YEPING LI, JEONGSUK PANG, HUIRONG ZHANG AND

NAIQING SONG

3. MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE

FOR TEACHING
Helping Prospective Teachers Know Mathematics
Well Enough for Teaching

What should prospective teachers know and be able to do to be ready for their
professional career in mathematics teaching? This is not a trivial question, but it
is a crucial one for all of those who are responsible for teachers’ preparation in
mathematics. In this chapter, we conceptualize Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge
for Teaching as the core of prospective teachers’ professional competency that
can and should be developed in teacher preparation programs. Specifications of
mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching are discussed, and examples on the
content topic of fraction division are provided to illustrate different components of
mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching. Prospective elementary teachers’
performance variations across different components of mathematics conceptual
knowledge for teaching in fraction division are examined in the cases of China and
South Korea, respectively.

INTRODUCTION

What teachers need to know in mathematics for teaching is not a trivial question.
On one hand, it seems that students who just finished eighth grade can ‘teach’ (or
talk about) eighth-grade mathematics. If taking this assumption for granted, the
value of teacher preparation and offering advanced content courses in mathematics
becomes questionable. In reality, we know this is not the case. Teachers are expected
not just to present and state content that needs to be taught, but also to be able to
help students understand what needs to be learned, which includes helping students
make mathematical connections across different content topics and answering
students’ various questions. However, acknowledging that teachers need to know
more than their students does not specify what mathematics teachers need to know
more than students for teaching. If taking teacher preparation curriculum as an
indicator of what teachers need to know, on the other hand, existing studies already
documented great variations in mathematics teacher preparation programs both
across and within education systems (e.g., Li, Huang, & Shin, 2008; Li, Ma, &

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2020 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004418875_004

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

Pang, 2008; Schmidt et al., 2007). Although it remains unclear what curriculum
structure or models may best prepare mathematics teachers, it is important for us
to examine and understand how teacher knowledge of mathematics differs from
student knowledge.
Efforts to examine the nature and structure of teachers’ mathematics knowledge
needed for teaching have been taking different approaches. For example, Ball,
Thames and Phelps (2008) built on Shulman’s (1986) notion of pedagogical content
knowledge to develop a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching
through examining teachers’ classroom instruction. The analysis led the researchers
to discuss and specify teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge as containing
knowledge of content and students and knowledge of content and teaching, and an
important specific content knowledge, specialized content knowledge. A group of
researchers at the University of Cambridge developed a theoretical framework, the
Knowledge Quartet (Rowland, 2013), through analyzing videotaped mathematics
lessons taught by prospective elementary teachers.
Likewise, by focusing on prospective teachers and building upon existing studies
on teachers’ mathematics knowledge, Li and Kulm (2008) built upon Shulman’s
work (1986) and Ball and her colleagues’ work (Ball et al., 2008) to put forward
a framework to outline five knowledge components of prospective teachers’
mathematics knowledge needed for teaching, consisting of common content
knowledge, specialized content knowledge, knowledge of content and students,
knowledge of content and teaching, and knowledge of mathematics curriculum. Such
work has paid close attention to classifying different knowledge components into
types, which provides important support to different course offerings in a program
that can help prospective teachers to develop different knowledge components.
However, it remains unclear how different knowledge components might actually
work together and how teachers’ learning of different (and separate) knowledge
components might help them turn knowledge acquisition into teaching competence.
In fact, making possible connections among different knowledge components
becomes a great challenge when different knowledge components are acquired
through courses often offered by different departments. For example, when
prospective teachers took content courses from mathematics department, they likely
learned least common denominator and different number base systems (e.g., base-
2, base-5) in addition to base-10 number system. When they come to education
department or college, they likely learn about curriculum standards, lesson plan
development, and assessment, but not connect specifically to the content topics
of least common denominator and different number base systems learned in the
mathematics department. Thus, prospective teachers are left to merge together those
different knowledge components by themselves when they go to teach specific
content topics in mathematics classrooms. Because mathematics teaching and
learning in classrooms are content-topic based, current course offerings and structure
in many teacher preparation programs present a gap between teacher knowledge
preparation and what teachers actually need to know and be able to do in classrooms.

78

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

In this chapter, we aim to propose a different conception about what teachers need
to know and how their knowledge of mathematics differs from student knowledge,
that is, a topic-based knowledge package called Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge
for Teaching (MCKT). The conception and specific components of mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching will be described and discussed in the follow-
up sections. To illustrate how prospective teachers’ knowledge of mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching can be differentiated, an instrument will also be
developed and used to collect and analyze data from prospective teachers.
This chapter builds upon a previous study on mathematical preparation for
prospective elementary school teachers in several selected education systems in
East Asia, including Hong Kong, Japan, Mainland China, Singapore, South Korea,
and Taiwan (Li et al., 2008). It was documented that mathematics education for
prospective elementary school teachers was emphasized in the selected education
systems in East Asia. In particular, extensive data were collected from prospective
elementary school teachers and teacher educators sampled in both Mainland China
and South Korea. The results from sampled prospective teachers indicated that they
had strong education in mathematics, which echoed our belief that mathematics
education is fundamental to what teachers need to know more than students for
teaching. However, it remains to be understood whether strong preparation in
mathematics is good enough for what we believe teachers need to know more than
students for teaching. Thus, we plan to again take the cases of Mainland China and
South Korea for examining their mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching in
this study.
The following sections are organized in four parts. In the first part, we provide an
overview of related research, the conception of mathematics conceptual knowledge
for teaching and the survey developed for this study. Secondly, we report and discuss
sampled prospective elementary school teachers’ knowledge in school mathematics,
structured as mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching, using the data
collected from Mainland China. Thirdly, we report and discuss sampled prospective
elementary school teachers’ knowledge in school mathematics, structured as
mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching, using the data collected from
South Korea. In the last part, we summarize the results obtained from Mainland
China and South Korea and discuss possible research in the future and implications
for mathematical preparation of elementary school teachers in other educational
systems.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND THE CONCEPTION OF MATHEMATICS

CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

Existing research has generally documented the importance of knowledge in

expertise acquisition and development in knowledge-rich and complex domains,
including mathematics instruction (Li & Kaiser, 2011). The importance of
knowledge in teachers’ expertise also goes beyond a quantity measure to include

