You are on page 1of 8

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PLACE

VALUE SYSTEM
Janne Fauskanger and Reidar Mosvold
University of Stavanger

This paper describes the foundations and considerations of a research project that
has just been started. The focus is on the beliefs and knowledge (CKT-M) of 1st and
2nd grade teachers, but the long term goal is to improve in-service teacher
education.

INTRODUCTION
Teaching is a complex affair, and the factors that influence the teaching of
mathematics are many. Teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about the subject are two
important factors of influence. In this proposed study we focus on teachers of 1st and
2nd grade (primary school).
As teacher educators we are working in both pre-service and in-service teacher
education. As a new curriculum reform - Knowledge Promotion (UFD, 2005) - is
now being put into action, teachers, schools and local governments are asking for in-
service education. Our aim is to investigate and try to identify features of the best in-
service education. A sensible starting point in such a project is to learn more about
the teachers’ knowledge and beliefs (Ball, Hill, & Bass, 2005; Jacobs & Morita,
2002; Pehkonen, 2003).
Our plans are to divide the proposed project into two parts:
1. Research into teachers’ knowledge and beliefs
2. A working model for in-service education
This paper describes the introductory phase of the project, and we focus on the plans,
research questions, foundations and considerations of our research project.
Richardson (1996) presumes that the knowledge that student teachers acquired
before they enter a course influences what they learn and how they learn it. There is
no reason to believe that this is not also true for teachers as well. This emphasises the
importance of learning to know teachers before they enter in-service education. Our
preliminary research questions are:
1. What are the 1st and 2nd grade teachers’ expressed CKT-M about the place
value system?
2. What are the 1st and 2nd grade teachers’ professed beliefs about effective
mathematics teaching?
THEORETICAL LENS
Teachers’ beliefs
Many aspects influence teaching, and researchers agree that the teachers’ beliefs
have an impact (Leder et al., 2002). Still, there is a lack of agreement on how to
define the concept. The suggested definitions are many, and researchers often end up
describing belief systems rather than beliefs (Furinghetti & Pehkonen, 2002;
McLeod & McLeod, 2002). It appears that each individual has a system of beliefs.
This system of beliefs is complex and non-trivial for outsiders to grasp. Each
individual continuously tries to maintain the equilibrium of their belief systems
(Andrews & Hatch, 2000). Pajares (1992) suggests that beliefs are filters through
which our experiences are interpreted, and this relates to Scheffler’s (1965) idea
about beliefs as dispositions to act in certain ways. Based on these ideas, the
suggestion about possible inconsistencies between beliefs and practice has arisen. A
teacher might claim to have a problem solving view on mathematics whereas his
classroom practice displays a strong emphasis on procedural knowledge. The
researcher might then claim that this represents an inconsistency between the
teachers’ beliefs and practices (cf. Cooney, 1985; Raymond, 1997). In response to
this, Leatham (2006) presented an alternative framework for viewing teachers’
beliefs as sensible systems.
Within a sociocultural framework, knowledge is believed to be a social construct.
Beliefs, on the other hand, appear to be an individual construct (Op’t Eynde et al.,
1999). We might therefore say that beliefs are subjective knowledge and include
affective factors. Others have tried to exclude the emotional aspect from beliefs, and
suggest that a single belief might be associated with an emotion (Hannula, 2004).
Various factors like these make it hard to study beliefs. Teachers might not always
be conscious of their beliefs, and they might also try to hide their beliefs in cases
where these do not appear to fit the researchers’ expectations. In Mosvold (2006), for
instance, a teacher replied in a questionnaire that he often emphasised real-life
connections in his mathematics teaching. In the following interview, though, he
expressed a completely opposite view.
Complete agreement about a single definition of beliefs is probably neither possible
nor desirable, but it is important for a researcher to be aware of the various aspects of
the concept (Mcleod & McLeod, 2002).
Teachers’ Knowledge
The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (KD, 2006) draws attention to
the fact that Norwegian teachers’ education in mathematics and mathematics
education is below the international average, and that the mathematics teachers to a
strikingly small extent participate in relevant in-service education (UFD, 2005;
Grønmo et al., 2004). Research from the last 15 years shows that teachers (from the
U.S.) do not know enough mathematics, and the students in consequence do not
learn enough (Ball, Hill, & Bass, 2005; Ma, 1999).
