Treatise Final Wilson 2

Running head: ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ BELIEFS
Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Self-Efficacy and Teaching Mathematics
Rebecca L. Wilson
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master’s in Education in the College of
Education
Texas Christian University
Fort Worth, Texas
April 1, 2019
ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ BELIEFS 2
Project Approved by:
Treatise Chair: Dr. J. Matt Switzer
Committee Member: Dr. Sarah Quebec Fuentes
Committee Member: Dr. Endia Lindo

Researchers have defined teachers’ beliefs as “complex”, “dynamic”, “contextualized”
and “systematic” (Borg, 2006, p. 272). Teachers’ beliefs can relate to the ways mathematics
should be taught, the way students learn mathematics, and teachers’ self-efficacy. While
teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics refer to pedagogy, beliefs related to self-efficacy
focus on teachers’ convictions about their abilities to carry out specific academic tasks (Gavora,
2010).
Sources of teachers’ beliefs can be family or cultural background, prior mathematical
experiences, pre-service teacher training, content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge
(Richardson, 1996). Because of this, many teachers are unaware of their beliefs about teaching
mathematics, or their self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching and learning mathematics.
Elementary teachers often exhibit high levels of mathematics anxiety and negative self-efficacy
beliefs with regards to teaching and learning mathematics (Gresham, 2018). This lack of self-
confidence can manifest itself in teachers’ reliance on structured curricula and lessons. Thus,
teachers’ practices reflect what the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014) defines
as “unproductive” beliefs related to teaching mathematics in Principles to Action, Ensuring
Mathematics Success for All.
Specifically, the NCTM (2014) defines unproductive and productive teacher beliefs;
productive beliefs being those which build a learning environment that supports student learning
in mathematics and provides them with opportunities to develop mathematical ideas, engage in
productive struggle, and practice mathematical communication (Aljaberi & Gheith, 2018). These
productive beliefs about teaching mathematics align with Piaget’s (1971) notion of
constructivism. Effective mathematics teachers align their beliefs and practices with those of the
NCTM, yet many elementary teachers possess traditional beliefs about teaching mathematics, or
what Ernest (1989) defines as the instrumentalist view, where mathematics is a “useful but
unrelated collection of facts, rules, or skills” (p. 20). Additionally, much of the curricula present
in American elementary schools encourages these traditional beliefs about teaching mathematics.
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching and learning mathematics can, in turn,
affect their beliefs about teaching mathematics. These beliefs can impact teachers’ practices, and
thus, students’ mathematics performance (Stipek et al., 2001). Identifying these beliefs allows for
change to take place, providing opportunities for lasting impacts on both teachers’ and students’
self-confidence in all facets of mathematics.
Therefore, the purpose of this present study is to identify elementary teachers’ beliefs
related to teaching mathematics as either constructivist or traditional, explore the nature of
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching mathematics, and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
related to their own mathematics abilities.
Literature Review
Overview of Teachers’ Beliefs Research
Researchers have defined teachers’ beliefs in various ways. First, “a set of conceptual
representations which store general knowledge of objects, people and events, and their
characteristic relationships” (Hermans, van Braak, & Van Keer, 2008, p. 128). Others defined
teachers’ beliefs as a cognitive construct (e.g., Thompson, 1992), or as part of both the affective
and cognitive domains (e.g., Goldin, Epstein, Schorr, & Warner, 2011). Purnomo (2017) defined
teachers’ beliefs as “subjective knowledge of an individual based on his or her experience and
expressed with propositional attitudes, views and perceptions for the value of truth” (p. 25), and
finally Ashton (2014) coined teachers’ beliefs as a term “used to describe individual mental
constructs, which are subjectively true for the person in question” (p. 18). As seen in these
varying definitions, defining “teachers’ beliefs” is relatively easy; finding consistency among
interpretations of teachers’ beliefs is often more difficult (Ashton, 2014). However, researchers
generally agree that teachers’ beliefs guide their teaching practices (Aljaberi & Gheith, 2018;
Gresham, 2018; Ren & Smith, 2017).
Teachers’ beliefs come from a variety of sources: personal, familial, and cultural
experiences; experiences in prior schooling; as well as content and pedagogical knowledge.
These sources affect the ways in which teachers believe they should teach as well as their role in
the classroom (Richardson, 1996). In several case studies, Knowles (1992) found that both
family and previous teachers strongly affect preservice teachers’ perceptions of their roles as
teachers.
This review provides an overview of the literature relating to the three sections of the
survey used in the present study: teachers’ beliefs related to teaching mathematics, followed by
teachers’ beliefs related to self-efficacy of understanding and teaching mathematics. The review
concludes with a discussion of the interrelatedness of the types of teachers’ beliefs previously
mentioned and the benefits of studying these together.
Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Teaching Mathematics
Since the 1960s, research surrounding teachers’ beliefs has focused on informing
classroom practices. For the next 20 years, the focus of research shifted from training teachers to
apply research-based practices to recognizing the importance of teachers’ beliefs about teaching
in determining the practices they implement in the classroom (Ashton, 2014). Because of this
shift, the need to clarify the definition of teachers’ beliefs became apparent.
To distinguish teachers’ beliefs from their knowledge, Furinghetti and Pehkonen (2002)
categorized knowledge into objective knowledge and subjective knowledge. Purnomo, Suryadi,
and Darwis (2016) described objective knowledge as knowledge accepted by the community,
and subjective knowledge as knowledge created by an individual that does not have to be
evaluated by others. Therefore, teachers’ beliefs are considered subjective knowledge.
Frameworks of teachers’ beliefs. Nespor’s (1985) study used Abelson’s (1979) analysis
of belief systems to create a framework for future research in teachers’ beliefs related to teaching
practices. In his study, Nespor (1985) defined the seven features of belief systems created by
Abelson (1979) and supported them through a field-based study designed to explore the “nature
and functions of teachers’ beliefs … in a variety of contextual arenas and work settings” (p. 6).
The study focused heavily on Abelson’s (1979) fourth feature of belief systems: “belief systems
rely heavily on evaluative and affective components” (p. 358). Following this study, some
researchers (e.g., McLeod, 1992) began to consider beliefs as part of the affective domain of
teaching, creating a new theoretical perspective on teachers’ beliefs.
As the construct of teachers’ beliefs continued to develop, Ernest’s (1989) seminal paper
encouraged future teacher education courses to consider teacher’s psychology through a model
of the mathematics teacher’s knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. In the section on beliefs, he
presented three philosophies, or beliefs, about mathematics that pre-service and in-service
teachers could potentially possess. The first is a constructive view: a “dynamic, problem-driven
view of mathematics as a continually expanding field of human enquiry” (Ernest, 1989, p. 20).
The second is what he deemed the Platonist view, which views mathematics as a “static but
unified body of knowledge, consisting of interconnecting structures and truths” (Ernest, 1989, p.
20). Finally, the third philosophy is the instrumentalist view, where “mathematics is a useful but
unrelated collection of facts, rules, or skills” (Ernest, 1989, p. 20).
In the mid to late 1980s, the theory of constructivism gained prominence in mathematics
education research. Though constructivist beliefs can certainly affect teachers’ educational
practices, they are more strongly rooted in the ways in which teachers view knowledge. Jean
Piaget’s theory of intellectual development suggests that through assimilation and
accommodation, individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences (Piaget, 1971).
Through this new emphasis on construction of knowledge, two models of beliefs developed:
traditional and constructivist (Kim, 2005). Constructivist teachers believe learning is active and a
constructive process, rather than simply acquiring knowledge (i.e., a traditional approach) (Kim,
2005). Constructivist researcher and theorist von Glasersfeld (1984) described constructivism as
follows:
Learners construct understanding. They do not simply mirror and reflect what they are
told or what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find regularity and order
in the events of the world even in the absence of full or complete information. (p. 140)
The aforementioned first view Ernest (1989) presented mirrors the constructivist and while the
latter views mirror traditional beliefs about teaching.
Many recent research studies involving mathematics teachers categorized teachers’
beliefs into a traditional and constructivist dichotomy (e.g., Peker & Ulu, 2018; Purnomo, 2017).
However, other studies (e.g., Ren & Smith, 2017) used the terms “student-centered” and
“teacher-centered” to describe the same general teachers’ beliefs as constructivist and traditional,
respectively.
Pintrich (1990) advocated for researchers to include teachers’ beliefs in their research in
order to present more comprehensive models of teaching and learning. Pintrich (1990) argued
that a good model for teaching includes four domains: teacher knowledge, thinking and problem
solving, metacognition and self-regulation, and motivation. In the following years, Fives and
Buehl (2012) continued to analyze research on teachers’ beliefs, pointing out the many
qualitative studies which provide rich results but are often not generalizable. They concluded by
suggesting further research on teachers’ beliefs that reach larger populations of teachers.
Methodology of existing research. Research on teachers’ beliefs did not become
prominent until the 1960s due to the emphasis on behaviorist theories which discouraged
research on the cognitive domain, including beliefs (Ashton, 2014). In the 1950’s, the Minnesota
Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) was the primary instrument used to measure teachers’
beliefs (Cook, Leeds, & Callis, 1951). The instrument included Likert-response items which