79

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

knowledge structure with certain depth. Such a knowledge-based characterization

of teachers’ expertise is commonly used in large-scale international studies,
for example, the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics
(TEDS-M, see Blömeke, Hsieh, Kaiser, & Schmidt, 2014; Döhrmann, Kaiser, &
Blömeke, 2018), which measures three types of knowledge: mathematics content
knowledge, mathematics pedagogical content knowledge, and general pedagogical
knowledge.
Knowing the existence of different knowledge components is important in teacher
preparation, as the program needs to be structured in certain ways for teachers’
knowledge acquisition. However, if salient connections among different knowledge
components are left unspecified in their knowledge preparation, prospective teachers
would be left to make such connections by themselves after learning separate pieces
of knowledge. In fact, this is often the case with preparation in mathematics, since
mathematics content courses are typically offered by a mathematics department and
pedagogy courses are delivered in an education department. These two departments
may communicate little, if at all, about the content and instruction of these courses for
the same group of prospective teachers. Checking whether prospective teachers are
ready or not for their professional career in teaching often results in course counting
rather than examining what is offered in these courses and how various topics being
covered can and should be connected. To be ready for their professional career
in mathematics teaching, as we indicated at the beginning, prospective teachers
should be expected not just to present and state what (content) needs to be taught in
classrooms, but to be able to help students develop conceptual understanding and
make content connections across different topics and representations. Such features
of teacher expertise require packages of topic-based integrated knowledge (e.g., Ma,
1999), rather than a collection of separate knowledge pieces.
The notion of knowledge package is well illustrated and discussed in Ma’s (1999)
book. Teacher Chen in Ma’s study discussed about his perception of knowledge
package that teachers have:
There is not a firm, rigid, or single right way to “pack” knowledge. It is all up
to one’s own viewpoint. Different teachers, in different contexts, or the same
teacher with different students, may “pack” knowledge in different ways. But
the point is that you should see a knowledge “package” when you are teaching
a piece of knowledge. And you should know the role of the present knowledge
in that package. You have to know that the knowledge you are teaching is
supported by which ideas or procedures, so your teaching is going to rely on,
reinforce, and elaborate the learning of these ideas. (p. 18)
To Teacher Chen, what teachers know about mathematics is not knowledge in
pieces but in groups. He argued that specific knowledge package can have some
variations across different teachers and specific groups of students they teach. Such a
notion suggests that a knowledge package, in Teacher Chen’s view, can have certain
flexibility in the action of teaching. Such a knowledge package is only available

80

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

in Chinese teachers’ mind, but not in the American teachers’ in Ma’s study. Across
different Chinese teachers, Ma’s (1999) analyses highlight that these teachers’
knowledge packages share similarity in terms of the principles of how to ‘pack’ the
knowledge and what are the ‘key’ pieces. In particular, Ma presents three knowledge
package models derived from her data analyses: subtraction with regrouping (p. 19),
multidigit multiplication (p. 47), and division by fraction (p. 77).
To be able to help students learn mathematics with understanding, we believe
that teachers need to have structured and coherent knowledge construct called:
Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge for Teaching (MCKT). The notion of
mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching is consistent with Ma’s notion
of knowledge packages. Specifically, by mathematics conceptual knowledge for
teaching, we mean topic-based conceptual knowledge packages that are needed for
understanding, explaining, as well as teaching specific mathematics content topics
with connections. Building upon Ma’s notion of knowledge package that focuses on
mathematics content aspect, we propose that mathematics conceptual knowledge for
teaching can be specified as containing the following three topic-based knowledge
components that can and should be offered in the same course:
‡ Having knowledge and skills directly associated with a specific content topic;
‡ Being able to connect and justify the main points of a content topic, and to place
it in wider contexts;
‡ Knowing and being able to use various representations for teaching the content
topic and being able to teach the relations between them.
Specifically, the knowledge component (1) refers to common content knowledge
that students are also expected to learn. Knowledge component (2) goes beyond the
content topic itself to place the content topic in a broader knowledge structure. The
combination of these two knowledge components is similar to topic-based knowledge
packages as specified in Ma’s book. For example, prospective teachers should learn
well about division of whole numbers both procedurally and conceptually. They
should be able to do and explain 12 ÷ 2, as dividing 12 into 2 pieces and finding the
value of one piece or multiplying 12 by ½. If prospective teachers can’t explain why
12 ÷ 0 is meaningless, then their knowledge component (2) is limited for this topic of
division of whole numbers. More often than not, (2) is presented as great challenges
to prospective and practicing teachers as it often requires conceptual understanding
across different content topics that are connected. Knowledge component (3) refers
to mainly pedagogical aspects of teaching this topic as presented in knowledge
components (1) and (2). Across these three knowledge components of mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching, a likely sequence of familiarity order for
prospective teachers is (1), (3) and (2).
With mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching, we emphasize the
depth and systematic view of mathematics knowledge with associated pedagogy
that can empower teachers for further expertise development in the future. After
prospective teachers complete their teacher education program, they should have

81

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

many more opportunities for developing knowledge about students’ learning of

different mathematics content topics through working with and learning from their
own students, but opportunities to develop mathematics conceptual knowledge for
teaching will not appear automatically.

How Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge for Teaching May Differ from or

Connect with Other Knowledge Constructs in Literature

In order to clarify possible differences and connections with other knowledge

constructs that have been discussed in literature (e.g., Petrou & Goulding, 2011;
Döhrmann et al., 2018), we agree with Ruthven (2011) in that such comparison of
categories from different models is no less problem than the distinction between
categories within any one. Nevertheless, we hope such discussions can help further
clarify the concept of mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching itself.
First of all, mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching relates to the notions
of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge as discussed by
Shulman (1986) but emphasizes the connections between these two knowledge
components in the same topic-based package. Specifically, the first and second
components of mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching are mainly subject
matter knowledge, and the third component of mathematics conceptual knowledge
for teaching is mainly pedagogical content knowledge. At the same time, mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching differs from knowledge specifications provided
by Shulman. We emphasize that teachers’ knowledge is not by pieces that can be
treated separately as subject matter knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge
but topic-based packages. The combination of such subject matter knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge in the topic-based knowledge package makes it
more practical for teachers if they acquire and use such knowledge in teaching.
At the same time, the notion of mathematics knowledge for teaching is coined
and used by Ball and her colleagues (2008), as further developed from Shulman’s
knowledge constructs through analyzing teachers’ classroom instruction.
Specifically, Ball et al. specify Shuman’s pedagogical content knowledge as
containing knowledge of content and students, knowledge of content and teaching,
and knowledge of curriculum; Shulman’s subject matter knowledge as including
common content knowledge, specialized content knowledge and horizon knowledge.
With these knowledge constructs, it is clear that mathematics conceptual knowledge
for teaching is very different from Ball et al.’s knowledge constructs. The notion
of mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching tends to simplify knowledge
constructs, other than to expand knowledge constructs as Ball and her colleagues
try to do. Moreover, mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching emphasizes
a structure of topic-based knowledge package that contains inter-connected subject
matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, and Ball, et al. aim to
differentiate and specify the differences across these knowledge sub-constructs
under subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, respectively.

