Comparison of mathematics teacher’s general teaching beliefs in Estonia, Finland and Latvia

The research question to be discussed in this short communication relates to the identification of cross-culturally
invariant and culturally specific characteristics of mathematics teacher’s general teaching beliefs in Estonia,
Finland and Latvia.

In the questionnaire, the general pedagogical approach was measured using three approaches:
1) Likert-type items about certain teaching approaches that have been identified as typical for constructivist (or
non-constructivist) teaching philosophy, for example “Teacher should direct students in a way that allows them to
make their own discoveries”;
2) Providing a description of two fictional teachers teaching (constructivist and non-constructivist), and asking the
respondent to rate their preference for these approaches for specific learning goals, for example: “Which type of
discussion do you think most students prefer to have?”; and
3) Likert-type items regarding how often they ask their students to engage in certain classroom practices, for
example to “Memorize formulas and procedures”.
1) Module on teachers’ views about good/effective teaching (module D) consists of statements about certain
teaching approaches that have been identified as typical for constructivist or non-constructivist teaching
philosophy.
Total number of statements is 16.
Teachers had to respond using five point Likert-scale (1= fully disagree… 5=fully agree).
Some results are presented in Table 1
Table 1 Percentage of teachers who agree or disagree statements
Mean+SD Fully disagree Neutral Fully agree Mann-Whitney test
significance (2-
Constructivist perception: Disagree Agree tailed), 0,01 level
(1 and 2) (%) (3)(%) (4 and 5) (%) confidence

5. My role as a teacher is to facilitate students' own EST 4.1± 0.8 3 19 78 +

inquiry FIN 4,4± 0.8 4 4 92
LAT 4.8±0.5 0 1 99
8. Teacher should direct students in a way that allows EST 4.4± 0.6 1 6 93 +
them to make their own discoveries. FIN 4.4±0.7 0 8 92
LAT 4.7±0.6 1 3 96
10. Students should engage in collaboration in small EST 4.3± 0.8 3 11 86
groups explaining newly developing ideas and listening FIN 3.8± 0.8 8 24 68
to other students' ideas.
LAT 4.2±0.8 3 15 82
11. Thinking and reasoning processes are more important EST 3.9± 0.9 6 28 66
than specific curriculum content. FIN 4.1± 0.6 0 16 84
LAT 4.0±0.8 30 0 70

Traditional perception
2. Instruction should be built around problems with clear, EST 3.1± 0.9 24 44 33 +
correct answers, and around ideas that most students can FIN 3.0± 1.0 40 24 36
grasp quickly
LAT 3.5±1.1 19 34 47
3. How much students learn depends on how much EST 3.5± 0.9 11 40 49 +
background knowledge they have -- that is why teaching FIN 3.4± 1.0 20 28 52
facts is so necessary
LAT 3.0±1.0 34 36 30
4. Effective/good teachers demonstrate the correct way to EST 2.9± 1.0 37 34 29
solve a problem FIN 3.0± 1.0 40 32 28
LAT 3.1±1.1 30 33 37
16. A quiet classroom is generally needed for effective EST 4,1± 0,9 5 17 78 +
learning FIN 3.2± 1.1 32 20 48
LAT 3.3±1.0 21 37 42
Estonian teachers agree with constructivist statements and they tend to stay neutral towards statements describing traditional
perception of teaching.
Latvian teachers agree with constructivist statements little more than Estonian teachers and they stay similarly neutral towards
traditional perception of teaching. The largest differences between Latvian and Estonian teachers are observable in two statements
from the Table: Latvian teachers have more positive perception of the role of teacher as the facilitator of students’ own inquiry and
they believe that quiet classroom would help for effective learning much less than Estonian teachers.
2) Module on teachers’ views of two teaching approaches provided a description of two fictional teachers teaching
(constructivist and non-constructivist), and asking the respondents to rate their preference for these approaches for
specific learning goals.
Approach A:
Ms. Hill was leading her class in an animated way, asking questions that students could answer quickly;
based on the reading they had done the day before. After this review, Ms. Hill taught the class new material,
again using questions to keep students attentive and listening to what she had said.
Approach B:
Mr. Jones’ class was also having a discussion, but many of the questions came from students themselves.
Though Mr. Jones could clarify students’ questions and suggest where the students could find relevant
information, he couldn’t really answer most of the questions himself.

Teachers had to respond using five point scale:

(1) definitely A,
(2) tend toward A,
(3) cannot decide,
(4) tend toward B,
(5) definitely B.
Teachers’ responses are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2. Percentage of teachers supporting approach A or B
Average Definitely A Cannot Definitely B Mann-
Response Tend toward A decide Tend toward B Whitney test
(mean±SD) (%) (%) (%)
significance
(2-tailed),
0,01 level
confidence
Which type of class discussion EST 2.6±1.1 62.0 12.0 26.1 +
you would be more comfortable
FIN 2.8±1.2 56.0 4 36
having in class?
LAT 2.6±1.2 55.7 13.3 31.0
Which type of discussion do EST 2.6±1.1 57.8 14.7 27.6 +
you think most students prefer
FIN 3.0±1.1 40 16 40
to have?
LAT 3.0±1.2 38.2 23.5 38.3
From which type of class EST 3.4±1.2 27.5 15.0 57.5 +
discussion do you think
FIN 2.9±1.1 36 28 32
students gain more knowledge?
LAT 2.9±1.2 44.9 16.7 38.4
From which type of discussion EST 3.9±1.1 16.7 9.4 73.9
do you think students gain more
FIN 2.0±0.8 76 16 4
useful skills?
LAT 3.5±1.1 22.8 12.9 64.3

Most Estonian teachers (62%) feel more comfortable using non-constructivist approach and majority of them (58%) believe also that
their students prefer the same approach. At the same time they believe, on the contrary, that students gain more knowledge and useful
skills from constructivist type teaching.
 The sample of Latvian teachers provides a slightly different picture. Although, like Estonian teachers they feel more
comfortable using non-constructivist approach, almost identical number (about 38%) of teachers believes that their students would
prefer either constructivist or non-constructivist type of teaching. While the Latvian teachers similarly as Estonian teachers believe
that students would gain more useful skills from constructivist type of teaching, larger part (45%) of Latvian teachers’ sample believes
that their students would gain more knowledge from non-constructivist type of teaching. Besides, Latvian teachers had more doubts
about their answers on every question than their Estonian colleagues.
 2) Module on teachers perceptions of their teaching behaviour also provides some information on their general
pedagogical views. This module includes items regarding how often teachers ask their students to engage in
certain classroom practices.
The responses were given using Likert-type four- point scale:
1- Never,
2- Some lessons,
3- About half the lessons,
4- Almost every lesson.
Some results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Percentages of teachers

How often do you usually ask pupils to Never About half the lessons Mann-Whitney
do following: Mean±SD or or test significance
Some lessons Almost every lesson (2-tailed),
(1 and 2) (%) (3 and 4) (%) 0,01 level
confidence
1. