A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Mathematics Teachers’ Professional Competences (MTPC) in a Mongolian Context
More details
Hide details
Mongolian Institute for Educational Research, MONGOLIA
Online publish date: 2017-11-26
Publish date: 2017-11-26
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(3):699–708
This study aimed to determine and validate a version of the MTPC with 4 belief, 4 knowledge, 4 practice, and 3 attitude items. The sample size of the study was 218 participants. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze research data. The results of the study revealed that after deleting 3 items of attitude, a 3-factor model was validated and well fit the research data. Therefore, the model best fits the Mongolian context in comparison to other models.
1. AAMT (2006). Standards for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics in Australian Schools. Retrieved from
2. Abdul, M.A., Darmawan, I.G.N., & Lynch, P. (2013). A confirmatory factor analysis of attitudes toward mathematics inventory (ATMI). The Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 121-135.
3. An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145-172. doi:10.1023/B:JMTE.0000021943.35739.1c.
4. Attorps, I. (2006). Mathematics teachers´ conceptions about equations (Academic dissertation). University of Helsinki. Retrieved from
5. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics of Teaching and Learning. (pp. 83- 104). Westport, Conn.: Ablex Publishing.
6. Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2004). Knowing mathematics for teaching. In R. Strasser, GBrandell, B. Grevholm, O. Helenius (Eds.), Educating for the future. Proceedings of an international symposium on mathematics teacher education (pp. 159-178). Sweden: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
7. Ball, D. L., & Sleep, L. (2007). What is knowledge for teaching, and what are features of tasks that can be used to develop MKT? Paper presented at the Center for Proficiency in Teaching Mathematics (CPTM) pre-session of the annual meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE), Irvine.
8. Ball, D. L. (2009). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: knowing mathematics for teaching to learners’ mathematical futures. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
9. Begz, N. (2017). New paradigm in educology of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar: SOYOMBO printing.
10. Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined contexts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39–68. doi:10.1007/BF03217415.
11. Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about school mathematics and mathematicians’ mathematics and their relationship to practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 127–147. doi:10.1007/s10649-011-9333-2.
12. Brown, C., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a Mathematics Teacher. In Grouws, D. A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 208-239). Reston: NCTM. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0554-8.
13. Deakin, C. R. (2008). Pedagogy for citizenship. In F. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved: Global citizenship development and sources of moral values (pp.31-55). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
14. Döhrmann, M., Kaiser, G., & Blömeke, S. (2012). The conceptualisation of mathematics competencies in the international teacher education study TEDS-M. ZDM, 44(3), 325–340. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0432-z.
15. Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), 13-33. doi:10.1080/0260747890150102.
16. Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
17. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Gupta, K. (1999). A practical guide for need assessment. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
19. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
20. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53 – 60.
21. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
22. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principle and Practices of Structural Equation Modelling. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
23. Koehler, M. S., & Grouws, D. A. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their effects. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 115-125). New York: Macmillan.
24. Koponen, M., Asikainen, M. A, Viholainen, A., & Hirvonen, P.A. (2017) How Education Affects Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge: Unpacking Selected Aspects of Teacher Knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(6), 1943–1980. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.01209a.
25. Leinhardt, G. & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.247.
26. Leong, K. E. (2013). Factors that influence the understanding of good mathematics teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 309-318. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2013.939a.
27. Luvsandorj, Ts., Doyod, U., & Dalaijamts, Ts., (2003). Concepts of new development for standart and curriculum of mathematics teachers’ education. New Trends in Teacher Education Development (pp. 44-53). Ulaanbaatar: SOYOMBO printing.
28. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. MECS (2016). Education Statistical Yearbook (2015 – 2016 academic year). Ulaanbaatar: Edmarket.
30. Munkhjargal, D., Teacher Education Reform in Mongolia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Teacher Education Reform (pp. 12 - 20). Ulaanbaatar: MNUE.
31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics on Teaching Standards for School Mathematics (1991). Professional Standards. Reston, Virginia: NCTM.
32. OECD (2013). Supporting Teacher Competence Development for Better Learning Outcomes. Paris: OECD publications. Retrieved from
33. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in- context. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1-94. doi:10.1016/S1080-9724(99)80076-7.
34. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010) How to think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routedge.
35. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Poutledge.
36. Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill.
37. Siti, M. M., Effand, Z., & Norazah, M. N. (2011), Confirmatory factor analysis of the mathematics teachers’ teaching practices instrument. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(11), 2092 – 2096.
38. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 – 14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004.
39. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1 – 22. doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.
40. Steiger, J. H. (2007), Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling, Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893 – 98. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017.
41. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
42. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
43. Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and pedagogy to lead the profession. London: David Fulton.
44. Van der Sandt, S. (2007), Research framework on mathematics teacher behaviour: koehler and grouws’ framework revisited. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 343-350. doi:10.12973/ejmste/75413.
45. Van Zoest, L. R., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1994). Beliefs about mathematics teaching held by pre-service teachers involved in a first grade mentorship program. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6(1), 37–55. doi:10.1007/BF03217261.
46. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concepts of competence: A conceptual clarification. Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45-66). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
47. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., F., & Summers, G. (1977), Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models, Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84–136. doi:10.2307/270754.