82

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

Likewise, the notion of mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching

differs from teachers’ knowledge constructs used in large-scale assessments like
TEDS-M (Döhrmann et al., 2018). The three types of knowledge assessed in
TEDS-M (mathematics content knowledge), mathematics pedagogical content
knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge highlight three self-contained
knowledge constructs, but not necessarily connections across different knowledge
constructs.
The Knowledge Quartet is a theoretical framework developed by members of the
Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge (Rowland, 2013) discussed
also in this volume of the Handbook. Building upon Shulman’s subject matter
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge constructs, the team was interested
in investigating the relationship between subject matter knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge in action through observing mathematics lessons taught by
prospective teachers. The Knowledge Quartet contains four dimensions: Foundation,
Transformation, Connection and Contingency. Each dimension is composed of a
number of key components and contributory codes. As examples, the key components
of the Foundation dimension include: knowledge and understanding of mathematics
per se and of mathematics-specific pedagogy, beliefs concerning the nature of
mathematics, the purposes of mathematics education, and the conditions under
which students will best learn mathematics. The key components of the Connection
dimension include: the sequencing of material for instruction, and an awareness of
the relative cognitive demands of different topics and tasks (p. 25). It is clear that
the Knowledge Quartet has been developed as containing enough components and
codes, so that teachers’ different actions in mathematics classrooms can be well
covered for the purposes of teaching observation and assessment. Different from
the Knowledge Quartet, the notion and components of mathematics conceptual
knowledge for teaching are not developed for assessing mathematics classroom
teaching, but instead for conceptualizing what teachers’ subject matter knowledge-
oriented and pedagogical content knowledge-oriented knowledge components are
needed when teaching specific content topics.
It should be pointed out that subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge constructs developed by Shulman (1986) and used in large-scale
assessment (e.g., Döhrmann et al., 2018) are consistent with the structure of course
offerings in many teacher preparation programs, that is, subject matter knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge can be separated and obtained through different
courses from different departments. In contrast, mathematics conceptual knowledge
for teaching is developed to provide the opposite view, that is, mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching envisions the need and importance of combining
and offering subject matter knowledge-oriented and pedagogical content knowledge-
oriented knowledge components in the same course rather than through different
courses. Mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching aims to promote topic-
based mathematics content and related pedagogical approaches for prospective
teacher preparation and teacher professional development.

83

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

Clearly, specific mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching varies

from one content topic to another, as illustrated in Ma’s (1999) three topic-based
knowledge packages. The task of specifying the mathematics conceptual knowledge
for teaching is needed but enormous for different content topics. Nevertheless,
teachers’ acquisition of the mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching would
provide them a base to further develop a profound understanding of fundamental
mathematics they teach as termed by Ma (1999). Given the dramatic variations
across mathematical content topics, we will focus on the mathematics conceptual
knowledge for teaching that teachers would need to have (more than students) for
teaching fraction division as an example. In the follow-up sections, we will illustrate
the three components of the mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching
fraction division, and then develop an instrument for assessing prospective teachers’
mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching of fraction division.

The Case: Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge for Teaching Fraction Division

The topic of fraction division is difficult in school mathematics not only for students
(Li, 2008), but also for prospective teachers (Borko et al., 1992; Li & Kulm, 2008;
Simon, 1993). Mathematically, fraction division can be presented as an algorithmic
procedure that can be easily taught and learned as “invert and multiply.” However,
the topic is conceptually rich and difficult, as its meaning requires explanation
through connections with other mathematical knowledge, various representations,
or real-world contexts (Greer, 1992; Li, 2008). The selection of the topic of fraction
division, as a special case, can provide a rich context for exploring possible depth
and limitations in prospective teachers’ knowledge in mathematics and pedagogy.
Before discussing and specifying what knowledge teachers would need to have
about fraction division, it is important to know what knowledge teachers may
actually have. In fact, existing studies already examined prospective and practicing
teachers’ mathematics knowledge on fraction division within and across educational
systems (e.g., Li & Huang, 2008; Li & Kulm, 2008; Li et al., 2008).
In a study on United States prospective teachers’ knowledge and confidence
(Li & Kulm, 2008), it was to our surprise how sampled United States prospective
middle school teachers responded to the question whether the division of fractions
(i.e., ) works. Only one out of 46 prospective teachers said this works, the
rest gave all other kinds of answers. What was even more surprising is that several
prospective teachers indicated that the division of fractions should be done with a
procedure of “KFC.” Even if one is not a fast-food goer, you certainly know what
“KFC” (i.e., Kentucky Fried Chicken) stands for. At the same time, however, one
can quickly realize that what everyone knows about “KFC” is different from what
these sampled prospective teachers wanted to convey. It was interesting that few
participants wrote a note next to the term “KFC” (Keep the first, Flip the second, and
Change the computation). After talking to the course instructors for the mathematics

84

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

content and methods courses, Li and Kulm (2008) found that the use of “KFC”
is something that some prospective teachers were taught and thus remembered as
school students. It became clear that the use of “KFC” is effective in helping students
(now prospective teachers) memorize the computational procedure for the division
of fractions. It is also safe to infer that these soon-to-graduate prospective teachers
will very likely teach their future students to learn and remember the division-of-
fraction algorithm with the proven effective use of “KFC.” This raises the question
of what these prospective teachers should learn about fraction division, beyond
procedural knowledge mentioned above, for teaching.
Nowadays, it has become a common understanding that school students’ learning
of computational procedure (e.g., fraction division) is not enough. As the expectation
for students’ learning of mathematics is enhanced, the same goes for teachers. The
expectation of developing students’ conceptual understanding of mathematics, as
emphasized by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (e.g.,
NCTM, 2000), requires teachers to know and teach more than computational
procedures (e.g., “invert-and-multiply” for fraction division). Although various
instructional approaches have been created and shared for teaching the difficult
topic of fraction division (Li, 2008), the creation of various instructional approaches
does not entail what knowledge teachers would need to have for teaching fraction
division. Our conception of mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching would
suggest the following components of topic-based knowledge on fraction division.

Knowledge component (1): Having knowledge and skills about fraction

division. Fraction division can easily be taken as a procedural skill, and students
can be expected to know how to do fraction division. As we discussed in the last
section, students’ learning of fraction division as a computational procedure is not
enough. The same expectation goes for teachers. Teachers should know that the
meaning of fraction division is the same as the meaning of division with whole
numbers, that is, it is an inverse operation of multiplication. In fact, teachers’
understanding of the meaning of fraction division can and shall go even further.
Teachers’ knowledge of fraction division should enable them to understand how
the division-of-fractions computation can be derived and to use fraction division in
solving and posing problems.
For example, Tirosh (2000) showed how the division-of-fractions presented as
the inverse operation of multiplication can be derived:
if , then .

Thus, .

In fact, prospective elementary school teachers in some other systems, like Mainland
China, were once expected to also know that such a value of X = should be the

85

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

one and only solution (Li, 2002). Basically, prospective teachers would need to learn
how to prove its uniqueness as below:
Assuming there are two different fractions (i.e., and ) resulted from , then we
have and .
Therefore,

, thus (1)

Because thus
Therefore, we can have from (1), then . This result is contradictory to
the assumption at the beginning. Therefore, the original assumption cannot be true.
In other words, the quotient of is unique (i.e., ).

Alternatively, the computation of fraction division can also be derived from the
definitions of fraction equivalence and fraction division as follow:
Definition (a): if and only if ad = bc;
Definition (b): if and only if ;

Hence, , thus ayd = bxc based on definition (a).

Therefore, EDVHGRQGH¿QLWLRQ D DJDLQ

Knowledge component (2): Mathematical connections and of main points related
to fraction division. Fraction division is often memorized as “invert and multiply,”
as this is the most commonly taught algorithm. However, division-of-fractions
computation can be carried out in different ways (e.g., Elashhab, 1978; Tirosh, 2000),
as it has close connections with several other important concepts and procedures.
For example, the following are three common procedures:

Invert-and-Multiply. . For example,

Complex fraction. .

For example,

Common denominator. .