When analysing 700 1st and 3rd grade teachers (and almost 3000 students),
researchers found that teachers’ knowledge have an effect on students’ knowledge
(Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005). Stigler and Hiebert (1999, p. 10) decrease the impact of
this statement by saying: “Although variability in competence is certainly visible in
the videos we collected, such differences are dwarfed by the differences in teaching
methods that we see across cultures”. But even though research indicates that
teachers’ knowledge has a positive influence on students’ learning, it is not obvious
what the content of this knowledge is. There are also no clear guidelines about what
to focus on in in-service education.
Formerly one thought that if the teachers knew enough mathematics, their teaching
would be good and their students would learn mathematics. The content of in-service
education then became purely mathematical (Cooney, 1999). On the other extreme,
there appeared to be consensus in Norway that it was possible to become a good
mathematics teacher without knowing any mathematics at all.
Begle (1968) and Eisenberg (1977) have called teacher educators’ attention to the
notion that effective teaching is about more than the teachers’ mathematical
competence. Shulman (1986) addresses four questions, one of which is “what are the
sources of the knowledge base for teaching?” He tries to put teacher knowledge into
category headings. Content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and
curricular knowledge, pointed to the fact that mathematical knowledge alone does
not automatically transfer into better teaching. Teaching methods makes a difference
(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
Researchers such as Ball (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005) have based their work on
Shulman’s, and tried to identify and specify the mathematical knowledge they think a
teacher needs. They call this mathematical content knowledge for teaching (CKT-
M), and it is defined as:
(…) the mathematical knowledge used to carry out the work of teaching mathematics.
Examples of this “work of teaching” includes explaining terms and concepts to students,
interpreting students’ statements and solutions, judging and correcting textbook
treatments of particular topics, using representations accurately in the classroom, and
providing students with examples of mathematical concepts, algorithms, or proofs (Hill,
Rowan, & Ball, 2005, p. 373).
The research connected with CKT-M suggests that teachers in the lowest third of the
distribution of knowledge may benefit most from in-service education. Efforts to
recruit teachers into in-service education might focus most heavily on those with
weak CKT-M. We need ways to differentiate and select teachers, and we need to
know more about teachers’ CKT-M in order to use the in-service time more
efficiently (Ball & Bass, 2002; Da Ponte & Chapman, 2006).
DISCUSSION OF METHODS
In this study, data will be gathered in two phases. First, we will conduct a survey in
order to identify some of the teachers’ beliefs and knowledge. The part of the
questionnaire which relates to beliefs has been inspired by a Finnish study of beliefs
(Hannula et al., 2005), whereas the part concerning knowledge will be developed
during the fall of 2007 in cooperation with a representative of Deborah Ball’s team
from the University of Michigan. This phase will not be discussed further in this
paper. The second phase of the data collection has been inspired by the study of
Jacobs and Morita (2002), and we are going to investigate the teachers’ beliefs and
knowledge through their own analysis of videotaped lessons. The teachers will be
shown two different videotaped lessons and they will be asked to compare and
contrast the lessons. Unlike Jacobs and Morita, our intention is not to compare
teachers’ ideas, but rather to learn more about the teachers’ CKT-M and beliefs from
what they are saying when commenting on the videos.
The major goal for our project will be to examine teachers’ evaluations of videotaped
lessons at a level of detail that facilitates inferences about their underlying “scripts”
regarding effective mathematics instruction and their CKT-M.
Methods of data-gathering
The premise upon which this method is based, is that teachers’ opinions can be
activated through the process of analysing and criticising a video of an actual lesson.
Several researchers argue that it is best to use indirect tasks that then enable the
researcher to make inferences from the data generated (Leinhardt, 1990; Pajares,
1992; Prawat, 1992). Access to teachers’ beliefs is probably best achieved through
indirect, rather than direct, questions followed by interpretation, or through
evaluation of videotaped mathematics lessons. Wagner (1997) claims that
practitioner resistance may be relatively low in low-involvement arrangements. Our
plans are to work with a few groups of 1st and 2nd grade teachers in two schools. The
videotaped lessons might be from schools using different methods.