elicited responses that, as described in the 1951 manual, could be used in identifying teachers’
relationships with students. School professionals used the MTAI to select teachers for both
teacher education courses and for teaching positions (Ashton, 2014). Getzels and Jackson (1963)
reviewed the MTAI and criticized the inconsistencies in results from the instrument. They also
studied the lack of understanding in the relationship between teachers’ personality and their
effectiveness in teaching, because when studied in isolation, teachers’ beliefs were difficult to
determine from a single instrument. Following the publication of the Getzels and Jackson chapter
in 1963, the MTAI was no longer used as an instrument to measure teachers’ beliefs (Ashton,
2014).
In the subject of mathematics, research on teachers’ beliefs has primarily focused on
identifying teachers’ beliefs and linking those beliefs to existing frameworks. For example,
Aljaberi and Gheith (2018) sought “to shed light on math teachers' beliefs regarding the learning
and teaching of their subject as well as the nature of mathematics” (p. 160). Aljaberi and Gheith
used an integrated survey that combined teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, and the nature
of mathematics and determined whether the teachers’ beliefs were constructivist, traditional, or a
combination of the two. The researchers found that teachers had "mostly constructive beliefs on
the ‘learning and teaching of mathematics’ scale” (Aljaberi & Gheith, 2018, p. 169). Similar
results were found in Purnomo’s (2017) quantitative study as well as Purnomo’s (2016)
qualitative study done in Indonesia. Participants in both of Purnomo’s studies demonstrated more
constructivist beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics.
Identifying in-service teachers’ beliefs and linking those beliefs to a framework allows
teachers to more easily modify their teaching practices. Unfortunately, most research regarding
mathematics teachers’ beliefs focuses on preservice teachers, so research with in-service teachers
is scarce (McAnallen, 2010; Ren & Smith, 2017). Identifying in-service teachers’ beliefs about
mathematics could result in changes to curriculum or professional development materials that
better align with preservice and in-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics.
Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Self-Efficacy
Academic self-efficacy beliefs can be defined as “one's convictions about their
capabilities to carry out certain tasks in a suitable and effective manner” (Gavora, 2010), or
“convictions for successfully performing given academic tasks at designated levels” (Bong &
Skaalvik, 2003). These working definitions come from Bandura’s social learning theory (1977).
Bandura (1977) described the influence one’s self-efficacy beliefs have on their subsequent
behavior. Self-efficacy beliefs also determine a person’s reaction to struggle and negative
contexts (Bandura, 1977). Specifically, he stated: “Efficacy expectations determine how much
effort people will expend and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive
experiences” (Bandura, 1977, p. 194).
Although not included in most definitions, self-confidence is often used to determine a
person’s academic self-efficacy beliefs (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003; Zuya, Simon, & Attah, 2016).
For example, in many survey scales used to determine participants’ academic self-efficacy
beliefs, items included the word “confidence” (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). Bong and Skaalvik
(2003) also claimed the central element in academic self-efficacy is “perceived confidence” (p.
10). Therefore, teachers’ self-confidence in teaching is part of their self-efficacy beliefs.
Methodologies of existing research. Defined as “the assurance that a person has in his
or her own abilities,” self-confidence in mathematics refers more directly to confidence one has
in his or her own mathematics abilities (Jones, 2001, p. 4). Because self-reported academic self-
confidence is often an indicator of perceived performance, many researchers believe self-
confidence should be evaluated by scales which include items related to academic self-efficacy
beliefs (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). Research on self-confidence in mathematics primarily uses
Likert-scale survey items to determine participants’ self-efficacy beliefs and their effect on
academic performance (e.g., Pajares & Miller, 1994; Waini et al., 2014; Zuya, Simon, & Attah,
2016). These are statements in which participants agree or disagree on a scale of 1-5, 1-7, or
other similar scales. Many scales have been developed since the 1980s to test levels of
mathematics self-efficacy and self-concept, but Bong & Skaalvik (2003) note the importance of
including items in which participants state their competence in specific academic tasks when
testing for self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura & Schunk, 1981).
Current research primarily uses scales to identify self-efficacy beliefs related to both
teaching mathematics and participants’ own mathematics abilities (e.g., Hackett & Betz, 1989;
Pajares & Miller, 1994; Waini et. al, 2014; Zuya, Kwalat, & Attah, 2016). A study by Hackett
and Betz (1989) used multiple scales to find a moderately strong relationship between academic
self-efficacy, specifically in mathematics, and mathematics performance. Similarly, Pajares and
Miller (1994) found a link between mathematics self-efficacy and achievement in solving
problems of mathematics:
Results revealed that math self-efficacy was more predictive of problem solving than was
math self-concept, perceived usefulness of mathematics, prior experience with
mathematics, or gender. (p. 1)
In this study, Pajares and Miller used scales to determine undergraduate students’ self-efficacy,
self-concept, and mathematics anxiety, followed by measures to determine their actual
mathematics performance. The scales were then compared to performance scores in order to
determine the highest correlation.
Teachers’ self-confidence in teaching mathematics. Teachers’ efficacy beliefs related
to teaching mathematics comes from a combination of self-confidence, knowledge of
mathematics content, and knowledge of pedagogical skills in mathematics (Zuya, Simon, &
Attah, 2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in their own mathematics abilities affect their self-
confidence in teaching mathematics, thus affecting students’ achievement in mathematics.
Therefore, assessing teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence in teaching mathematics
and in their own mathematics abilities is of utmost importance, for the sake of students’ self-
confidence and self-efficacy as well (Usher & Pajares, 2009).
In the same way, mathematics self-efficacy beliefs can affect mathematics performance,
mathematics self-efficacy beliefs can also affect mathematics teaching self-efficacy beliefs. In
other words, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to their abilities in actual mathematics content
and skills has a direct influence on their self-efficacy beliefs in teaching those skills to others. A
study by Zuya, Simon, and Attah (2016) affirmed these convictions. The researchers stated:
“Teacher self-efficacy goes beyond just having professional knowledge and skills; it is also the
belief that one has the capability to put his professional knowledge and skills into action" (p. 93).
In this study, preservice secondary teachers were given two surveys and through analysis, a
statistically significant relationship between mean scores was determined. “The conviction that
the teachers have in their ability to do mathematics correlated positively with the belief in their
capability to teach mathematics” (Zuya et al., 2016, p. 97).
The Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (MTEBI) was developed by
Enochs et al. (2000) to identify preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching
mathematics. Thus, studies utilizing the MTEBI primarily focus on preservice teachers (e.g.,
Bates, et al., 2011; Brown, 2012; Giles, et al., 2016; Setra, 2017). Enochs and Riggs (2002)
adapted the MTEBI to be used with in-service teachers, but insufficient research exists for
utilizing the MTEBI with in-service teachers.
A study by Siegle and McCoach (2007) found students’ mathematics self-efficacy beliefs
can be impacted positively by in-service teacher training courses. Thus, research on teachers’
mathematics teaching self-efficacy and self-confidence could result in improvements and
modifications to current professional development, which is shown to have significant impacts
on students’ self-efficacy beliefs.
Interrelatedness of Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Mathematics and Self-Efficacy
Beliefs
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics can impact their self-efficacy beliefs about
teaching mathematics and vice versa. Identifying teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics as
well as their self-efficacy beliefs about learning and teaching mathematics gives researchers a
full scope of the teachers’ beliefs, which then allows them to make connections with the results
of future research regarding students’ academic performance or teachers’ classroom practices.
For example, teachers’ beliefs about teaching and self-efficacy beliefs about mathematics are
often studied as interrelated constructs for variables such as effects on students’ academic
performance, contextual factors affecting teachers’ beliefs and confidence (e.g., Ren & Smith,
2017), and the effect of teachers’ beliefs on their mathematics anxiety (e.g., Peker & Ulu, 2018).
Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and self-efficacy beliefs about understanding and
teaching mathematics make up part of the affective domain of teaching and learning, which
expands from the stimulus and response present in behaviorist theories of learning to also include
emotional responses to behavior (McLeod, 1992). McLeod (1992) described affective factors as
“a wide range of beliefs, feelings, and moods” and “emotional responses to the interruption of
plans or planned behavior” (pp. 576, 578). As interruptions to behaviors occur, the individual
experiencing the interruption interprets the interruption and creates meaning from it. This
interpretation is heavily influenced by the individual’s knowledge and beliefs (McLeod, 1992).
Thus, the knowledge and beliefs of a teacher greatly impact the emotional responses he or she
will have in situations of conflict, struggle, and ultimately shape the teachers’ self-confidence
and attitudes towards teaching.
In the context of mathematics, McLeod (1992) noted: “Students hold certain beliefs about
mathematics and about themselves that play an important role in the development of their
affective responses to mathematical situations" (p. 578). Teachers play a pivotal role in
developing students’ mathematics beliefs and confidence in their abilities in mathematics,
making teachers’ affective responses to mathematical situations important as well.

Teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics are also reflected in their self-confidence in
teaching mathematics (Purnomo, 2017). Teachers’ self-confidence in teaching mathematics
affects the way students perceive mathematics as well as students’ self-confidence in learning
mathematics. Therefore, determining if teachers’ self-confidence is generally low allows for
professional development and other support for teachers (Aljaberi & Gheith, 2018; Chen,
McCray, Adams, & Leow, 2013; Purnomo, 2017). Although past research has linked teachers’
beliefs in teaching mathematics to their self-confidence in teaching mathematics, research with
elementary teachers in the United States that explores this link is lacking (Aljaberi & Gheith,
2018; Purnomo, 2017).
Mathematics anxiety. Teachers’ beliefs are most often related to teaching practices, but
teachers can also possess positive or negative feelings about their teaching abilities or content
knowledge, affecting their self-confidence through the form of mathematics anxiety (Peker &
Ulu, 2018). Research has explored mathematics anxiety in preservice and in-service elementary
teachers and its effect on their teaching practices and beliefs about mathematics (e.g., Gresham,
2018). Mathematics teaching anxiety is described as the “tension and anxiety the teachers/pre-
service teachers experience while teaching mathematical concepts, theorems, formula, or
problem solving” (Peker & Ulu, 2018, p. 251). Because mathematics anxiety often results in
negative beliefs about teaching mathematics, teachers with high levels of mathematics anxiety
often do not implement effective instructional teaching practices (Gresham, 2018).
Previous studies have used surveys, interviews, and classroom observations to find that
preservice teachers with high levels of mathematics anxiety often become teachers who have a
negative attitude towards teaching mathematics and retain their mathematics anxiety throughout
their teaching careers (e.g., Bursal & Paznokas, 2006; Gresham, 2018; Peker & Ulu, 2018).
In a study by Peker and Ulu (2018), teachers who held constructivist views on teaching
mathematics had generally lower levels of mathematics anxiety. Hence, exploring the nature of
teachers’ beliefs towards mathematics is important.
Purpose of the Present Study
The literature indicates the importance of identifying teachers’ beliefs about teaching
mathematics as well as their self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching and understanding
mathematics, because of their implications for professional development, academic performance
of students, and the potential decrease of mathematics anxiety in both students and teachers.
Elementary teachers are often trained as generalists; they are not specialists in any
content area. Because of this, teaching mathematics is often uncomfortable and elementary
teachers develop negative self-efficacy beliefs about abilities to understand and teach the subject
(Gresham, 2018). Lack of self-confidence and mathematics anxiety often lead teachers to rely on
structured curriculum and workbooks, resulting in the development of more traditional beliefs
about teaching mathematics (Gresham, 2018). The purpose of the present study is to explore the
nature of elementary teachers’ beliefs related to teaching mathematics, teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs about teaching mathematics, and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to understanding
mathematics.
The researcher’s hypothesis, based on reviewed literature, is that elementary teachers will
generally have constructivist beliefs about teaching mathematics, positive self-efficacy beliefs
about teaching mathematics, and negative self-efficacy beliefs about learning mathematics. The
researcher also hypothesizes a weak relationship between elementary teachers’ beliefs related to
teaching mathematics based on the grade band (K-2 or 3-5) in which they teach but that teachers
with more teaching experience will have more traditional beliefs about teaching mathematics.
Therefore, this study addresses the following research questions:
1) To what extent do elementary teachers’ beliefs related to teaching mathematics align with
constructivist theories?
2) Do elementary teachers have generally positive or negative self-efficacy beliefs about
teaching mathematics?
learning mathematics?
Methodology
Research exploring the mathematics-related beliefs and confidence of teachers primarily
uses questionnaires as the instrument to collect data (e.g., Purnomo, 2017). The survey used for
the present study is an adaptation of the Early Math Beliefs and Confidence Survey (EM-BCS)
from the study by Chen et al. (2013) that explored preschool teachers’ beliefs and confidence
about teaching mathematics. For the present study, the items from the EM-BCS are adapted to be
appropriate for elementary teachers. Although teachers in the Chen et al. study expressed
relatively positive beliefs about teaching preschool mathematics, the results also indicated that
preschool teachers had greater confidence in teaching mathematics than in their own
mathematics abilities. Because of these results, the implications focused on further discussion
and modification of professional development in preschool mathematics (Chen et al., 2013). The
results from the present study could have similar implications with regard to professional
development.
Sample and Setting
The teachers came from 13 public school districts that represent 5,585 elementary
teachers. First, for the purpose of the present study, the researcher determined the Dallas-Fort
Worth metroplex to contain the following counties: Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant. These three
counties contain a total of 56 school districts. Due to time constraints and limited resources, the
researcher determined the need to reduce the number of school districts in the sample. To do this,
the researcher categorized the school districts by type to ensure equal representation from each
county and type of school district.
The researcher used the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) District Type Data Search to
determine the categories of all school districts in Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant counties. The TEA
district type data set classifies Texas public school districts into the following nine categories:
major urban, major suburban, other central city, other central city suburban, independent town,
non-metropolitan: fast growing, non-metropolitan: stable, rural, and charter school districts. The
56 school districts in Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant counties represent three major urban, 30 major
suburban, two other central cities, seven other central city suburban, six non-metropolitan: fast
growing, three non-metropolitan: stable, and five rural districts. To ensure equal proportions of
representation, the researcher chose the following numbers of districts to represent each district
type: one urban, four suburbans, one other central city, two other central city suburban, two non-
metropolitan: fast-growing, one non-metropolitan: stable, and two rural. Finally, the researcher
used a random number generator to select school districts for participation in the study.
Measure
The survey used for the present study, henceforth referred to as the survey, is an
adaptation of the Early Math Beliefs and Confidence Survey (EM-BCS) from Chen et al. (2013).
The EM-BCS was developed to explore preschool teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics
as well as their confidence in teaching and understanding mathematics. Both the EM-BCS and
the survey in this study are composed of three sections: Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics,
Confidence in Teaching Mathematics, and Confidence in Your Own Math Abilities. Because
literature categorizes self-confidence as a part of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, the two latter
sections assess teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.
For the present study, the EM-BCS was adapted to be administered to elementary
teachers (Appendix A). Thus, verbiage relating to preschoolers was modified to reflect
elementary teachers, students, and classrooms. For example, an item in the EM-BCS originally
asked participants to indicate their agreement with the following statement: I am confident in my
knowledge of reasonable math goals for preschoolers. To reflect the sample of the current study,
this statement was rephrased to read: I am confident in my knowledge of reasonable math goals
for my grade level.
In addition, items in the Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics section were modified to
reflect constructivist and traditional beliefs. Kim (2005) noted the importance of learners
constructing rather than acquiring knowledge from teachers, thus indicating that teachers with
constructivist beliefs about teaching mathematics would believe students can construct
knowledge without assistance. For example, the item, “Most children in my class should be
helped to learn math in preschool” from the EM-BCS (Chen et al., 2013, p. 375) was modified to
“Most children in my class should be helped to learn math from their peers.” This modification
rephrases the item so that agreement with the statement would indicate an alignment with more
constructivist beliefs. An additional example of this modification occurs with the original EM-
BCS item: Most children in my class have the cognitive abilities to learn math (Chen et al., 2013,
p. 375). In order to reflect constructivist or traditional beliefs about teaching mathematics, the
phrase “on their own” was added to the item in the survey so that it read: Most children in my
class have the cognitive abilities to learn math on their own. Teachers that agree with the
modified survey item would align with constructivist beliefs about teaching mathematics.
Finally, one item on the survey was deleted and replaced with an item from Aljaberi and
Gheith’s (2018) study of in-service mathematics teachers’ beliefs about teaching, learning, and
the nature of mathematics. The original item read: Most children in my class need to learn math
in preschool to be ready for kindergarten. This item was deleted due to its irrelevance in the
elementary setting and the fact that the results from this item would likely not assist in answering
the research questions of this study. Instead, the statement, “Mathematics should be taught
through a group of algorithms, rules, and laws” was integrated into the survey so that the new
item read: Most children in my class should be taught math through algorithms, rules, and laws
(Aljaberi & Gheith, 2018). Agreement with this statement indicates more traditional beliefs
related to teaching mathematics, aligning more directly with the research questions in the present
study.
Teachers respond to statements on the survey by rating their degree of agreement or
disagreement with the statement using a five-point Likert scale with the options: strongly
disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, and strongly agree.
Procedure
The researcher compiled the survey into the Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT).
The researcher obtained the elementary teachers’ email addresses through publicly available
school district websites for the aforementioned selected 13 districts. The researcher then sent all
5,585 teachers an electronic link to the survey via email at the beginning of February. The
researcher then redistributed once weekly for four weeks.