For example,

86

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

Mathematically, each algorithm presents a different way for computing division-

of-fractions, as different concepts and procedures are employed in the process of
carrying out the computation. At the same time, they are also connected to each
other. In particular, as the invert-and-multiply algorithm is the only one that is
given without explanation, the procedures shown above for ‘complex fraction’ and
‘common denominator’ can be taken as ways for justifying the invert-and-multiply
algorithm. Moreover, the invert-and-multiply algorithm can also be justified in ways
with some modifications as shown below.

, or

, or

The fraction division computation specified in the above algorithms not only
shows differences in their computation procedures, but also provides a mathematical
foundation for creating and understanding various representation models for dividing
fractions. Teachers’ understanding of different algorithms/concepts and their
connections is essential in the conceptual knowledge for teaching fraction division.

Knowledge component (3): Representational variations and connections for teaching

fraction division. Going beyond basic knowledge and skills associated with fraction
division, teachers also need to be able to create and justify possible explanatory
models for dividing fractions. For example, the multiplication of fractions can be
explained with an area model, where the product can be represented as the area of
a rectangle created with the multiplicand and multiplier as its two sides. Fraction
division (as the inverse operation of multiplication) can also be explained with an area
model (e.g., ). The area model for fraction division computation can be shown
as a process of building a new rectangle where its area (here, ) and the length of one
side (here, ) are known. And the task becomes to find the length of its other side.
Clearly, the area model is developed and explained in terms of the inverse
relationship between fraction multiplication and fraction division. There are several
other models that can be used to explain how fraction division can be carried out
(e.g., Li, 2008), especially when the value of divisor is smaller than the value of
dividend. The selection and use of different models would require teachers to
develop solid understanding of the underlying mathematical ideas for different
models and approaches. Knowing different algorithms discussed above provides
a basis for developing and understanding various representations and models for
dividing fractions.

87

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

The model development for dividing fractions is often associated with the case
for whole number division. Thus, the commonly used measurement and partitive
models for whole number division can also be extended to the case for fractions
(Gregg & Gregg, 2007). As examples, Figure 3.1 shows three different models for
÷ . The model (C) is related to the partitive model for whole number division,
and the other two are related to the measurement model for whole number division.
As pointed out by Gregg and Gregg (2007), the measurement model is tied to
the common denominator algorithm and the partitive model relates to the invert-
and-multiply algorithm. They can all be used for developing and understanding the
invert-and-multiply algorithm.
Likewise, Figure 3.2 shows another possible model for explaining how fraction
division can be done. In fact, this model is basically developed with the ideas from
the complex fraction division algorithm.
The connections between these sample models and different algorithms suggest
the importance for teachers to have in-depth mathematical understanding of these
algorithms. Without an in-depth understanding of different algorithms for fraction
division, teachers can easily get overwhelmed with various explanatory models and
will not be able to identify and discuss their differences and connections. It is the
depth of teachers’ own understanding that will enable them to select and structure
the teaching of fraction division effectively.

A few more remarks. Taken together, mathematics conceptual knowledge for

teaching is not just pieces of knowledge that can be delineated but connected. It is the
connections that teachers and students can build among different pieces of knowledge
that will help them make a better sense of mathematics. No exceptions for teachers, it
also takes time for them to develop and improve mathematics conceptual knowledge
for teaching, here on fraction division. If teachers have a clear sense of what they need
to have in order to facilitate students’ learning with conceptual understanding, teachers
shall be on the right track in learning through teaching and for teaching.
Now, let us revisit the story that was shared at the beginning of this section in
studying a group of United States prospective teachers’ responses to the question
whether the division of fractions (i.e., ) works. On the surface, what has

been discussed so far has no direct connection with . The question then
becomes whether we can assume that prospective teachers in that study simply did
not know this algorithm, as they might never get a chance to learn this very specific
content. Because this is very likely the case, the assumption is reasonable to a certain
degree.
At the same time, their unsatisfactory performance also suggests that those
sampled prospective teachers might not learn mathematics conceptual knowledge
for teaching fraction division. In fact, it is not possible to teach prospective teachers
every bit of detailed knowledge about a specific content topic (here, fraction

88

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

A The three shaded areas in the top bar represents the value of
The one shaded area in the bottom bar represents the value of
Thus, can be measured off with three times, or three
can fit into

B The left half shaded area represents , which has 6 shaded cells.
The top one horizontal shaded area represents , which has 2
shaded cells.
Thus, ÷ = 6 cells ÷ 2 cells = 3
Or, you can use 2 shaded cells (i.e., ) to measure 6 shaded
cells (i.e., ). You will get the answer 3.

C ÷ as a problem to find ‘how many kilograms of honey can you store in a full-size
container, if kilogram of honey can fill size of the container?’

Figure 3.1. Three possible models for ÷

division). It is the fundamental idea to teach prospective teachers the mathematics

conceptual knowledge for teaching, so that they can develop a better understanding
of the topics they will teach. If those prospective teachers learned mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching, it is then possible to expect that they may be
able to justify as

89

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

Expanding the divisor ( ) 6 times, so that it becomes 1. At the same time, expanding the
dividend ( ) also 6 times, then it becomes 3 wholes. So the answer is 3.

Figure 3.2. A model that differs from (A) in Figure 3.1 and connects with the complex
fraction division algorithm

Teachers may even discover that this algorithm, once combined with the concept
of complex fraction, can lead to

A Survey of Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge

for Teaching Fraction Division

Li et al. (2008) reported that sampled prospective elementary school teachers in

Mainland China and South Korea performed well in mathematics (specifically in
fraction division). It remains unclear if prospective elementary school teachers may
have balanced development across different knowledge components of mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching. To gain a better understanding of elementary
teachers’ mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching in various components,
we thus developed and conducted a survey of prospective elementary school teachers
sampled in Mainland China and South Korea with a focus on fraction division.
The results are expected to provide empirical evidence to help illustrate if the
mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching construct is feasible to differentiate
such knowledge components.
The whole survey contains two main parts with three items for Part 1 and seven
items for Part 2. Part 1 contains items on elementary school teachers’ knowledge
of elementary mathematics curriculum and their confidence in their readiness for
mathematics instruction. Part 2 has seven main items that assess elementary school
teachers’ three knowledge components of mathematics conceptual knowledge for
teaching on the topic of fraction division. Most items were taken from previous
studies (Li & Smith, 2007; Li et al., 2008), with some items adapted from school

90

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

mathematics textbooks and others’ studies (e.g., Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004; Tirosh,
2000). The research team reviewed the selection of these items for this survey. Given
the limited page space we have here, only three items (note: each item containing
two sub-questions) from Part 2 and elementary school teachers’ responses to these
items are included for analyses to provide a glimpse of sampled elementary school
teachers’ mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching. Further analysis of the
entire data will be needed for detailed reporting of sampled elementary school
teachers’ performance both within and across Mainland China and South Korea.
The three items analyzed and reported in this chapter are:
Item 5 (designed to assess knowledge component (2) of mathematics conceptual
knowledge for teaching). Explain the meaning of fraction division, and how
fraction division relates to other content topics.
Item 6 (designed to assess knowledge component (1) of mathematics conceptual
knowledge for teaching). Solve the following problems (no calculator). Be
sure to show your solution process.

