Mentoring for Developing Teachers’ Specialised Knowledge of Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers at the Intermediate Phase

  • John Elphas Masina Department of Education Professional Practice, Faculty of Education, University of Zululand, Kwa Dlangezwa, South Africa
  • Msawenkosi Sandile Mbokazi Department of Education Professional Practice, Faculty of Education, University of Zululand, Kwa Dlangezwa, South Africa
Keywords: Teaching Practice; Mentoring Process; Student Teachers; Mathematics; Knowledge; Pedagogy; Pre-Service Teachers


This study was conducted to explore the link between mentoring of intermediate phase pre-service teachers of mathematics and the development of mathematics teachers' specialised knowledge (MTSK). The focus is on how the teaching practice (TP) program (Practicum) provides an opportunity for the development of mathematical teachers’ specialised knowledge (MSTK) for pre-service teachers. The qualitative research approach was employed for data collection and then analysed through the thematic narrative analysis technique and categorised into MTSK sub-domains. Data revealed that mathematics mentors, in the intermediate phases, did not attempt to develop pre-service teachers’ mathematical teacher's specialised knowledge (MTSK), thus negatively impacting building a comprehensive conceptual framework of effective Mathematics teaching practice. Data also revealed that the mathematics mentors are not mathematics specialists; they lack mathematical specialised content knowledge (MSCK) and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK). The study recommends that mathematics mentoring be based on mathematics specialisation; that is, teachers who majored in mathematics strictly should be mathematics mentors. Further, they should be competent and possess mathematical expertise, commitment, and time to assist pre-service mathematics teachers during practicum. The development of MTSK and its approaches and techniques for mathematics teaching and learning should also be emphasised during the mentoring process.


