lerngelegenheiten deutscher Mathematikstudierender und -referendare: Erste Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerausbildung (pp. 171-194). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
12. Blömeke, S., Kaiser, G., & Lehmann, R. (2008). Professionelle Kompetenz angehender Lehrerinnen und Lehrer-Wissen, Überzeugungen und Lerngelegenheiten deutscher Mathematikstudierender und -referendare: Erste Ergebnisse zur Wirksamkeit der Lehrerausbildung [Professional competence of student teachers-Knowledge, beliefs, and learning opportunities of mathematics teacher candidates: Initial findings on the effectiveness of teacher training]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
13. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14. Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C., Underhill, R., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194-222.
15. Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473-498.
16. Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling- Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 1-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17. Bransford, J. D., Derry, S. J., Berliner, C. D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 40-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
19. Brophy, J. (2000). Teaching. Brussels, Belgium: International Academy of Education.
20. Carstensen, C. H., Knoll, S., Rost, J., & Prenzel, M. (2004). Technische Grundlagen [Technical foundations]. In M. Prenzel, J. Baumert, W. Blum, R. Lehmann, D. Leutner, M. Neubrand, et al. (Eds.), PISA 2003: Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in Deutschland-Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs (pp. 371-387). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
21. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. D'Agostino, J. V., & Powers, S. J. (2009). Predicting teacher performance with test scores and grade point average: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 146-182
23. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-46.
24. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642-667.
25. De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491-549). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Deng, Z. (2007). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503-535.
27. Ditton, H. (2007). Kompetenzaufbau und Laufbahnen im Schulsystem: Ergebnisse einer Langsschnittuntersuchung an Grundschulen [Competence building and careers in the education system: Results of a longitudinal study in elementary schools]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
28. Dubberke, T., Kunter, M., McElvany, N., Brunner, M., & Baumert, J. (2008). Lerntheoretische Uberzeugungen von Mathematiklehrkräften: Einflusse auf die Unterrichtsgestaltung und den Lernerfolg von Schulerinnen und Schulern [Mathematics teachers' beliefs and their impact on instructional quality and student achievement]. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie, 22(3-4), 193-206.
29. Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual knowledge fall through the cracks: Complexities of learning to teach mathematics for understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1),8-40.
30. Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers and the function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(2), 94-116.
31. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434.
32. Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
33. Floden, R.E., & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the effects of course work in thearts and sciences and inthe foundations ofeducation. In M.Cochran-Smith & K.M.Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 261-308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P. C. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 687-715.
35. Ganzeboom, H. B. G., & Treiman, D. J. (2003). Three internationally standardised measures for comparative research on occupational status. In J.H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & C. Wolf (Eds.), Advances in crossnational comparison: A European working book for demographic and socio-economic variables (pp. 159-193). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
36. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
37. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-145.
38. Goodson, I. F., Anstead, C. J., & Mangan, J. M. (1998). Subject knowledge: Readings for the study of school subjects. London: Falmer Press.
39. Goodson, I. F., & Marsh, C. (1996). Studying school subjects. London: Falmer Press.
40. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers' knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 20-24). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
42. Grossman, P. L. (2008). Responding to our critics: From crisis to opportunity in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 10-23.
43. Grossman, P. L., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205.
44. Grossman, P. L., & Schoenfeld, A. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling- Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness & H. Duffy (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 201-231). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45. Harbison, R. W., & Hanushek, E. A. (1992). Educational performance of the poor: Lessons from rural northeast Brazil. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
46. Heaton, R. M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. New York: Teachers College Press.
47. Heller, K., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fahigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision (KFT 4-12 1 R) [Cognitive Abilities Test for Grades 4 to 12, revision]. Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
48. Helmke, A. (2009). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Instructional quality and teacher professionality: Diagnosis, evaluation, and enhancement of instruction]. Seelze-Velber, Germany: Kallmeyer.
49. Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47-61.
50. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., Smith, M., Et al. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 111-132.
51. Hill, H. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95-114.
52. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., Blunk, M., Goffney, I. M., & Rowan, B. (2007). Validating the ecological assumption: The relationship of measure scores to classroom teaching and student learning. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2-3), 107-117.
53. Hill, H. C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2007). Teachers' mathematics knowledge for teaching and school context: A study of California teachers. Educational Policy, 21(5), 747-768.
54. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2),371-406.
55. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers' mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11-30.
56. Jordan, A., Ross, N., Krauss, S., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., Et al. (2006). Klassifikationsschema fur Mathematikaufgaben: Dokumentation der Aufgabenkategorisierung im COACTIV-Projekt [Classification scheme for mathe- matical tasks: Documentation of the task categorization in the COACTIV study]. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut fur Bildungsforschung (Materialien aus der Bildungsforschung 81).
57. Kahan, J., Cooper, D., & Bethea, K. (2003). The role of mathematics teachers' content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), 223-252.
58. Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(5), 873-892.
59. Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., Et al. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716-725.
60. Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3),231-251.
61. Kunter, M., Dubberke, T., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Jordan, A., Et al. (2006). Mathematikunterricht in den PISA-Klassen 2004: Rahmenbedingungen, Formen und Lehr-Lernprozesse [Mathematics education in the PISA classes 2004: Basic conditions, forms, and teaching and learning processes]. In M. Prenzel, J. Baumert, W. Blum, R. Lehmann, D. Leutner, M. Neubrand, et al. (Eds.), PISA 2003: Untersuchungen zur Kompetenzentwicklung im Verlauf eines Schuljahres (pp. 161-194). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
62. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., & Baumert, J. (2009). Professionelle Kompetenz von Mathematiklehrkräften: Das COACTIV-Modell [Teachers' professional compe- tence: The COACTIV model]. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, K. Beck, D. Sembill, R. Nickolaus & R. Mulder (Eds.), Lehrprofessionalitat-Bedingungen, Genese, Wirkungen und ihre Messung (pp. 153-164). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
63. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Dubberke, T., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Et al. (2007). Linking aspects of teacher competence to their instruction: Results from the COACTIV project. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational qual- ity of schools: The final report on the DFG priority programme (pp. 32-52). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
64. Lanahan, L., McGrath, D. J., McLaughlin, M., Burian-Fitzgerald, M., & Salganik, L. (2005). Fundamental problems in the measurement of instructional processes: Estimating reasonable effect sizes and conceptualizing what is important to measure. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
65. Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 333-357). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
66. Liston, D., Borko, H., & Whitcomb, J. (2008). The teacher educator's role in enhancing teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 111-116.
67. Ludtke, O., Trautwein, U., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Reliability and agreement of student ratings of the classroom environment: A reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 215-230.
68. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
69. Marsh, H. W., Koller, O., & Baumert, J. (2001). Reunification of East and West German school systems: Longitudinal multilevel modeling study of the big-fish-little- pond effect on academic self-concept. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 321-350.
70. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learn- ing? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
71. Mewborn, D. (2003). Teachers, teaching, and their professional development. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 45-52). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
72. Mitchell, R., & Barth, P. (1999). Not good enough: A content analysis of teacher licensing examinations: How teacher licensing tests fall short. Thinking K-16, 3(1), 1-20.
73. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.
74. Mullens, J. E., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (1996). The contribution of training and subject matter knowledge to teaching effectiveness: A multilevel analysis of longitudinal evidence from Belize. Comparative Education Review, 40(2), 139-157.
75. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
76. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus statistical analysis with latent variables: User's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
77. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
78. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
79. Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). Effects of small classes on aca- demic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 123-151.
80. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
81. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
82. Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525-556.
83. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199.
84. Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehmann, R., Leutner, D., Neubrand, M., Et al. (2006). PISA 2003: Untersuchungen zur Kompetenzentwicklung im Verlauf eines Schuljahres [PISA 2003: Studies on competence development over a school year]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
85. Prenzel, M., Carstensen, C. H., Schops, K., & Maurischat, C. (2006). Die Anlage des Längsschnitts bei PISA 2003 [Conceptualization of the PISA 2003 longitudinal study]. In M. Prenzel, J. Baumert, W. Blum, R. Lehmann, D. Leutner, M. Neubrand, et al. (Eds.), PISA 2003: Untersuchungen zur Kompetenzentwicklung im Verlauf eines Schuljahres (pp. 29-62). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
86. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
87. Putnam, R. T., Heaton, R. M., Prawat, R. S., & Remillard, J. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding: Discussing case studies of four fifth-grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 93(2), 213-228.
88. Reynolds, M. C. (Ed.). (1989). Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York: Pergamon Press.
89. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.
90. Rowan, B., Chiang, F.-S., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees' performance to study the effects of teachers on students' achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 256-284.
91. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
92. Schilling, S. G. (2007). The role of psychometric modeling in test validation: An application of multidimensional item response theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2), 93-106.
93. Schilling, S. G., & Hill, H. C. (2007). Assessing measures of mathematical knowledge for teaching: A validity argument approach. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 5(2), 70-80.
94. Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., Et al. (2007). The preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries. Mathematics teaching in the 21st century (MT21). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education.
95. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1-94.
96. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). The complexities of assessing teacher knowledge. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2), 198-204.
97. Schoenfeld, A. H., Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (2000). The detailed analysis of an established teacher carrying out a non-traditional lesson. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 281-325.
98. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454-499.
99. Sfard, A. (2003). Balancing the unbalanceable: The NCTM standards in the light of theories of learning mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion for NCTM standards (pp. 353-392). Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.
100. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer (Vol. 1). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
101. Sherin, M. G. (1996). The nature and dynamics of teachers' content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
102. Shuell, T. (1996). Teaching and learning in the classroom context. In C. D. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726-764). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
103. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
104. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
105. Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D. C. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399-422). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
106. Simon, M. A. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers' knowledge of division. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 233-254.
107. Smith, E., & Gorard, S. (2007). Improving teacher quality: Lessons from America's No Child Left Behind. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 191-206.
108. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.
109. Stein, M. K., Baxter, J. A., & Leinhardt, G. (1990). Subject-matter knowledge and elementary instruction: A case from functions and graphing. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 639-663.
110. Stengel, B. S. (1997). "Academic discipline" and "school subject": Contestable curricular concepts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(5), 585-602.
111. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12-17.
112. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227-249.
113. Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(4), 476-483.
114. Thompson, A. G., & Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, part II: Mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 2-24.
115. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, part I: A teacher's struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279-303.
116. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 730-745.
117. Tymms, P. (2004). Effect sizes in multilevel models. In I. Schagen & K. Elliot (Eds.), But what does it mean? The use of effect sizes in educational research (pp. 55-66). London: National Foundation for Educational Research.
118. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation. (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's second annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.
119. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2006). The secretary's fifth annual report on teacher quality: A highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
120. Vosniadou, S., & Vamvakoussi, X. (2005). Examining mathematics learning from a conceptual change point of view: Implications for the design of learning environments. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Fifteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte (pp. 55-70). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
121. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Special Issue of Learning and Instruction, 14(5),445-451.
122. Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S. J. (2000). Effective educational practices. Brussels, Belgium: International Academy of Education.
123. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher's role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551.
124. Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294.
125. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54(3), 427-450.
126. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.
127. Wilson, S. M., & Floden, R. (2003). Creating effective teachers: Concise answers for hard questions. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
128. Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
129. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. (1997). ConQuest: Generalized item response modelling software manual. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
130. Zeichner, K. M., & Conklin, H. (2005). Research on teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 645-736). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
131. Zumwalt, K. M., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers' characteristics: Research on the indicators of quality. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 157-260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.