‡ Say whether ÷ is greater than or less than ÷ without solving. Explain your
reasoning.
‡ Johnny’s Pizza Express sells several different flavour large-size pizzas. One day,
it sold 24 pepperoni pizzas. The number of plain cheese pizzas sold on that day
was of the number of pepperoni pizzas sold, and of the number of deluxe pizzas
sold. How many deluxe pizzas did the pizza express sell on that day? (Note: in the
Chinese version, the pizza was changed to mooncake and the person’s name was
also changed to accommodate cultural differences, while all other numerical and
context information stayed the same.)
Item 7 (designed to assess knowledge component (3) of mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching). How would you explain to your students
why ÷ 2 = ? Why ÷ = 4? (item adapted from Tirosh, 2000).

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL

KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING: SAMPLE RESPONSES
FROM MAINLAND CHINA

In Mainland China, the survey was given to prospective elementary school teachers
in five institutions located in three provinces. All five institutions are province-level
normal universities or colleges that offer 4-year B.A. or B.Sc. preparation programs,
and the three provinces are diverse in terms of their locations and economic
development. However, the selection of these institutions and provinces resulted
mainly from convenience sampling, with access to prospective elementary school
teachers readily available for conducting the survey. All surveys were conducted
in classrooms to be completed within one hour with instructors’ supervision. 350

91

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

surveys were distributed, and 319 responses (response rate: 91.1%) were collected.
All 319 responses (299 females, 18 males) are used for data reporting, with 243
(76%) responses from prospective teachers in their third year in the program, 40
(13%) responses from prospective teachers in their fourth year in the program, and
36 (11%) responses from master programs.
Due to the sampling difficulties associated with prospective elementary school teachers
in Mainland China, the results reported here should not be taken as reflecting the overall
situation in Mainland China or assuming well-controlled samplings for comparison.
Nevertheless, the results should offer a glimpse of sampled prospective elementary
school teachers’ mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching fraction division.

Sampled Teachers’ Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge for Teaching in

Elementary School Mathematics: Fraction Division

In general, the results from all sampled teachers’ responses present a consistent
pattern. At the item level, sampled prospective teachers did very well in answering
Item 6 that assesses elementary school teachers’ knowledge and skill associated
directly with fraction division, and were quite successful on an item (i.e., Item 7)
assessing elementary school teachers’ knowledge and ability of teaching fraction
division using various representations or models. But those prospective teachers
were much less successful in answering Item 5 that examines elementary school
teachers’ knowledge of fraction division and their ability to connect and justify
possible association between fraction division and other content topics.
In the following sections, we present the results item-by-item from sampled
prospective (319 respondents) teachers in Mainland China. (Note: the results
presented in the following text may not add to 100% due to rounding errors.)

Item 6. Item 6 was designed to assess elementary school teachers’ knowledge and
skills associated directly with fraction division (i.e., knowledge component (1)).

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the first sub-question of Item 6. For the
group of sampled prospective elementary school teachers, about 96.2% of those
respondents provided the correct answer (i.e., the first numerical expression is
greater than the second one). And the remaining 3.8% did not get the correct answer.
Among those who provided the correct answer, about 78.4% did not use fraction
division computations. The common explanations include (a) “If the dividend is the
same, the smaller the divisor, the larger the quotient.” and (b) “ ( ) is smaller than
( ).” And many respondents provided both reasons. The other 16.9% used the
computation rule for fraction division (i.e., converting division into multiplication,
then followed by comparing and ) to reach the correct answer. A very small
percent of sampled prospective teachers (3 respondents, 0.9%) used both methods.
The remaining 3.8% did not get the correct answer due to either misconceptions

92

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

(e.g., if the dividend is the same, the larger the divisor, the larger the quotient; or
a mistake about which fraction is bigger between and ), or computation errors.
Overall, it is clear that sampled prospective elementary school teachers did very
well on this sub-item (96.2% correct).

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the second sub-question of Item 6. For

the group of prospective elementary school teachers, 94% of respondents answered
correctly. Specifically, 64.3% used a multi-step computation method to get the answer,
about 27% used a combined computation method, 1.6% adopted an algebraic approach
to set up and solve an equation for the solution, and a few (about 1.1%) provided more
than one solution approach. About 6% of these respondents responded incorrectly.
Overall, sampled prospective elementary school teachers did very well (94%
correct). For those who responded incorrectly, data show their errors, resulting
either from computation error (e.g., proving a computation as 24 × ÷ = 36) or
misunderstanding the problem (e.g., proving a computation as 24 ÷ = 36).

Item 5. Item 5 was designed to assess elementary school teachers’ knowledge

of fraction division and their ability to connect and justify possible associations
between fraction division and other content topics (i.e., knowledge component (2)).
This item contains two sub-questions and sampled prospective teachers were asked
to answer both questions.

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the first sub-question of Item 5. For the
first sub-question about the meaning of fraction division, about 73% of the sampled
prospective teachers provided correct explanations. Among those correct answers,
9.4% prospective teachers responded with “the meaning of fraction division is
the same as the division of whole numbers,” 28.2% provided their answers as “if
knowing the product of two factors and the value of one factor, it is an operation to
find the value of the other factor,” 17.6% responded with an answer that combines
the above two, as “the meaning of fraction division is the same as the meaning of
the division of whole numbers, and if knowing the product of two factors and the
value of one factor, it is an operation to find the value of the other factor,” 11.9%
explained the meaning of fraction division as “partitioning a number into several
parts, taking one part or several parts.” The rest of the answers include comparing
fraction division with ratio, or operations involving whole numbers or fractions. Few
of the sampled prospective teachers (1.5%) used two different ways to explain the
meaning of fraction division. Among the sampled prospective teachers, 27% either
provided a wrong explanation (13.5%) or no explanation at all (13.5%).

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the second sub-question of Item 5. For the
second sub-question, sampled teachers were asked to explain how fraction division
relates to other content topics. Only 18.3% of prospective teachers provided correct

93

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

explanations, with 13.2% indicating that “fraction division is an inverse operation of

fraction multiplication” and 3.8% mentioning that “fraction division relates to inverse
numbers, for example, dividing by a number equals to multiplying by its inverse
number.” The vast majority (81.8%) of prospective teachers either stated what content
topics may relate to fraction division but failed to explain how (37.6%), provided some
other wrong explanation (7.8%), or simply did not answer this sub-question (36.4%).

Item 7. Item 7 was designed to assess elementary school teachers’ knowledge

and ability in teaching fraction division using various representations or models
(i.e., knowledge component (3)). It also contains two sub-questions and sampled
prospective teachers were asked to answer both questions.

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the first sub-question of Item 7. For the first
fraction division (i.e., explaining why ÷ 2 = ?), 95.2% of sampled prospective teachers
provided valid explanations for dividing a fraction by a natural number (i.e., ÷ 2 = ).
The dominant explanation (49.5%) used the meaning of fractions such as, “dividing a
whole into three equal parts, each part should be , so means having two such parts.
Dividing into two equal pieces, so each piece should be .” The other 17.9% were
dominated by explanations that were based on the algorithm, “dividing a number equals
to multiplying its reciprocal,” 14.1% explained with a drawing or number line, and
about 4.9% provided correct explanations with two or more different approaches.