The researcher informed teachers that the survey may encourage modifications in
mathematics professional development to more specifically address elementary teachers’ beliefs
about teaching mathematics. Participants were also encouraged to view the survey as an
opportunity for self-reflection.
The survey took respondents approximately ten minutes to complete, and of the 5,585
surveys distributed, 610 were attempted and 447 were completed and returned, yielding a
response rate of 8%. The surveys included in this study answered every question to completion,
while surveys with missing responses were not included in the data analysis.
Data Analyses
To determine descriptive statistics for each section of the survey, the results were
exported into SPSS and the means, standard deviations, and percentages of agreement for each
item in the section were determined. In order to calculate means, each individual response was
given a value such that “strongly disagree” valued 1, “disagree” valued 2, “neither agree nor
disagree” valued 3, “agree” valued 4, and “strongly agree” valued 5. Occasionally, the individual
responses were coded to reflect the nature of the item. For example, in the Beliefs about
Teaching Mathematics section, items in which agreement yielded constructivist beliefs were
given higher values; “strongly disagree” was given a value of 1 and “strongly agree” was given a
value of 5. Thus, the items in which agreement yielded traditional beliefs were recoded to the
opposite values; “strongly disagree” was given a value of 5 and “strongly agree” was given a
value of 1. In the Confidence in Teaching Mathematics section of the survey, variables were all
coded such that “strongly agree” valued 5 and “strongly disagree” valued 1. In the Confidence in
Your Own Math Abilities section of the survey, items 2, 3, and 7 were recoded to the opposite
values, because selecting “agree” or “strongly agree” would indicate negative self-efficacy
beliefs about teachers’ own mathematics abilities. The means were analyzed for each item such
that means greater than 3.0 indicate constructivist beliefs for the first section and positive self-
efficacy beliefs about teaching mathematics and in teachers’ own mathematics abilities for the
following sections. The researcher then calculated a grand mean for each section of the survey in
order to answer the research questions.
To analyze each item in the survey, the researcher used SPSS to calculate the percentages
teachers’ selected each option (e.g., strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree,
strongly disagree) for every item. These percentages were used to create relative frequency
graphs.
Findings
To determine the nature of teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics and teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics and their own mathematics abilities,
descriptive statistics were calculated for each item of the survey. The reported descriptive
statistics are organized by each of the three sections of the survey: teachers’ beliefs about
teaching mathematics, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics, and
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to their own mathematics abilities.
Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Teaching Mathematics
To answer research question one, “To what extent do elementary teachers’ beliefs related
to teaching mathematics align with constructivist theories?” the researcher calculated the means
and standard deviations for each item in the first section of the survey, as well as the grand mean
for the entire section (Table 1). Table 1 reports the tendencies of the teachers who completed the
survey. Means higher than 3.0 indicate alignment with constructivist beliefs about teaching
mathematics. Because the grand mean for this section of the survey is above 3.0 (x̅ =3.21),
teachers reported overall constructivist beliefs about teaching mathematics, which confirms the
researcher’s hypothesis that teachers in this study would have overall constructivist beliefs about
teaching mathematics.
For the eight items in this section of the survey, the mean responses of three of the items
fell below 3.0. The lowest mean was 2.28, for the statement “most children in my class need to
learn math through direct instruction.” The item “most children in my class should be helped to
learn math using a published math curriculum” reported the next lowest mean, 2.67. The first
two items in this section reported mean responses very close to 3.0. The reported mean response
for the item regarding whether students enter teachers’ classrooms with little math knowledge
was 3.22. This mean is extremely close to the mean response for the next item in the survey,
which focused on whether students have the cognitive abilities to learn math on their own
(x̅ =3.20). Items three, four, and six reported the highest mean responses, with item six reporting
the highest mean, 3.97. The high mean responses for these three items reveal teachers’
agreement with the statements “most children in my class learn a great deal about math through
their everyday activities,” “most children in my class are very interested in math,” and “most
children in my class should be helped to learn math from their peers.”
There is little variability in responses, as the standard deviations for each item are close to
1. The highest standard deviation was 1.144, and reflects the first item in the survey, “most
children in my class enter my class with little math knowledge.” Items two and five also reported
standard deviations higher than 1, at 1.043 and 1.070, respectively. Items three and four, “most
children in my class should be helped to learn math from their peers” and “most children in my
class are very interested in learning math” have different mean responses but the same standard
deviation, 0.873. The lowest standard deviation, 0.837, was for item seven, which also reported
the lowest mean response (x̅ =2.28).
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for “Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics” section
Mean SD
1. Most children in my class enter my class with little math knowledge 3.22 1.144
2. Most children in my class have the cognitive abilities to learn math on their 3.20 1.043
own
3. Most children in my class should be helped to learn math from their peers 3.61 .873
4. Most children in my class are very interested in learning math 3.84 .873
5. Most children in my class should be taught math through algorithms, rules, 2.86 1.070
and laws
6. Most children in my class learn a great deal about math through their 3.97 .900
everyday activities
7. Most children in my class need to learn math through direct instruction 2.28 .837
8. Most children in my class should be helped to learn math using a published 2.67 .922
math curriculum
Grand mean response and standard deviation 3.21 .958
Figure 1 shows the percentage of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed with items in
the Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics section of the survey. Of note is the extremely high
percentage (80.50%) of teachers which agreed that their students learn a great deal about
mathematics through their everyday activities. In addition, teachers expressed generally positive
beliefs about teaching mathematics, as three-fourths (75.30%) agree that their students are very
interested in learning mathematics and only 34.40% said their students enter their class with little
mathematics knowledge.
Interestingly, over half (66.20%) of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement: “Most children in my class should be helped to learn mathematics from their peers.”
However, though teachers felt their students should be helped to learn mathematics from their
peers, 70.10% believe their students need to learn mathematics through direct instruction.
Figure 1. Percentage of Teachers who Agreed or Strongly Agreed with items in “Beliefs about
eaching Mathematics” Section.
Although the grand mean indicates overall constructivist beliefs about teaching
mathematics, teachers’ responses varied by item. Figure 2 shows the relative frequencies of each
item in this section of the survey. Examining the survey results by item reveals that although
Figure 1 shows items five and eight with low percentages of agreement, in reality teachers
responded to these items with primarily traditional beliefs. The shape of these graphs indicates
participants’ indecisiveness for these items, as very few selected the choices, “strongly agree”
and “strongly disagree” while larger percentages chose “neither agree nor disagree” than for any
other item.
As shown in Figure 1, 43.20%. of teachers agreed with item five, “most children in my
class should learn mathematics through algorithms, rules, and laws.” However, Figure 2 reveals
more evenly distributed results, with a more distribution concentrated in the middle of the graph
(x̅ =2.86, s=1.070). Specifically, 30.60% of teachers strongly disagreed or disagreed with this
statement, and 43.20% agreed or strongly agreed, indicating teachers’ slightly more traditional
beliefs for this item. Similarly, only 46.00% agreement from teachers for the eighth item “most
children in my class should be helped to learn math using a published math curriculum.” Figure
2, however, reveals 38.10% of teachers chose “agree”, which is the highest percentage for this
item, as only 16.30% of teachers chose “disagree.”
The results from items one and two were more spread as well, but produce different
shapes in Figure 2. Like items five and eight, few teachers chose “strongly agree” or “strongly
disagree.” However, rather than concentrating in the middle of the graph, these items are higher
for the choices “agree” and “disagree” with fewer responses for “neither agree nor disagree” than
was true for items five and eight (Figure 2). For item two, 47.80% of teachers agreed or strongly
agreed that students have the cognitive abilities to learn mathematics on their own. This number,
although less than half, is still larger than the percentage of teachers which disagreed with this
belief (32.50%). These results indicate a slight majority for constructivist beliefs (x̅ =3.20,
s=1.043). Though item one is similar in shape, the responses indicate that more teachers actually
selected the choice “disagree” (42.90%) with this item than the choice “agree” (28.30%).
Item three, “most children in my class should be helped to learn math from their peers”
and seven, “most children in my class need to learn math through direct instruction” have similar
distributions, with the majority of teachers (56.90%) selecting “agree” (Figure 2). The next most
frequently selected response was “neither agree nor disagree,” with 21.50% and 19.40% for item
three and seven respectively. Few teachers chose “strongly agree,” indicating that although
teachers frequently agreed with these statements, it was not the strongest level of agreement.
Interestingly, although these two items have similar distributions, item three represents teachers’
constructivist beliefs while item seven represents traditional beliefs about teaching mathematics.
Finally, items four and six show similar results in Figure 2. Similar to the aforementioned
items, over half of respondents selected “agree” for item four, “most children in my class are
very interested in learning math” (55.70%) and item six, “most children in my class learn a great
deal about math through their everyday activities” (53.60%). Unlike items three and seven,
however, the next most frequently selected item was “strongly agree” with 19.70% of teachers
strongly agreeing with item four and 26.80% with item six. Because of this, teachers’ overall
agreement shown in Figure 1 yields higher results than other items.
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs Related To Teaching Mathematics
To answer the research question, “Do elementary teachers have generally positive or
negative self-efficacy beliefs about teaching mathematics?” means and standard deviations were
calculated for each item and the grand mean and standard deviation. Because the survey section
related to helping students learn mathematics included items about teachers’ confidence in their
knowledge of teaching mathematics and ability to teach mathematics, grand means were
calculated for each subsections . Means greater than 3.0 indicate more positive self-efficacy
beliefs about teaching mathematics. As shown in Table 2, the means for all items were greater
than 3.0, indicating teachers’ positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics.
This subsection also reported the highest grand mean (x̅ =4.262) of the two. The high
grand mean reveals teachers’ very positive self-efficacy beliefs related to their abilities to teach
mathematics. The grand mean of the “knowledge” subsection was still above 4.0 (x̅ =4.116),
indicating teachers’ still positive self-efficacy beliefs related to their knowledge of teaching
mathematics. The overall grand mean for this entire section of the survey was 4.195, revealing
teachers’ overall positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics. This mean aligns
with the researcher’s hypothesis that results from this survey would indicate teachers’ more
positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for “Confidence in Teaching Mathematics” section

Mean SD
Confidence in knowledge of teaching mathematics
1. I am confident in my knowledge of what the children in my classroom know 3.70 .955
about math when they enter my class
2. I am confident in my knowledge of reasonable math goals for my grade level 4.25 .749
3. I am confident in my knowledge of best practices and strategies for helping 4.20 .749
my students learn math
4. I am confident in my knowledge of the math content I am expected to teach 4.35 .758
5. I am confident in my knowledge of best ways to assess children’s math 4.08 .834
knowledge and understanding throughout the year
Grand mean response and standard deviation for knowledge subsection 4.116 .809
Confidence in ability to teach mathematics,
6. I am confident in my ability to observe what my students know about math 4.35 .588
7. I am confident in my ability to incorporate math learning into other subjects 4.10 .799
8. I am confident in my ability to plan activities to help my students learn math 4.34 .672
9. I am confident in my ability to further my students’ math knowledge when 4.33 .679
they make spontaneous math comments/discoveries
10. I am confident in my ability to make sense of students’ confusions when they 4.20 .718
learn math
11. I am confident in my ability to facilitate students’ discussion of math 4.25 .734
concepts
Grand mean response and standard deviation for abilities subsection 4.262 .698
Grand mean response and standard deviation 4.195 .749
The standard deviations for this section of the survey were much lower than for the
Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics section, as all standard deviations were below 1. The
overall standard deviation for this entire section of the survey was 0.749, with the “knowledge”
subsection reporting a slightly higher overall standard deviation of 0.809 and the “abilities”
subsection reporting an overall standard deviation of 0.698. The lowest standard deviation
reported was 0.588, for item six, “I am confident in my ability to observe what my students know
about math.” As previously mentioned, this item also reported a very high mean response of
4.35, so this response had very little spread and teachers were consistently in agreement with this
statement. The highest standard deviation was 0.955, for the first item in this section. This item
also reported the lowest mean response of the section, indicating that teachers expressed slightly
more indecisiveness over this item.
Figure 2. Relative Frequencies for each item in “Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics” section
Confidence in knowledge of teaching mathematics. Figure 3 reveals the percentage of
teachers who agreed or strongly agreed with items in the Confidence in Teaching Mathematics
section of the survey, specifically in the “knowledge” subsection. As visible in Figure 3, all five
items reported very strong agreement, with items two through four revealing the strongest
agreement. When rating teachers’ confidence in their knowledge of teaching mathematics, nearly
all teachers felt confident in their knowledge of reasonable mathematics goals for their grade
level (91.00%), best practices and strategies for helping their students learn mathematics
(90.10%), and the mathematics content they are expected to teach (91.90%). Slightly fewer
(85.50%) expressed confidence in assessing children’s mathematics knowledge throughout the
year. Less than three-fourths (71.20%) of teachers felt confident about the mathematics
knowledge students enter their classroom with at the start of the school year. Though this is the
lowest percentage of the five items, the majority of teachers still agreed with this statement.
Unlike the Beliefs About Teaching Mathematics section of the survey, the relative
frequencies for each item of the knowledge subsection of the Confidence in Teaching
Mathematics section aligned with the percentages of overall agreement shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Percentage of Teachers who Agreed or Strongly Agreed with items in “Confidence in
Knowledge of Teaching Mathematics” subsection.
All items with the exception of item four report the highest percentage of teachers
selecting the choice, “agree.” In item four, the highest percentage of teachers (46.90%) selected
the choice, “strongly agree” with the next most frequent selection being “agree” (45.00%). Also
of note is the extremely low frequencies of the selections “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” and
“neither agree nor disagree” in this subsection of the survey. In all items but the first, less than
10.00% teachers chose the three aforementioned selections. This frequency indicates teachers’
overall agreement with the items in this subsection.
The first item in the survey, “I am confident in my knowledge of what the children in my
classroom know about math when they enter my class” displays the most unique shape of the
five, simply because of the higher percentage of teachers who selected “disagree” (14.60%).
According to Figure 4, this item also reported the highest percentage of teachers who selected
“neither agree nor disagree” (12.70%), which reveals that teachers were most unsure about this
item than any other in this subsection of the survey. However, Figure 3 reveals that still over
70.00% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, indicating positive self-
efficacy beliefs about teachers’ knowledge of the prior mathematics knowledge of their students
at the beginning of the school year.
The graphs for items two, three, and five have similar shapes, with over half of teachers
selecting “agree” and over 30.00% of teachers selecting “strongly agree” for all three items
(Figure 5). In addition, for all three items the lowest percentage was for “strongly disagree,” with
only 0.40% of teachers selecting for item two, and 0.60% for items three and five. According to
Figure 3, all three items reported higher than 80.00% overall agreement, marking teachers’
positive self-efficacy beliefs about their knowledge of these particular areas of teaching.
Finally, according to Figure 3, the fourth item in this subsection reported the highest
percentage of overall agreement, or selection of both “agree” and “strongly agree.” Because of
this, teachers have very positive self efficacy beliefs about their knowledge of the mathematics
content they are expected to teach. The shape of this graph, presented in Figure 4, is interesting
because almost the same percentage of teachers selected “agree” (45.00%) and “strongly agree”
(46.90%). Similar to the other items in this subsection, the lowest percentage for this item was
for “strongly disagree” (0.80%).
Figure 4. Relative Frequencies for each item in “Confidence in Knowledge of Teaching

