Introduction

Pre-Service Teachers Readiness to Teach is an effort to raise the academic achievement

of all children, The No Child Left Behind mandates that all teachers be highly qualified in the

content area they teach and that all student subgroups meet the academic standards set forth by

individual states. At the heart of this mandate is the requirement that teacher preparation

institutions graduate teachers who have the subject content knowledge to instruct all children.

This type of mandate reflects the increased concern in recent years of the failure to adequately

staff schools with qualified teachers. A review of the literature also indicates that there is a

heightened concern for both the quantity and quality of teachers to fill teaching positions

(Ingersoll & Perda, 2009; Boe, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Institutions of higher

education that provide teacher training programs are faced with the challenge to ensure that

graduates are prepared to teach to students in grade school or high schools. Two bodies of

research warrant consideration from Institutions of higher education that provide Teacher

Training Programs: (1) teachers background of concept and (2) pedagogical knowledge.

The literature indicates that teachers background subject knowledge directly influences

student achievement (Barth, 2002; Ingersoll, 2003; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005;

Heritage & Vendlinski, 2006; Hill, Rowan & Ball, 2005; National Mathematics Advisory Panel,

2008). This view is supported by studies which spans over several decades documenting that

many teachers enter the classroom without a comprehensive understanding of mathematics (Hill,

Rowen, & Ball, 1995; Ball & Bass, 2000; Ball, 1990; Usiskin, 2001). Such findings claim that

the lack of teachers understanding significantly impact students opportunities for learning, as

teacher content knowledge is a vital component for academic success (Darling Hammond, 2000).

In order to explain concepts and provide connections and rationales behind each concept,
teachers need a profound understanding of the subject (Ma, 1999). Rosas & Campbells (2010)

study found that pre-service teachers had a limited understanding of different teaching concepts.

Rosas & Campbells (2010) study found that pre-service teachers in the graduate program

had an inadequate, basic background to prepare students for required standardized tests in an

international context. The belief that student achievement is directly linked to teachers subject

knowledge and their understanding of how individuals learn is based on intuition and logic. A

reasonable assumption would be that teachers must know the subject content they teach.

However, according to Floden & Menikeetti (2005), there is little empirical research to support

such a claim. Floden & Meniketti (2005) reviewed the literature and found few empirical studies

that conclusively affirmed the common belief that teachers background knowledge directly

impacts student achievement. Of the forty empirical studies reviewed by Floden & Meniketti

(2005), the majority used classroom assessments to measure student achievement, severely

limiting the generalizability of the findings. The few empirical studies that linked teachers

mathematical content knowledge to student achievement were vague.

In addition to the research on background knowledge, Institutes of Higher Education that

provide teacher training programs also must be cognizant of teacher candidates pedagogical

background and its effect on teaching performance. It is important to note that while content

knowledge represents a general aptitude, pedagogical content knowledge refers to an

understanding of how to teach the subject (Shulman, 1986). Several researchers (Usiskin, 2001;

Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences, 2001; Shulman, 1986; Darling Hammond, 2000)

stress that pre-service teacher education programs need to focus on distinctive courses that

expand upon future teachers conceptual and pedagogical knowledge indifferent context of

education. Teacher training programs typically require pre-service teachers to complete methods
of teaching coursework and field experiences. In an effort to determine the effectiveness of

methodology coursework and field experience, Clift & Brady (2005) reviewed the research from

1995 through 2001and found that most studies focused on pre-service teachers beliefs and

perceptions of teaching.

In general, the reviewed research indicated that teacher candidates who participated in

methodology courses and field experiences reported confidence in their ability to write lesson

plans, to focus on learning as exploratory rather than memorization, the importance of the

teachers role, and method and understandings of problem-solving process and skills (p.318).

However, Clift & Brady (2005) found studies which indicated that while methodology courses

focused on instruction standards, in practice there was little evidence that pre-service teachers

included the standards in instruction during field experiences. Even more confounding, Clift &

Brady found that cooperating teachers understanding of standard-based instruction improved

through their experiences with pre-service teachers. The research further indicated a consistent

theme of a paradigm shift from the teacher as the authority and provider of knowledge to

teacher as facilitator (p.319). Such contrasting findings obviously indicate that more in-depth

research, which directly connects teacher preparation to student achievement, is needed in the

field of instruction. The first step to this type of research requires an investigation into the pre-

service teachers perception about their readiness to teach mathematics.

In summary, the literature revealed that the research on teachers content knowledge and

teaching methodology was limited and therefore inconclusive. The purpose of this study

therefore is to provide more specific information about pre-service teachers perceptions of their

readiness to teach. This study will be an additional concept and literature to the body of

knowledge on teacher training.

References

Barth, P. (2002). Add It Up: Mathematics Education in the U.S. Does Not Compute. Thinking K-

16, 6(1), Presented at the 12th Educational Trust National Conference, Washington, DC

Boe, E.E. (2006). Long Term Trends in the National Demand, Supply, and Shortage of Special

Education Teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 138-150.

Clift, R., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences. In

CochranSmith, M., & Zeichner, K. Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the AERA

Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 309-425). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy

Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.

Hill, H. & Ball, D. (2004). Learning Mathematics for Teaching: Results from Californias

Mathematics Professional Development Institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, v, 35 (5): p. 330-351.

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers mathematical knowledge for

teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), p. 371-

406.

Hill, H., Schilling, S., & Ball, D. (2004). Developing Measured of Teachers Mathematics

Knowledge for Teaching. The Elementary School Journal, v 105 (1): p. 11-30.
Ingersoll, Richard M. (2003). Out-of-Field Teaching and the Limits of Teacher Policy- A

Research Report. Retrieved from (2003). Out-of-Field Teaching and the Limits of

Teacher Policy- A Research Report.

Rosas, C., & Campbell, L. (2010). Whos teaching math to our most needy students? A

Descriptive Study. Teacher Education and Special Education. v 33 (1).

Usiskin, Z. (2001). Teachers mathematics: A collection of content deserving to be a field. The

Mathematics Educator, 6 (1), 85-97