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the second sub-question of Item 7. For

the second fraction division (i.e., explaining why ÷ = 4), 84.3% of sampled
prospective teachers provided valid explanations but the dominant explanation was
based on the fraction division algorithm (37.9%). Among the prospective teachers
27.3% provided their explanations mainly as “changing fractions so that they have
the same denominator first, and then using the meaning of fractions for the solution,
for example, changing into its equivalent fraction , and has four .” Some (8.5%)
used drawings or a number line to help explain. About 2.1% provided different
explanations. The rest (7.2%) provided incorrect explanations. The dominant error
was due to the inability to explain why ÷ = 4, although those prospective teachers
tried to provide a problem context for the fraction division.

Summary of elementary school teachers’ responses to Item 7. Overall, sampled

prospective teachers did very well in explaining these two fraction divisions. They
used a broad range of approaches in providing their explanation, with an approach
that relies on either the meaning of fraction or the fraction division algorithm.
Moreover, sampled prospective teachers performed better in explaining a fraction
divided by a whole number than explaining a fraction divided by a fraction. The
results suggest that when both the dividend and divisor are fractions, it likely makes

94

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

the explanation more difficult when the divisor is a fraction than the case when the
divisor is a whole number.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL

KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING: SAMPLE RESPONSES FROM SOUTH KOREA

In South Korea, the survey was given to prospective elementary school teachers
in four national universities that offer 4-year B.A. or B.Sc. teacher preparation
programs. There are 13 special universities offering elementary school teacher
education programs in South Korea, which are geographically spread out across
the country. Ten of them are national universities that are designed only to prepare
elementary school teachers, and the remaining three universities provide various
programs along with an elementary school teacher education program. In this
study, three were selected from the 10 universities specializing in preparing only
elementary school teachers and the remaining one is a comprehensive university
specializing in teacher education ranging from preschool through elementary to
secondary school education. The selection of these universities represents quite well
of those leading institutions in teacher preparation in South Korea. All surveys were
conducted in classrooms to complete within one hour with instructors’ supervision.
238 surveys were distributed and collected. However, 17 surveys were not used
because there were no answers to three or more items. These unreliable responses
happened mostly in one university in which the survey was administrated in the last
class session along with the final exam for the course. Thus, 221 responses (167
females, 54 males) were used for data analyzing and reporting, with 135 (61%) of
responses from prospective teachers in their third year in the program, 86 (39%)
responses from prospective in their fourth year in the program.
Due to the sampling difficulties associated with prospective elementary school
teachers in South Korea, the results reported here should not be taken as simply
reflecting the overall situation in the country. Nevertheless, with the consideration of
selecting samples across the country, the results should allow us to get a good sense
of prospective elementary school teachers’ mathematics conceptual knowledge for
teaching in fraction division in South Korea.

Sampled Teachers’ Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge for Teaching in

Elementary School Mathematics: Fraction Division

Overall, similar to the case of Mainland China, the results from all sampled teachers’
responses present a quite consistent pattern. At the item level, sampled prospective
teachers did very well in answering Item 6 that assesses elementary school teachers’
knowledge and skill associated directly with fraction division, and had excellent
performance on Item 7 that examines elementary school teachers’ knowledge and
ability of teaching fraction division using various representations or models. But

95

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

these prospective teachers were much less successful in answering Item 5 that tends
to assess elementary school teachers’ knowledge of fraction division and their ability
to connect and justify possible associations between fraction division and other
content topics.
In the following sections, we present the results item-by-item from sampled
prospective (221 respondents) teachers in South Korea. (Note: the results presented
in the following items may not add to 100% due to rounding errors.)

Item 6

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the first sub-question of Item 6. About

96% of sampled prospective teachers answered correctly (i.e., the first numerical
expression is greater than the second one). The most common explanation is that
is smaller than . Some teachers showed why is smaller than by comparing these
fractions with 1 (i.e., 1 – vs 1 – ), converting them to equivalent fractions with

the same denominator (i.e., and ), or drawing a picture to represent and for
comparison, etc. About 26% mentioned, “If the divisor is the smaller, the result of
the division (or quotient) is bigger.” About 5% who got the correct answer changed
the division of the given numerical expressions into multiplication and mentioned
that is greater than , implying “the greater the multiplier, the larger the product.”

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the second sub-question of Item 6. For

the group of prospective elementary teachers, 93% of respondents responded
correctly. Specifically, 70% used a multi-step computation method to get the answer
(i.e., 24 ×   ͒×   ͒ ×  ͒  DERXWXVHGDFRPELQHG
computation method (i.e., 24 ×  ͒×  ͒ × ÷ = 24 × × = 27), 5%
adopted an algebraic approach to set up and solve an equation for solution (e.g.,
Cheese pizzas, x = 18, Deluxe pizzas = y, y =18, 2y = 54, y = 27), 6% provided
a correct answer with no explanation, 5% provided a simple explanation without
variables (e.g., of 24 is 18, of Deluxe is 18, so (the answer is) 27), and about
1% (2 respondents) provided something else. The remaining prospective elementary
school teachers either did incorrectly (15 respondents, 7%) or provided no answer at
all (one respondent). Incorrect responses are mainly due to computation (e.g., errors
in reducing fractions) or misunderstanding the problem.
Overall, sampled prospective elementary school teachers did very well (93%
correct). Furthermore, those prospective teachers tended to use either a multi-step
or combined arithmetic approach. For those respondents who answered incorrectly,
data show their errors, resulting either from computation errors or misunderstanding
of the problem.

96

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

Item 5

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the first sub-question of Item 5. As

explained above, this item includes two sub-questions and sampled prospective
and practicing teachers responded to both questions. For the first sub-question
about the meaning of fraction division, about 41% sampled prospective teachers
provided correct explanations, and as much as 46% (i.e., 101 prospective teachers)
did not get the correct answer. If we look closely at the correct answers, the most
common explanation was the measurement interpretation of fraction division
(39%), followed by the partitive interpretation (29%). In addition, more than 10%
of sampled prospective teachers were able to provide other meanings of fraction
division such as the inverse of multiplication (10%) or determination of a unit
rate (15%). Note that 28% of the prospective teachers were able to explain the
meanings of fraction division in two ways or more. Among the incorrect answers
(46%), the most common explanation (32%) was to describe the meaning of
fraction division as division with fractions (i.e., division with the divisor and/
or the dividend as fractions). About 13% provided no answer or simply stated “I
don’t know.”

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the second sub-question of Item 5. For

the second sub-question, as much as 69% were able to relate fraction division to other
content topics, although only about 41% of sampled prospective teachers provided
correct explanations of the meaning of fraction division (i.e., the first sub-question).
The most common content topic related to was fraction multiplication mainly
because the multiplicative inverse of the divisor is used in fraction division. Note
that both measurement interpretation and partitive interpretations used in answering
the first sub-question are related to the meaning of division and more than 29% of
the prospective teachers were able to provide these interpretations. In contrast, only
15% of the prospective teachers related fraction division to whole number division
and 13% related it to the division of decimal numbers. Note also that ratio, rate,
and proportion were mentioned mainly because of the meaning of determination of
a unit rate in fraction division. Another noticeable aspect is that 21% were able to
provide two or more related content topics. About 8% of prospective teachers failed
to provide a correct explanation, and 22% provided no answer or simply stated “I
don’t know.”