Mathematics” subsection.
Teachers’ confidence in abilities to teach mathematics. As previously seen in Table 2,
teachers expressed slightly greater overall confidence in their abilities to teach elementary school
mathematics (x̅ =4.262, s=.698) than their knowledge of teaching it (x̅ =4.116, s=.809). Figure 5
reveals the percentages of teachers who selected “agree” or “strongly agree” for every item in the
abilities subsections of the survey. Every item with the exception of the seventh, “confidence in
incorporating mathematics into other subjects” reported higher than 90.00% agreement. Even
though this item reported the lowest percentage of agreement out of the six items in Figure 5,
still over 85.00% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the item (86.90%). Most notably,
nearly all teachers expressed confidence in observing what students know about mathematics
(96.50%), and their abilities to plan activities which help students learn mathematics (95.20%).
Ability to Teach Mathematics” subsection.
Similar to the other subsection of the Confidence in Teaching Mathematics section of the
survey, the relative frequencies for each item of the abilities subsection align with the overall
percentages of agreement shown in Figure 5. As visible in Figure 6, all six graphs in this
subsection are skewed to the right. Item six reported a very high percentage of teachers who
selected “strongly agree” (39.70%), and consequently, this item reported the highest overall
percentage of agreement as evident in Figure 6 (96.50%). All six items reported less than 1.00%
of teachers who selected “strongly disagree.” Item seven revealed the highest frequency of
selection for the choice, “disagree” but the percentage was still very low, at only 6.50%.
Additionally, 6.50% of teachers neither agreed nor disagreed with this item, which is the highest
frequency of the items in this subsection. These frequencies indicate teachers were more
indecisive and more teachers disagreed with their abilities to incorporate mathematics into other
subjects than any other ability in this subsection.
According to Figure 6, the graphs of items eight and nine have very similar shapes, with
between 52.00% and 54.00% of teachers selecting “agree” and between 40.00% and 42.00% of
teachers selecting “strongly agree” for both items. Additionally, 2.20% of teachers selected
“disagree” for both items. These items had the highest percentage of teachers who strongly
agreed with the statements, revealing teachers’ higher levels of confidence in their abilities to
plan activities that help students learn mathematics and further students’ knowledge when they
make spontaneous mathematics comments. The final two items in this subsection had graphs
skewed to the right, with slightly more teachers selecting “neither agree nor disagree” than the
previous two items, and frequencies of “strongly agree” between 33.00% and 38.00%.
Self-Efficacy Beliefs Related To Teachers’ Own Mathematics Abilities
Means and standard deviations were calculated for each item as well as the grand mean
and standard deviation in order to answer the third research question, “Do elementary teachers
have generally positive or negative self-efficacy beliefs about their own mathematics abilities?”
Items with means greater than 3.0 indicate positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teachers’ own
mathematics abilities. For items 2, 3, and 7, selecting “agree” or “strongly agree” would indicate
negative self-efficacy beliefs about teachers’ own mathematics abilities. Thus, the items were
recoded such that “strongly disagree” was worth 5, rather than 1 as is true for the other items in
this section. The same was done such that “strongly agree” valued 1, “agree” valued 2, and
“disagree” valued 4. Therefore, means greater than 3.0 still indicate positive self-efficacy beliefs
related to teachers’ own mathematics abilities for every item listed. Table 3 shows these means
and standard deviations. Because the grand mean is above 3.0 (x̅ =3.49), teachers reported
positive self-efficacy beliefs related to their own mathematics abilities. These results do not align
with the researcher’s hypothesis that teachers would have negative self-efficacy beliefs related to
their own mathematics abilities.
The first item in this section reported the lowest mean response (x̅ =3.16). Because this is
the lowest mean, teachers expressed lower frequencies of agreement that mathematics was one of
their best subjects in school. Items six and nine reported the next highest means, reporting 3.31
and 3.25, respectively. These means reveal teachers’ lower confidence levels with the
mathematical concepts of fractions, percentages, and decimals (item six), and estimating
distances (item nine). Teachers expressed slightly more confidence in their sense of direction
(x̅ =3.39) and their abilities to rotate objects in their minds (x̅ =3.46), and expressed the most
confidence in their abilities to come up with creative ways to solve mathematics problems
(x̅ =3.70) and look at numeric data to find patterns (x̅ =3.75).
Figure 6. Relative Frequencies for each item in “Confidence in Ability to Teach Mathematics”
subsection.
The highest reported mean was 3.82, for item two, “just the word ‘math’ can make me
feel nervous.” Because agreement with this item yields more negative self-efficacy beliefs, the
high reported mean reveals the high frequencies of teachers’ disagreement with this statement.
Therefore, most teachers in this study expressed disagreement with the fact that just the word
“math” makes them nervous. Similarly, because items three and seven reported means above 3.0,
most teachers expressed disagreement with the statements “I am not a math person” and “I have
a bad sense of direction.” Finally, comparing Tables 2 and 3 reveals teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs related to teaching mathematics (x̅ =4.195, s=.749) were more positive than their self-
efficacy beliefs related to their own mathematics abilities (x̅ =3.08, s=1.201).
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for “Confidence in Your Own Math Abilities” section
Mean SD
1. Math was one of my best subjects in school. 3.16 1.431
2. Just the word “math” can make me feel nervous. 3.82 1.171
3. I’m not a “math person”. 3.63 1.260
4. I can easily rotate objects in my mind. 3.46 1.139
5. I like coming up with creative ways to solve math problems. 3.70 1.054
6. I can easily convert fractions into percentages and decimal numbers. 3.31 1.251
7. I have a bad sense of direction. 3.39 1.350
8. I’m good at looking at numeric data and finding patterns. 3.75 1.024
9. I’m good at estimating how tall something is or the distance between two 3.25 1.127
locations.
Grand mean response and standard deviation 3.49 1.201
The standard deviations for every item in this section of the survey were much higher
than those in the previous section, as every item reported a standard deviation above 1. The
overall standard deviation for this section was 1.201, and the increased variability in this section
reveals the varying confidence levels teachers reported in their own mathematics abilities. The
highest standard deviation reported was 1.431, for item one, “math was one of my best subjects
in school.” Because the mean response for this item was 3.16, this standard deviation indicates
many teachers agreed and many teachers disagreed with this statement. Teachers’ responses
were also varied for items seven (s=1.350), three (s=1.260), and six (s=1.251). Item eight
reported the lowest standard deviation, 1.024. This item also reported a higher mean, 3.75,
indicating many teachers’ agreement with the statement.
Teachers rated their agreement to statements related to both their specific mathematics
abilities as well as their general mathematics ability. Items related to general mathematics ability
included items one through three: “math was one of my best subjects in school,” “just the word
‘math’ can make me feel nervous,” and “I’m not a ‘math person.’” The remaining six items
relate to teachers’ specific mathematics abilities, such as spatial reasoning, geometry, and
numerical operations.
The percentages of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed with each item in this section
are presented in Figure 7. As mentioned previously, because of the nature of items two, three,
and seven, the low percentages actually indicate teachers’ positive self-efficacy beliefs related to
their own mathematics abilities. Interestingly, though the previous section of the survey indicated
teachers’ very positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics, less than half
(47.30%) of teachers indicated mathematics was one of their best subjects in school. However,
only 19.00% of teachers responded that the word “math” makes them feel nervous and only
24.40% would not label themselves as “math people.” Consistent with the findings in Table 3,
teacher responses included higher frequencies of agreement related to their abilities in problem
solving (66.80%) and finding patterns with numerical data (68.60%) than fractions, decimals,
and percentages (53.00%) and spatial reasoning (48.50%).

