ASSESSING STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF TEACHER KNOWLEDGE IN ASIA, EASTERN EUROPE, AND WESTERN COUNTRIES: DIFFERENTIAL ITEM FUNCTIONING IN TEDS-M

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 795-817

  Blömeke, Sigrid ^a   Suhl, Ute ^a   Döhrmann, Martina ^b  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VECHTA   (Germany)

Author keywords

cognitive demand; content domain; cultural context; differential item functioning (DIF); international study; item difficulty; item format; large scale assessment; mathematics teacher education; teacher knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884533165     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-013-9413-0     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
2. Blömeke, S., Houang, R. & Suhl, U. (2011). TEDS-M: Diagnosing teacher knowledge by applying multidimensional item response theory and multi-group models. IERI Monograph Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, 4, 109-126.
3. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U. & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: Quality and equity of future primary teachers' mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 154-171.
4. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., Kaiser, G. & Döhrmann, M. (2012). Family background, entry selectivity and opportunities to learn: What matters in primary teacher education? An international comparison of fifteen countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 44-55.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
6. Franke, M. (2000). Didaktik der Geometrie. Heidelberg, Germany: Spektrum.
7. Freedle, R. (2003). Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 1-43.
8. Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning (pp. 3-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Hsieh, F.-J., Pi-Jen & Wang, T.-Y. (2012). Mathematics-related teaching competence of Taiwanese primary future teachers: Evidence from TEDS-M. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 277-292.
10. Jurecka, A. (2010). Zum Zusammenhang von Differentiellen Item Funktionen und Testkultur. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktorin der Philosophie (Dr. phil.). Vorgelegt dem Fachbereich Psychologie und Sportwissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 2010.
11. Klieme, E. & Bos, W. (2000). Mathematikleistung und mathematischer Unterricht in Deutschland und Japan. Triangulation qualitativer und quantitativer Analysen am Beispiel der TIMS-Studie. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(3), 359-379.
12. Klieme, E. & Baumert, J. (2001). Identifying national cultures of mathematics education: Analysis of cognitive demands and differential item functioning in TIMSS. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 385-402.
13. Kulick, E. & Hu, P. G. (1989). Examining the relationship between differential item functioning and item difficulty (College Board Report No. 89-5; ETS No. RR-89-18). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
14. Leung, F. K. S. (1995). The mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong and London. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 297-325.
15. Li, J. & Wisenbaker, J. M. (2008). Research and developments in the teaching and learning of probability and statistics. In M. Niss & E. Emborg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education, 4-11 July 2004. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University.
16. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
17. Niss, M. (2008). Perspectives on the balance between applications and modelling and 'pure' mathematics in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In M. Menghini, F. Furinghetti, L. Giacardi & F. Arzarello (Eds.), The First Century of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (1908-2008): Reflecting and Shaping the World of Mathematics Education. Roma, Italy: Istituto Della Enciclopedia Italiana.
18. Reusser, K. (1996). From cognitive modeling to the design of pedagogical tools. In S. Vosniadou et al. (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Roussos, L. & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(4), 355-371.
20. Rousseeuw, P. J. & Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust regression and outlier detection. New York: Wiley.
21. Santelices, M. V. & Wilson, M. (2012). On the relationship between differential item functioning and item difficulty: An issue of methods? Item response theory approach to differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 5-36.
22. Scheuneman, J. & Gerritz, K. (1990). Using item differential item functioning procedures to explore sources of item difficulty and group performance characteristics. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 109-31.
23. Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S. & Tatto, M. T. (2011). Teacher education matters: A study of the mathematics teacher preparation from six countries. New York: Teacher College Press.
24. Schmidt, W. H., Jakwerth, P. M. & McKnight, C. C. (1998). Curriculum sensitive assessment: Content does make a difference. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 503-527.
25. Shepard, L. A. (1982). Definitions of bias. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Handbook of methods for detecting test bias (pp. 9-30). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26. Shulman, L. (1985). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan.
27. Tatsuoka, K. K., Linn, R. L. & Yamamoto, K. (1988). Differential item functioning resulting from use of different solution strategies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 301-319.
28. Tatto, M. T., J. Schwille, S. L. Senk, L. Ingvarson, R. Peck & 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, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.
29. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M., Reckase, M., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G. & Peck, R. (2012). The Teacher Education Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Findings from the IEA Study of the mathematics preparation of future teachers. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IEA.
30. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J. & Wilson, M. R. (1998). Acer ConQuest. Generalised item response modelling software. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
31. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223-233.