Analysing videos from the work of colleagues is a sensitive issue. In order to do this
in a productive way, the group must be attuned to each other and have complete
confidence. Lesson-study is a good example of a community working together
analysing each other’s lessons. The teachers need to be used to doing this regularly,
as a practice for professional development.
Research reveals the complexity of mathematical knowledge for teaching, and
indicates a shift from regarding mathematical knowledge independent of context to
regarding teachers’ knowledge situated in the practice of teaching (Llinares &
Krainer, 2006). If teachers’ knowledge is situated in the context of teaching,
stimulating teachers to communicate their own “scripts” will be appropriate.
Beforehand, the teachers will be asked to pause the video whenever they want to
make a comment about instruction or about the content knowledge presented. They
will be asked to specify whether the comment is going to relate to a “strength”, a
“weakness”, and then offer their critical comment. The teacher’s comments will be
given while the researcher is present in the room, so that the teacher(s) could ask
questions or invite the researcher to a form of conversation. This makes it an
unstructured interview according to Bryman (2004). The teachers will be given the
opportunity to make summarised comments in the end.
Critical reflection of practice is an essential part of teachers’ learning (cf. Llinares &
Krainer, 2006). We are going to let the teachers comment on the videos in groups, to
see if this elicits more interesting data than individual comments alone (cf. Jacobs &
Morita, 2002).
Researchers are faced with challenges regardless of which methods they choose. Our
research is no exception. An important aspect will then be to conduct a pilot study
(Bryman, 2004), and that may change some of the methodological assumptions.
Methods of data coding and analysis
Our plan is to approach the data according to “Grounded theory”, just like Jacobs
and Morita (2002) did. Grounded theory is defined as theory that was derived from
data, systematically gathered and analysed throughout the research process.
Following this approach, there is a strong relationship between data collection,
analysis, and theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The teachers’ comments will be recorded, transcribed and classified into idea units in
two different columns: beliefs and CKT-M. The idea units will be sorted into a
hierarchy of categories derived from the data. Since we are two researchers working
together, we can both classify the data and see if inter-coder reliability in relation to
the idea units and the categories will be represented (Bryman, 2004).
We will carefully study teachers’ idea units in an open coding process until we are
able to produce broad and meaningful categories. Jacobs and Morita (2002) yielded
eight main categories that were not mutually exclusive, into which any idea unit was
coded. The final stage employed was axial coding. In axial coding one puts the data
back together in new ways after the open coding, by making connections between
categories and is done in order to produce a grounded theory about the teachers’
evaluations (Strauss & Corbin, in Jacobs & Morita, 2002). We will immerse into the
data and let some features and patterns emerge and be crystallised as following
loosely a grounded theory approach to the analysis of data (Bryman, 2004; Kvale,
1996).
Grounded theory is not without its limitations (Bryman, 2004), and those limitations
may also restrict our analysis, and thereby our results. We hope that two researchers
working together will be useful in this connection. We will also invite the teachers to
read our interpretations and comment on them as a process of validation.
Contributions with respect to previous research
There is a lack of research on in-service education in Norway, and there has been
little or no research with a focus on the knowledge and beliefs of 1st and 2nd grade
teachers. It is in this area that our research will hopefully make some important
contributions.

REFERENCES
Alseth, B., Brekke, G., & Breiteig, T. (2003). Endring og utvikling ved R97 som
bakgrunn for videre planlegging og justering: matematikkfaget som kasus.
Notodden: Telemarksforsking-Notodden.
Andrews, P., & Hatch, G. (2000). A comparison of Hungarian and English teachers'
conceptions of mathematics and its teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
43(1), 31-64.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2002). Toward a Practice-Based Theory of Mathematical
Knowledge for Teaching. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group, Edmonton.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing Mathematics for Teaching. Who
Knows Mathematics Well Enough To Teach third Grade, and How Can We
Decide? American Educator (Fall 2005), 14-17+20-22+43-46.
Begle, E. (1968). Curriculum research in mathematics. In H. Klausmeier & G.
O’Hern (Eds.), Research and Development toward the Improvement of Education
(pp. 44-48). Madisom, WI: Dembar Educational Research Services.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2. ed.). Oxford: University Press.