Item 7

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the first sub-question of Item 7. For the first
fraction division, almost all prospective teachers (99%) provided valid explanations
for dividing a fraction by a whole number. The majority of respondents (more than

97

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

54% respondents) used drawings to show that if you equally divide into 2 pieces,
you get . Other respondents (11%) used the meaning of division or fraction without
drawing. Some respondents (5%) used the common denominator and others (5%) used
an algorithmic approach (i.e., dividing a number equals to multiplying its reciprocal).
About 11% of these prospective teachers provided valid explanations in two or more
ways. In doing so, drawing was often used as a basic approach.

Elementary school teachers’ responses to the second sub-question of Item 7. With

regard to the second fraction division (i.e., dividing a fraction by a fraction), about
97% of sampled prospective teachers provided valid explanations. Again, the most
dominant explanation was based on drawings to show the meaning of measurement
division. Even though the drawings were different from explaining the first fraction
division, the main idea was to display how many s are included in (or ). Additionally,
19% of these prospective teachers explained the meaning of the measurement division
in words or numerical expressions without drawing. 15% of these respondents used an
algorithmic approach of using the inverse number. Note that the rate for the category
of finding the common denominator was increased from 5% (for explaining the first
fraction division) to 14% (for explaining the second fraction division), and that the
rate for the category of using an algorithmic approach was also increased from 5% to
15%. Among the prospective teachers 10% were able to provide two or more kinds of
explanations. Again, drawing was the most prevalent approach included.

Summary of elementary school teachers’ responses to Item 7. Putting together

sampled prospective teachers’ performance in explaining these two sub-questions
about fraction divisions, it is clear that these prospective teachers had almost
perfect performance in answering this item. The results show that these teachers
not only did very well in explaining these fraction divisions, but also used a range
of approaches in their explanations. The results likely suggest that these sampled
teachers, although diverse in terms of when and where they received their education,
shared quite similar understanding in how to explain these fraction divisions (note:
with the dominant approach of drawings).

SAMPLED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ MATHEMATICS

CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING IN MAINLAND CHINA AND
SOUTH KOREA: WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

The results obtained from prospective teachers sampled in Mainland China and
South Korea provide rich information not only about their mathematics conceptual
knowledge for teaching, but also about possible patterns that can allow us to gain
initial understanding of teacher knowledge differentiated into different components.
Before we summarize the results below, we should emphasize again that the sampling
differences within and across these two countries do not allow us to generalize the results

98

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

for representing the entire education systems or to make a cross-system comparison,

such as using a statistical analysis. Instead, we put the main results reported in the
above two parts together to illustrate what we can learn from these sampled teachers’
responses. We believe such illustrations can help inspire further investigations about
teachers’ mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching, and the role of culture and
education in shaping teachers’ mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching.
Table 3.1 summarizes the percentages of sampled prospective teachers in
Mainland China and South Korea who provided correct answers or explanations to
items 5, 6, and 7. In general, sampled teachers had better performance on items 6
and 7 than their performance on item 5 in both Mainland China and South Korea.
For item 6, sampled teachers had similar great performance across these two
education systems. The results suggest that prospective teachers sampled in both
education systems had solid knowledge and skill directly associated with fraction
division, a knowledge component that is also typically required for school students.
It is noticeable that sampled prospective teachers in South Korea did even better on
item 7 that aims to assess their knowledge and ability of teaching fraction division.
The results likely suggest that teacher preparation programs in South Korea placed
great emphases on mathematics and mathematical pedagogy education. For the case
of Mainland China, the results present a pattern different from the case of South
Korea. Sampled prospective teachers in Mainland China also did well on item
7 but not better than their performance on item 6. The results likely suggest that
prospective teachers in Mainland China also received good education on mathematics
and mathematics pedagogy through teacher preparation program, but they would be
expected to gain even more on how to teach fraction division through teaching. The
similarities and differences in prospective teachers’ performance on items 6 and 7

Table 3.1. Summary results of sampled elementary school teachers’

mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching in fraction division

Mainland China South Korea

Correct Correct

Item 6
Sub-question 1 96.2% 96%
Sub-question 2 94% 93%
Item 5
Sub-question 1 73% 91%
Sub-question 2 18.3% 69%
Item 7
Sub-question 1 95.3% 99%
Sub-question 2 84.3% 97%

99

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

between Mainland China and South Korea are consistent with what we learned last
time (see Li et al., 2008).
Noticeable results were revealed from sampled prospective teachers’ performance
in answering item 5 in Mainland China and South Korea. While sampled teachers
in both education systems did better on the first sub-question than the second sub-
question, it is clear that there are overall dramatic differences across these two
education systems. First of all, the group of prospective teachers sampled in both
Mainland China and South Korea did much less successfully in answering sub-
question 2 than sub-question 1. Second, sampled prospective teachers in South Korea
did better in both sub-questions than sampled prospective teachers’ performance
in Mainland China. The results likely suggest that sampled prospective teachers in
South Korea received good education through their teacher preparation program on
such knowledge component in mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching,
whereas it may be less so for the sampled prospective teachers in Mainland China.
To better understand these prospective elementary school teachers’ performance
it is also important to know the system and cultural contexts of Mainland China
and South Korea. Readers can find detailed information from a previous study
(Li et al., 2008). In South Korea, elementary school teachers need to teach every
school subject, prospective elementary school teachers are required to take the same
courses with only the exception of their focus areas. In general, about 85% of the
course requirements are the same for any prospective elementary school teacher.
With regard to requirements common in mathematics, elementary school teacher
education programs consist of the liberal arts courses and the major courses. Among
the liberal art courses, prospective teachers take a compulsory course (2-3 credit
hours) dealing with the foundations or basics of mathematics. Among the major
courses, prospective teachers take two to four compulsory courses (4–7 credit hours)
in mathematics. The most common courses are (Elementary) Mathematics Education
I with 2 credit hours and (Elementary) Mathematics Education II with 3 credit hours.
The former mainly deals with overall theories (including the national mathematics
curriculum) related directly to teaching elementary school mathematics, whereas
the latter covers how to teach elementary school mathematics tailored to multiple
content areas such as number and operations.
The situation in Mainland China shows great variations across different teacher
preparation programs that are still in co-existence in the system (Xie, Ma, & Chen,
2018). The comprehensive-type teacher preparation program offers only two or three
mathematics courses such as, Advanced Mathematics, Foundations of Mathematics,
and Elementary Number Theory. In contrast, the discipline-based or stream model
program offers many more compulsory and elective courses in mathematics to
help prospective teachers to build a strong subject matter knowledge. Such courses
can be classified into three categories: basic courses (e.g., calculus), professional
courses (e.g., elementary number theory), and advanced courses (e.g., mathematical
modelling). In addition, there are some courses that are closely related to curriculum
and instruction in elementary school mathematics.