Your Own Math Abilities” Section.
Examining each item of this section of the survey reveals interesting data, as presented in
Figure 8. According to Table 3, the first item in the survey reported the highest standard
deviation, which is reflected in the shape of the graph for this item in Figure 8. Teachers selected
“disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree” with almost the same frequency, with the highest
percentage of teachers selecting “disagree.” As reflected in Figure 7, less than half of teachers
agreed or strongly agreed with this item, but only by a slim margin (2.70%).
Items four, six, and nine also reveal more variability in responses. Figure 8 presents more
evenly distributed results in the graphs, with higher concentration in “disagree” and “agree.”
Specifically, between 30.00% and 40.00% of teachers agreed with these three items and between
20.00% and 30.00% of teachers disagreed. Additionally, for each of the three items, the
percentages of teachers who strongly disagreed with the item were the smallest, all less than
10.00%.
Figure 8. Relative Frequencies for Each Item in “Confidence in Your Own Math Abilities”
Section.
Because of the nature of the items, the graphs for items two, three, and seven reveal
similar shapes, with a higher concentration of responses on the left sides of the graphs.
Therefore, the majority of teachers in this study strongly disagreed or disagreed with these items.
Specifically, “strongly disagree” was the most frequently selected in item two (35.70%) and item
three (32.00%), and “disagree” was the most frequently selected in item seven (31.50%).
Finally, the graphs for items five and eight reveal similar shapes (Figure 8). Both items
report nearly half of teachers selected “agree” for their interest in coming up with creative ways
to solve problems (44.10%) and their success in finding patterns using numerical data (45.10%).
In addition, both items report similar percentages for the other four options. Specifically, the
option “disagree” only differs 0.20% between the two items.
Discussion
To interpret the findings from this study, the following discussion addresses the three
research questions of this study:
1) To what extent do elementary teachers’ beliefs related to teaching mathematics align
with constructivist theories?
teaching mathematics?
learning mathematics?
Beliefs About Teaching Mathematics
The reported results from the Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics survey section show
the range of beliefs elementary teachers possess about teaching mathematics. For example,
although the grand mean indicates teachers’ overall constructivist beliefs, teachers were
inconsistent in their beliefs across survey items. The constructivist beliefs of teachers were
revealed through teachers’ responses to certain survey items . For example, the small percentage
of teachers who believe their students enter the class with little mathematics knowledge
(34.40%) speaks to the value of preschool and the consideration of students’ prior knowledge in
elementary mathematics curriculum. In addition, by disagreeing with this statement, “most
children in my class enter my class with little math knowledge,” the majority of teachers are
acknowledging the existing knowledge of students and their capabilities to build new knowledge
(Piaget, 1967).
Teachers also reported strong agreement with their students’ interest in learning
mathematics, indicating their students’ high levels of engagement with their teaching practices.
The large majority of teachers who believe “most children in my class learn a great deal about
mathematics through their everyday activities” aligns with the constructivist notion that students
can learn separately from any structured lesson or instruction (von Glasersfeld, 1984). Finally, a
slight majority of teachers (66.20%) think their students “should be helped to learn math from
their peers”, which indicates that teachers align with the belief that students can construct their
own knowledge through interactions with other students and the world around them.
In contrast, many of the survey items revealed teachers’ more traditional beliefs about
teaching mathematics. While the mix of beliefs may seem paradoxical in practice, the varying
responses reflect both the honesty and authenticity of teachers in their completion of the survey.
Less than half of teachers (47.80%) believe their students “have the cognitive abilities to learn
mathematics on their own”, contradicting the aforementioned constructivist beliefs which value
the students’ ability to create learning experiences. Agreement with this item indicates teachers’
view that they are the vital figure in providing the students with mathematical knowledge,
aligning with a more teacher-centered or traditional belief about mathematics instruction. Nearly
half of teachers (43.20%) also reported agreement with the belief that “mathematics should be
taught through algorithms, rules, and laws.” This result aligns with Ernest’s (1989)
instrumentalist view of mathematics, “a useful but unrelated collection of facts, rules, or skills”
and the traditional belief that mathematics is simply acquired through static truths (p. 20).
Interestingly, several items in the Beliefs about Teaching Mathematics section reported
large percentages of teachers selecting “neither agree nor disagree.” Specifically, 26.10% of
teachers were undecided in their views of mathematics being taught through algorithms, rules,
and laws, and 35.30% were undecided in their beliefs in using a published mathematics
curriculum. The many teachers who chose “neither agree nor disagree” could reflect a shift to
more exploratory and investigative mathematics, wherein students are exploring mathematical
concepts before being presented them by the teacher. Teachers were divided in their beliefs
about teaching mathematics in many cases, as aforementioned in the findings. However, the
differing responses reflect the many beliefs teachers may simultaneously possess about teaching
mathematics.
Confidence in Teaching Mathematics
Of the three survey sections, the Confidence in Teaching Mathematics section resulted in
the most consistent responses. Every item in this section reported over 70.00% agreement, which
reveals the teachers’ very positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics. In
addition, the high levels of self-confidence evident in the results for this section of the survey
reveal that teachers in this study have very low levels of mathematics teaching anxiety. Because
students’ self-efficacy beliefs about learning mathematics are affected by teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs about teaching mathematics, the positive self-efficacy beliefs reported by teachers in this
survey indicate positive classroom environments (Usher & Pajares, 2009).
The item with the lowest percentage of overall agreement in this section (71.20%) was “I
am confident in my knowledge of what the children in my classroom know about math when
they enter my class.” Interestingly, though teachers were least confident in their abilities to
recognize students’ prior mathematics knowledge, the item with the highest percentage of overall
agreement in this section (96.50%) was “I am confident in my ability to observe what my
students know about math.” Thus, the lack of self-confidence which may present itself at the
start of the year or with new students is presumably quickly increased by the teachers’ abilities to
observe students as they learn in mathematics.
In the Confidence in Teaching Mathematics section, teachers expressed positive self-
efficacy beliefs related to their knowledge of reasonable mathematics goals for their grade levels,
the mathematics content they are expected to teach, and best practices and strategies for helping
students learn mathematics, which speaks to the support they receive from school administration,
curriculum, or preservice training. Not only did teachers in this study feel confident in their
knowledge of expectations, but they also reported positive self-efficacy beliefs regarding their
abilities to carry out those expectations, specifically related to planning mathematics activities
(95.20%), furthering students’ mathematical knowledge (94.60%), and facilitating mathematics
discussions with students (91.10%). Many of the aforementioned skills, such as discourse,
collaboration, and building upon students’ existing knowledge align with constructivist beliefs
about teaching mathematics as well (Kim, 2005).
Confidence in Your Own Math Abilities
Compared to the Confidence in Teaching Mathematics section, the final section of the
survey, Confidence in Your Own Math Abilities, reported much lower mean responses and more
negative self-efficacy beliefs. Thus, teachers expressed more positive self-efficacy beliefs related
to teaching mathematics than they did in their own mathematics abilities. Less than half of
teachers (47.30%) reported mathematics as being one of their best subjects in school, yet,
according to results from the previous survey section, they express very high levels of
confidence in teaching mathematics (x̅ =4.195). The results from this study align with the
discrepancy that Chen et al. (2013) described as the difference in “professional” and “personal”
mathematics. Teachers in this study reported more positive self-efficacy beliefs in “professional”
mathematics than they did in “personal” mathematics.
Additionally, the findings indicate that teachers in this study do not have high levels of
mathematics teaching anxiety, but because their overall self-confidence is lower in their own
mathematics abilities, they may possess mathematics anxiety in content knowledge as was the
case in the study by Peker and Ulu (2018). Teachers’ lower levels of self-confidence in content
knowledge is evident in the relative frequencies of individual items in this section, as items
relating to teachers’ general mathematics abilities reported higher levels of confidence than items
relating to specific areas of mathematics content. Nevertheless, in the final section of the survey
teachers reported more positive self-efficacy beliefs about their own mathematics abilities, as
very few teachers expressed the word “math” makes them feel nervous (19.00%) or that they are
not “math” people (24.40%). Additionally, the grand mean for the final survey section, 3.49, still
indicates teachers’ overall positive self-efficacy beliefs about their own mathematics abilities;
they are just slightly more negative than their self-efficacy beliefs about teaching mathematics.
This study was inspired by the Chen et al. (2013) study, and the findings from the present
study align with the findings from Chen et al. However, the results from the aforementioned
study revealed much lower levels of confidence related to teaching mathematics and teachers’
own mathematics abilities than the present study. These differences could be due to the fact that
the Chen et al. (2013) study focused on preschool teachers.
Implications
Current research affirms the notion that teachers’ beliefs are correlated with their
teaching practices (e.g., Aljaberi & Gheith, 2018, Purnomo, 2016). Additionally, research shows
a positive relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs related to their own mathematics
abilities and their self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics (Zuya, Kwalat, & Attah,
2016). Because all three sets of beliefs are interconnected, identifying these sets of beliefs with
in-service teachers is necessary in order to provide targeted support for in-service teachers. For
example, Ren and Smith (2017) found teachers’ knowledge about mathematics correlates with
their beliefs about teaching mathematics. Thus, working to improve teachers’ personal
mathematics abilities could lead to improvements in other areas of the affective domain of
teaching mathematics.
Similar to the research on teachers’ beliefs and their mathematics abilities, research
findings suggest a positive relationship between students’ self-efficacy beliefs about learning
mathematics and their mathematics performance (Hackett & Betz, 1989). According to McLeod
(1992), teachers play an integral role in developing students’ self-efficacy beliefs related to
learning mathematics as well as mathematics performance, so improving teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs related to teaching mathematics and their own mathematics abilities could improve
students’ self-efficacy beliefs as well.
The positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics reported by the teachers
in this study reveal the high-levels of support from administration, professional development,
curricula, and/or preservice teacher training with regards to pedagogical knowledge and
confidence in teaching mathematics. However, the findings of this study indicate the need for
supporting teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in their own mathematics abilities. For example, the
teachers in this study reported very positive self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics
(x̅ =4.195), but almost a quarter (24.40%) do not consider themselves “math people.” Principals
and other higher leadership staffers can use data such as this to instill more confidence in their
mathematics teachers with regards to their own abilities.
Utilizing the findings of surveys such as the one used for the present study could assist
administration in elementary schools to identify specific areas of need in their teachers.
Additionally, using the results from specific items of the survey could result in more specific
modifications to professional development or curriculum to improve teachers’ confidence in
teaching mathematics and their own mathematics abilities. For example, because teachers
reported relatively lower levels of confidence in their knowledge of what their students know
about mathematics when they enter their classes, vertical planning could be utilized at the end of
the school year, so teachers are more aware of their students’ strengths and needs before they
enter their classroom the following school year.
Limitations
This study presented several limitations. First, data analysis for this study was limited to
descriptive statistics. While the findings provided rich data, identifying correlations between
variables in the study would have provided more insight into possible contextual factors related
to the outcomes presented in the descriptive statistics.
Because of the quantitative nature of this study, the number of responses prevented the
researcher from aligning teachers’ beliefs with their self-efficacy beliefs about teaching or
performing mathematics. Thus, making claims about teachers’ beliefs reported in the first section
of the survey related to their self-efficacy beliefs reported in the other two sections of the survey
was difficult.
Chen et al. checked the validity and reliability of the original survey (EM-BCS), the
validity and reliability of that scale with preschool teachers. The results from the present study
represent a different population, elementary teachers, and the present scale contains the noted
adaptations, the corresponding validity and reliability may not have been checked.
This study used self-reported data, so teachers’ survey responses may or may not align to
their actual practice or experiences. Similarly, although the researcher stated the confidentiality
of teachers’ responses each time the survey was sent, it is possible that social desirability
affected teachers’ ability to respond honestly. Teachers may or may not have responded to items
with complete honesty for fear that their responses could be seen by administrators or other
authority figures. Thus, teachers also may have answered with higher levels of agreement for the
sections related to self-efficacy beliefs because they did not want to present themselves as having
low levels of self-confidence, which may have made results appear much more positive than they
are in reality.
Future Research
The findings from this study reveal elementary teachers’ positive self-efficacy beliefs
related to teaching mathematics and more negative self-efficacy beliefs related to their own
mathematics abilities. Future research should focus on the relationship between teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs in their own mathematics abilities and their teaching practices, as well as the
academic performance of their students, in order to identify the lasting implications of teachers’
lower levels of confidence in their own mathematics abilities. Additionally, future research with
surveys such as the one used in the present study should use correlation coefficients and
comparative statistical analyses in order to identify the relationships between the three sets of
beliefs analyzed in this study. Current empirical research mainly focuses on preservice teachers’
beliefs about teaching mathematics and self-efficacy beliefs (Pajares & Miller, 1994; Pintrich,
1990; Purnomo, Suryadi, & Darwis, 2016; Waini et. al, 2014; Zuya, Kwalat, & Attah, 2016).
Therefore, the field needs more research on in-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching
mathematics, self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics, self-efficacy beliefs related to
their own mathematics abilities, and the relationships between these sets of beliefs.
Future research could use surveys such as the one used in the present study with a smaller
amount of teachers. A mixed-methods approach could be helpful in further observing teachers’
practices in teaching mathematics in relation to their responses to the survey. Because
identification of these beliefs could impact professional development and thus, the students’
future mathematics performance, analyzing teachers’ beliefs on a smaller scale could aid in using
the data to make appropriate and more specific modifications.
Conclusion
The purpose of this present study was to identify elementary teachers’ beliefs related to
teaching mathematics as either constructivist or traditional and explore the nature of teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs about teaching mathematics their own mathematics abilities. The findings
indicate teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics as being primarily constructivist, which
means teachers align with the productive beliefs presented by NCTM (2014). However, there are
still areas of teaching mathematics which teachers possess unproductive beliefs, such as teaching
mathematics through algorithms, rules, and laws, and the necessity of using direct instruction to
introduce mathematical concepts. Understanding these specific beliefs can greatly improve
teachers’ professional development materials and should provoke curriculum changes if it aligns
with more traditional beliefs.