Cestari, M. L., Santagata, R., & Hood, G. (2004). Teachers Learning from Videos. In
B. Clarke, D. M. Clarke, G. Emanuelsson, B. Johansson, D. V. Lambdin, F. K.
Lester, A. Wallby & K. Wallby (Eds.), International Perspectives og Learning
and Teaching Mathematics (pp. 489-502). Göteborg: National Center for
Mathematics Education.
Cooney, T. J. (1985). A beginning teacher's view of problem solving. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 324-336.
Cooney, T. J. (1999). Conceptualizing teachers' ways of knowing. Educational
Studies in Mathematics(38), 163-187.
Da Ponte, P. J., & Chapman, O. (2006). Mathematics teachers' knowledge and
practices. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Psycology
of Mathematics Education (pp. 461-493). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Eisenberg, T. (1977). Begle revisited: Teacher knowledge and student achievement
in algebra. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education(8), 216-222.
Furinghetti, F., & Pehkonen, E. (2002). Rethinking characterizations of beliefs. In E.
Pehkonen, G. Törner & G. C. Leder (Eds.), Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in
Mathematics Education? (pp. 39-57). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Grønmo, L. S., Bergem, O. K., Kjærnsli, M., Lie, S., & Turmo, A. (2004). Hva i all
verden har skjedd i realfagene: norske elevers prestasjoner i matematikk og
naturfag i TIMSS 2003. Oslo: Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutvikling,
Universitetet i Oslo.
Hannula, M. S. (2004). Affect in mathematical thinking and learning. University of
Turku, Åbo.
Hannula, M.S., Kaasila, R., Laine A., & Pehkonen, E. (2005). Structure and typical
profiles of elementary teacher students’ view of mathematics. In H. L. Chick & J.
L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol 3 (pp. 41-48). Melbourne: PME.
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), 371-406.
Jacobs, J. K., & Morita, E. (2002). Japanese and American Teachers' Evaluations of
Videotaped Mathematics Lessons. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 33(3), 154-175.
KD. (2006). Et felles løft for realfagene. Strategi for styrking av realfagene
2006-2009. Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
London: SAGE Publications.
Leatham, K. R. (2006). Viewing Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs as Sensible Systems.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 91-102.
Leder, G.; Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.) (2002). Beliefs: a hidden variable in
mathematics education? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational
Researcher(19), 18-25.
Llinares, S., & Krainer, K. (2006). MATHEMATICS (STUDENT) TEACHERS
AND TEACHER EDUCATORS AS LEARNERS. In A. Gutiérres & P. Boero
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education:
Past, Present and Future (pp. 429-459). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers'
understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McLeod, D. B., & McLeod, S. H. (2002). Synthesis - Beliefs and mathematics
education: implications for learning, teaching, and research. In E. Pehkonen, G.
Törner & G. C. Leder (Eds.), Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics
Education? (pp. 115-123). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mosvold, R. (2006). Mathematics in everyday life. A study of beliefs and actions.
Unpublished The degree doctor philosophiae, University of Bergen, Bergen.
Op't Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1999). Balancing between Cognition
and Affect: Students' Mathematics-Related Beliefs and Their Emotions during
Problem-Solving. Paper presented at the Conference on Mathematics Beliefs and
Their Impact on Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Mathematical Research
Institute, Oberwolfach, Germany.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a
Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pehkonen, E. (2003). Lærere og elevers oppfatninger som en skjult faktor i
matematikkundervisningen. In B. Grevholm (Ed.), Matematikk for skolen (pp.
154-184). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning. American
Journal of Education(100), 354-395.
Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a Beginning Elementary School
Teacher's Mathematics Beliefs and Teaching Practice. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550-576.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.
Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (pp. 102-119). New York, USA: Macmillan.
Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions of knowledge. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher(15), 4-14.
Stiegler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap. Best ideas from the world's
teachers for improwing education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2. ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage.
UFD. (2005). Kunnskapsløftet. Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet.
Wagner, J. (1997). The Unavoidable Intervention of Educational Research: A
Framework for Reconsidering Researcher-Practitioner Cooperation. Educational
Researcher, 26(7), 13-32.

You might also like