100

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

The mathematics course requirements have more consistence across different

programs in South Korea than the case in Mainland China. The credit hour
requirements are in line with what is proposed in the United States (CBMS,
2012). Although there are dramatic variations in the credit hour requirements in
mathematics in Mainland China, the minimum requirements in mathematics in the
comprehensive model programs is also aligned with CBMS’s recommendations
(2012). Sampled prospective elementary school teachers’ performance in South
Korea and Mainland China in this study suggest that these sampled prospective
teachers benefited from strong mathematics preparation provided through their
programs. Even more important, although programs in South Korea do not seem to
require more courses in mathematics than programs in Mainland China, the good
education provided in teacher preparation programs in South Korea is likely due to
the nature of courses provided. Specifically, their most common courses such as,
(Elementary) Mathematics Education I and (Elementary) Mathematics Education
II, likely help provide important preparation in mathematics as measured in this
study. Further research would be needed to understand the nature of mathematics
courses offered in different system contexts, and how the content in those courses
may provide mathematical preparation that is needed and important for teaching.

CONCLUSION

The results and discussion presented previously show some important findings. It is
quite clear that, across these two education systems, sampled prospective teachers’
performance shared much similarities in terms of their mathematics conceptual
knowledge for teaching on fraction division. However, there are subtle differences
in details across these two education systems. For example, prospective teachers
sampled in Mainland China and South Korea showed quite different tendency in
approaches when answering the three items targeted on teachers’ mathematics
conceptual knowledge for teaching, especially for item 7 on mathematical pedagogy
and item 5 on connections of mathematical ideas. Sampled teachers in Mainland
China tended to use numerical, algorithmic or verbal explanation when answering
these questions, whereas sampled teachers in South Korea showed more use of visual
representations such as drawings for explanation. Such differences are likely beyond
sampling differences and can possibly relate to the different education provided for
prospective elementary school teachers and cultural practice embedded in teaching
in these two education systems.
At the beginning of the chapter, we mentioned that it remains to be understood
whether a strong education in mathematics is good enough for what we believe that
teachers need to know more than students for teaching. Specifically, we chose the
topic of fraction division. Fraction division is a difficult topic in elementary school
mathematics (e.g., Ma, 1999), not only for school students but also for teachers
(e.g., Li, 2008; Li & Smith, 2007). By focusing on this content topic, we developed
a survey with test items that aims to assess prospective teachers’ three different

101

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

knowledge components of Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge for Teaching on this

topic. Sampled prospective teachers’ performance from Mainland China and South
Korea helped reveal that teachers’ knowledge on fraction division can and should be
differentiated, and the structure of mathematics conceptual knowledge for teaching
with three knowledge components provides an important and feasible lens for us to
know the strength and weakness of teachers’ knowledge. In particular, for the case
of Mainland China, the results suggest that prospective teachers likely gain much
more on mathematics, somehow less on mathematical pedagogy, but very limited
on connections of mathematical ideas through their program studies. For the case
of South Korea, great performance demonstrated by sampled prospective teachers
suggests that they received very good education on mathematics and mathematical
pedagogy, but less so on connections of mathematical ideas through their program
studies. It is the education they received through teacher preparation programs that
likely lays a great foundation for their professional career in the future. It is our
hope that the conception and structure of Mathematics Conceptual Knowledge
for Teaching (MCKT) can and shall further our efforts in helping to guide our
prospective and practicing teachers to know mathematics well enough, beyond what
students need to know, for teaching.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank many graduate students and colleagues in Mainland China
and South Korea for their assistances in the process of collecting and analyzing the
data. We are also grateful to all the survey participants in Mainland China and South
Korea for sharing their thoughts and contributions.

REFERENCES
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?
Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Blömeke, S., Hsieh, F.-J., Kaiser, G., & Schmidt, W. H. (Eds.). (2014). International perspectives on
teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn. Dordrecht: Springer.
Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (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.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS). (2012). The mathematical education of teachers
II, CBMS issues in mathematics education (Vol. 17). Washington, DC: American Mathematical
Society and Mathematical Association of America.
Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2018). The conception of mathematics knowledge for
teaching from an international perspective: The case of the TEDS-M study. In Y. Li & R. Huang
(Eds.), How Chinese acquire and improve mathematics knowledge for teaching (pp. 57–81). Leiden,
The Netherlands: Brill-Sense.
Elashhab, G. A. (1978). Division of fractions – Discovery and verification. School Science and
Mathematics, 78, 159–162.
Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276–295). New York, NY: Macmillan.

102

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
 MATHEMATICS CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

Gregg, J., & Gregg, D. U. (2007). Measurement and fair-sharing models for dividing fractions.
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 12, 490–496.
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.
Li, S., Huang, R., & Shin, Y. (2008). Mathematical discipline knowledge requirements for prospective
secondary teachers from an East Asian perspective. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), International
handbook of mathematics teacher education: Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and
teaching development (pp. 63–86). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Li, Y. (2002). Knowing, understanding and exploring the content and formation of curriculum materials:
A Chinese approach to empower prospective elementary school teachers pedagogically. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37(2), 179–193.
Li, Y. (2008). What do students need to learn about division of fractions? Mathematics Teaching in the
Middle School, 13, 546–552.
Li, Y., & Huang, R. (2008). Chinese elementary mathematics teachers’ knowledge in mathematics and
pedagogy for teaching: The case of fraction division. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 40(5), 845–859.
Li, Y., & Kaiser, G. (Eds.). (2011). Expertise in mathematics instruction. New York, NY: Springer.
Li, Y., & Kulm, G. (2008). Knowledge and confidence of pre-service mathematics teacher: The case of
fraction division. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(5), 833–843.
Li, Y., Ma, Y., & Pang, J. (2008). Mathematical preparation of prospective elementary teachers. In
P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Knowledge
and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 37–62). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Li, Y., & Smith, D. (2007). Prospective middle school teachers’ knowledge in mathematics and pedagogy
for teaching – The case of fraction division. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics
education (Vol. 3, pp. 185–192). Seoul, The Republic of Korea: PME.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental
mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards of school mathematics.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Petrou, M., & Goulding, M. (2011). Conceptualizing teachers’ mathematical knowledge in teaching. In
T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 9–25). New York, NY:
Springer.
Rowland, T. (2013). The Knowledge Quartet: The genesis and application of a framework for analyzing
mathematics teaching and deepening teachers’ mathematics knowledge. SISYPHUS Journal of
Education, 1(3), 15–43.
Ruthven, K. (2011). Conceptualizing mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven
(Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 83–96). New York, NY: Springer.
Schmidt, W., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Blömeke, S., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., … Schwille, J. (2007). The
preparation gap: Teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries. East Lansing,
MI: Michigan State University.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4–14.
Simon, M. A. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge of division. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 24(3), 233–254.
Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children’s conceptions: The case of
division of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5–25.
Xie, S., Ma, Y., & Chen, W. (2018). Elementary mathematics teacher preparation in China. In Y. Li &
R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese acquire and improve mathematics knowledge for teaching (pp. 85–108).
Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense.

103

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access
YEPING LI ET AL.

Yeping Li
College of Education and Human Development
Texas A&M University

JeongSuk Pang
Department of Elementary Education
Korea National University of Education

Huirong Zhang
Faculty of Education,
Southwest University

Naiqing Song
School of Mathematics and Statistics
Southwest University

104

- 978-90-04-41887-5
Downloaded from Brill.com11/19/2020 08:55:06AM
via free access