Ball, D. L.,Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008).Content knowledge for teaching: What makesit special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.https://doi:10.1177/0022487108324.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S.T., & Mewborn, D.S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (ED). Handbook of research on teaching.4th ed. (433 – 456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Borko, N., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C., Underhill, R., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1992). Learning
to teach hard mathematics. Do novice teachers and their instructors give up easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 23(3). 194-222.
Carrillo – Yanez, J., Climent, N., Montes, M., Contreras. L.C., Flores-Medrano, E. Escudero-Avila,D., Vasco, D., Rojas, N., Flores, P., Gonzalez, A.A., Riberiro, M., & Munoz-Catalan, M.C. (2018). The mathematics teacher's specialised knowledge (MTSK) model. Research in mathematics Dortrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Cheng, M. H. M., & Cheng, A., & Tang, S. (2010). Closing the gap between the theory and practice of teaching: Implications for teacher education programmes in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching. 36. 91-104.
Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity (COLEMAN) Study (EEOS). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-04-27.
Collin, A., Brown, T.S., & Holum, A. 1991. Cognitive apprenticeship: Making visible. Journal of theAmerican Federation of Teachers, 15 (3): 11-39.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Depaepe, F., Versthaffel, L., Kelchtermans. G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematicreview of how the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching andTeacher Education, (34), 2 – 25.
Department of Education, (2002). National education policy: Norms and standards for education.Government Press. Pretoria
Department of education, (2012). National curriculum statement, Grades R-12. Pretoria.
De Vos, A.S. (2010). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. In research at grass root for thesocial sciences and human services professions, 339-355. Pretoria: Van Schalk.
Ensor, P. (2014). Fieldwork/Practicum in Mathematics Education. In: Lerman, S. (eds) Encyclopaediaof Mathematics Education. Springer,Dordrecht.
Ferretti, F. (2022): Mathematics teachers` specialised knowledge of prospective primary teachers, An explorative study. PNA, 14 (4). 226-240.
Flores, E., Escudero, D.I., & Carrillo, J. (2013). A theoretical review of specialised contentknowledge. Manuscript submitted for publication (CERME 8).
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Galvin, R. (2014). How many interviews are enough? Do qualitative interviews in building energyconsumption research produce reliable knowledge? Journal of Building Engineering.https://10.1016/j.jobe.2014.12.001.
Ganser, T. (1996, preparing Mentors of Beginning Teachers: An Overview for staff developers. Journal of staff development, 17(4) 8-11.
Graham. B.2006. Condition for successful field experiences: perceptions of cooperatingteachers.Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8): 1118 – 1129.
Gravett, S. & Ramsaroop, S. (2015). Bridging theory and practice in teacher education: Teachingschools a bridge too far? Perspectives in education, 33 (1): 131-146.
Gray, W. and Gray, M. (1995). Synthesis of research mentoring beginning teachers. EducationalLeadership, (43).37-43.
Grossman P.L. 2008. Responding to our critics: from crisis to opportunity in research on teachereducation, 59(1):,1177/0022 487107310748.
Hagaman, A. K., & Wutich, A. (2017). How Many Interviews Are Enough to Identify Meta themes in Multisite and Cross-cultural Research? Another Perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s(2006) Landmark Study. Field Methods, 29(1), 23-41.
Hall, K.M., Draper, R., Smith, L.K., & Bullough, R.V. Jr. (2008). More than a place to teach:Exploring the perception of the role and responsibilities of mentor teachers. Mentoring and Tutoring, 16(3) 328-345.
Hill, H.C. Charalambous; C.Y. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum material, and Quality ofinstitution: lesson learned and open issues. Journal of curriculum studies, 44. (4). 559-576,
Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L.(2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511:
Hill. H.C., & Schilling, S.G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing andmeasuring teacher’s topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for research in mathematics education. 39 (4), 372 – 400:
Hudson, P.& Peard, R 2006. Mentoring for effective mathematics teaching. Paper presented at eightinternational conferences, Johor Baru, Mala 519:
Hudson, P. & Hudson, S. (2011). Converting theory to practice: University – school collaboration on devising strategies for mentoring pedagogical knowledge. International Journal of Learning, 18(1) 1-14.
Hurrell, D. P. (2013). What Teachers Need to Know to Teach Mathematics: An Argument for a Reconceptualised Model. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(11).
Kleickma,T., Richter , D., Kunter, M, Elsner,J., Krauss, S. & Baumert, J. ( 2013). Pedagogical contentknowledge of mathematics teachers: The role of structural differences in teacher education.Journal of teacher education, 64.90-106. http://doi,org/10.1177/0022487112460398.Rotterdam The Netherland: Sense.
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2006). Affect and mathematics education: PME perspectives. In Gutiérrez, A., & Boero, P. (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematicseducation: Past, present and future (403–427). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Lee, E., Brown, M.N, Luft. J.A. & Roehig, G.H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science and mathematics, 107, (2) 52D60:
Luping, M.A. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Teachers` understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States of Mah Wah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Maphala, M.G. (2013). Understand the role of mentor teachers during teaching practice sessions. International Journal of Education Sciences. 5 (2): 123-130.
Modipane, M.C & Kibirige, I. 2015. Experiences of Teaching practice at the university of Limpopo possibilities for curriculum improvement. South Africa journal of higher education. 29(2) 202-217 ISSN 1011-3487. Unisa Prem. Pretoria, S.A.
Morley, S.G, (1915). An introduction to the study of the Maya hieroglyphs. Bureau of American Ethnology, Government Printing 57, 1-276.
Msimango, M.N., Fonseca, K, & Petersen, N.F. 2020. Mentoring and preparing primary school mathematics Teachers. Perspective in Education, 8 (2) 272-284:
Ngcobo -Ndlovu, Zanele & Amin, Nyna & Samuel, Michael. (2017). Examining pre-service teachers' subject matter knowledge of school mathematics concepts. 46-72.
Rhoads, K., Radu, I, & Weber, K. (2011). The teacher internship experiences of prospective high school mathematics education, 9:999-1022.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raybould, J. and Sheedy, V. (2005), "Are graduates equipped with the right skills in the employability stakes?", Industrial and Commercial Training, 7 (5), 259-263.
Shulman.L,(1986).Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching. Education Research,15(2),4-14.
Tehrani, L.A. & Masor, W.F.A.W (2012). The influence of teacher autonomy in obtaining knowledge on class practice. Proceeds, Social & Behavioural Science, 66:544-554.
Wolf, N. (2003). Learning to teach mathematics for understanding in the company of mentors. Teachers and teaching. 9 (2) 87-106. 0600 309370.
How to Cite
Masina, J. E., & Mbokazi, M. S. (2023). Mentoring for Developing Teachers’ Specialised Knowledge of Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers at the Intermediate Phase. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 6(3), 346-356.