The survey results also indicate teachers’ much more positive self-efficacy beliefs related
to teaching mathematics than their self-efficacy beliefs related to their own mathematics abilities.
If teachers are not confident in their own mathematics abilities, students cannot be expected to
feel confident in theirs. Teachers should feel empowered to teach mathematics because they have
a powerful combination of both pedagogical and content knowledge, so they should not feel less
confident in their own abilities. The results from this study suggest that identifying teachers’
beliefs in these three areas can reveal pertinent information which can be used by professionals
to improve instruction. However, future research is needed in order to provide richer details
regarding the relationships between teachers’ sets of beliefs.

References
Abelson, R. (1979). Differences between belief systems and knowledge systems. Cognitive
Science, 3, 355-366.
Aljaberi, N.M. & Gheith, E. (2018). In-service mathematics teachers' beliefs about teaching,
learning and nature of mathematics and their mathematics teaching practices. Journal of
Education and Learning, 7(5), 156-173.
Ashton, P.T. (2014). Historical overview and theoretical perspectives of research on teachers’
beliefs. In H. Fives & M.G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’
beliefs (pp. 31-47). London, UK: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., and Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41, 586–598.
Bates, A.B., Lathan, N., & Kim, J. (2011). Linking preservice teachers’ mathematics self-
efficacy and mathematics teaching efficacy to their mathematical performance. School
Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 325-333.
Bodner, G.M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education,
63, 873-878.
Bong, M. & Skaalvik, E.M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are
they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1-40.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum.

Brown, A.B. (2012). Non-traditional preservice teachers and their mathematics efficacy beliefs.
School Science and Mathematics, 112(3), 191-198.
Bursal, M. & Paznokas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary teachers’
confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6),
173-180.
Chen, J., McCray, J., Adams, M., & Leow, C. (2013). A survey study of early childhood
teachers’ beliefs and confidence about teaching early math. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 42, 367-377.
Cook, W.W., Leeds, C.H., & Callis, R. (1951). Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. New
York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
Enochs, L.G., Smith, P.L., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the
mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics,
100(4), 194-202.
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of the mathematics teacher: A model.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(1), 13-33.
Fives, H. & Buehl, M.M. (2012). Spring cleaning the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs:
What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K.R. Harris, S.
Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 2, Individual
differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471-499). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Furinghetti, F., & Pehkonen, E. (2002). Rethinking characterizations of beliefs. In G. C. Leder,
E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?
(p. 39-57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gage, N. (Ed.). (1963). Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: Theoretical and research
considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30.
Getzels, J.W., & Jackson, P.W. (1963). The teacher’s personality and characteristics. In N.L.
Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 507–582). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
Giles, R.M., Byrd, K.O., & Bendolph, A. (2016). An investigation of elementary preservice
teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1-11.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and engagement
structures: behind the affective dimension of mathematical learning. ZDM, 43(4), 547-
560. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0348-z
Gresham, G. (2018). Preservice to inservice: Does mathematics anxiety change with teaching
experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 90-107.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics
performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261-
273.
Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Van Keer, H. (2008). Development of the Beliefs about Primary
Education Scale: Distinguishing a developmental and transmissive dimension. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24(1), 127-139
Jones, H.K. (2001). Academic self-confidence scale: A psychological study in two parts.
University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. Retrieved from
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/472
Kim, J.S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic
achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1),
7-19.
Knowles, J. G. (1992). Models for teachers' biographies. In I. Goodson (Eds.), Studying teachers'
lives (pp. 99-152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
McAnallen, R. R. (2010). Examining mathematics anxiety in elementary classroom teachers
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(3464333)
McLeod, D.B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In
D.A. Grows (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (p. 575-
596). New York, NY: Macmillan.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring
mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nespor, J.K. (1985). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching: Final report of the teacher
beliefs study. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED270446.pdf
Nespor, J. (1987) The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
19, 317-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190403
Pajares, F. & Miller, M.D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical
problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193-203.
Peker, M. & Ulu, M. (2018). The effect of preservice mathematics teachers' beliefs about
mathematics teaching-learning on their mathematics teaching anxiety. International
Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 249-264.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations
and cognitive processes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pintrich, P. (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and college
teaching for teacher education. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (p. 826–857). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Prawat, R.S. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective.
American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.
Purnomo, Y.W. (2017). A scale for measuring teachers' mathematics-related beliefs: A validity
and reliability study. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 23-38.
Purnomo, Y.W., Suryadi, D., & Darwis, S. (2016). Examining pre-service elementary school
teacher beliefs and instructional practices in mathematics class. International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education, 8(4), 629-642
Ren, L. & Smith, W.M. (2017). Teacher characteristics and contextual factors: Links to early
primary teachers' mathematical beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 21, 321-350.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (p. 102-119). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Setra, A. (2017). Investigating mathematics self-efficacy beliefs of elementary pre-service
teachers in a reform-based mathematics course (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest LLC. (ED583388)
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.W.
(1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychology Reports, 51,
663-671.
Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2007). Increasing student mathematics self-efficacy through
teacher training. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 278-312.
Stipek, D.J., Givvin, K.B., Salmon, J.M., & MacGyvers, V.L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and
practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1),
213-226.
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 (p. 127-
146). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Usher, E.L. & Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 89-101.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick
(Ed.), The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? Contributions to
constructivism (p. 17-40). New York, NY: Norton.
Zuya, H.E., Simon, K.K., & Attah, B.G. (2016). Pre-service teachers' mathematics self-efficacy
and mathematics teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(14), 93-98.
Appendix A
Survey
Appendix B
Ms. Becca Wilson

TCU Box 297900
College of Education
Fort Worth, TX 76129
November 16, 2018
Dear Becca:
Thank you for submitting the proposal for Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs and
Confidence about Teaching Mathematics to the research/outreach initiatives program
of the TCU Andrews Institute of Mathematics & Science Education. Having studied
the recommendations of the reviewers, we are pleased to inform you that your proposal
has been accepted at the rate of $250.00. The review committee felt this project will
further the work and mission of the Andrews Institute of Mathematics & Science
Education. We look forward to hearing more about your research.
Please contact Ms. Maria Solari at m.solari@tcu.edu or 817.257.7698 about how to

access funds.
As a recipient of an Andrews Institute grant, you agree (1) to use the Andrews Institute
name and logo, (2) to acknowledge the Andrews Institute in publications,
presentations, advertisements, and public events of the initiative, and (3) to provide
copies of the above to the Director of the Andrews Institute. A short report outlining
how you used the funds will be due the third Friday in April 27, 2019.
Sincerely,
Molly Weinburgh, PhD

Director, Andrews Institute of Mathematics & Science Education
Andrews Chair of Mathematics & Science Education

Treatise Final Wilson 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treatise Final Wilson 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ BELIEFS

Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Self-Efficacy and Teaching Mathematics

Texas Christian University

Fort Worth, Texas

Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Self-Efficacy and Teaching Mathematics

Project Approved by:

Treatise Chair: Dr. J. Matt Switzer

Committee Member: Dr. Sarah Quebec Fuentes

Committee Member: Dr. Endia Lindo

Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Self-Efficacy and Teaching Mathematics

Researchers have defined teachers’ beliefs as “complex”, “dynamic”, “contextualized”

Sources of teachers’ beliefs can be family or cultural background, prior mathematical

experiences, pre-service teacher training, content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge

mathematics, or their self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching and learning mathematics.

as “unproductive” beliefs related to teaching mathematics in Principles to Action, Ensuring

Mathematics Success for All.

self-confidence in all facets of mathematics.

related to teaching mathematics as either constructivist or traditional, explore the nature of

related to their own mathematics abilities.

Overview of Teachers’ Beliefs Research

Gresham, 2018; Ren & Smith, 2017).

experiences; experiences in prior schooling; as well as content and pedagogical knowledge.

mentioned and the benefits of studying these together.

Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Teaching Mathematics

evaluated by others. Therefore, teachers’ beliefs are considered subjective knowledge.

teaching, creating a new theoretical perspective on teachers’ beliefs.

unrelated collection of facts, rules, or skills” (Ernest, 1989, p. 20).

Piaget’s theory of intellectual development suggests that through assimilation and

latter views mirror traditional beliefs about teaching.

Many recent research studies involving mathematics teachers categorized teachers’

Methodology of existing research. Research on teachers’ beliefs did not become

In the subject of mathematics, research on teachers’ beliefs has primarily focused on

constructivist beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics.

mathematics could result in changes to curriculum or professional development materials that

Teachers’ Beliefs Related to Self-Efficacy

Academic self-efficacy beliefs can be defined as “one's convictions about their

experiences” (Bandura, 1977, p. 194).

Although not included in most definitions, self-confidence is often used to determine a

10). Therefore, teachers’ self-confidence in teaching is part of their self-efficacy beliefs.

confidence is often an indicator of perceived performance, many researchers believe self-

testing for self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura & Schunk, 1981).

self-efficacy, specifically in mathematics, and mathematics performance. Similarly, Pajares and

math self-concept, perceived usefulness of mathematics, prior experience with

mathematics, or gender. (p. 1)

self-concept, and mathematics anxiety, followed by measures to determine their actual

determine the highest correlation.

Teachers’ self-confidence in teaching mathematics. Teachers’ efficacy beliefs related

to teaching mathematics comes from a combination of self-confidence, knowledge of

confidence in teaching mathematics, thus affecting students’ achievement in mathematics.

Therefore, assessing teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence in teaching mathematics

confidence and self-efficacy as well (Usher & Pajares, 2009).

capability to teach mathematics” (Zuya et al., 2016, p. 97).

The Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (MTEBI) was developed by

utilizing the MTEBI with in-service teachers.

mathematics teaching self-efficacy and self-confidence could result in improvements and

modifications to current professional development, which is shown to have significant impacts

on students’ self-efficacy beliefs.

Interrelatedness of Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Mathematics and Self-Efficacy

of future research regarding students’ academic performance or teachers’ classroom practices.

and attitudes towards teaching.

developing students’ mathematics beliefs and confidence in their abilities in mathematics,

making teachers’ affective responses to mathematical situations important as well.

teaching mathematics (Purnomo, 2017). Teachers’ self-confidence in teaching mathematics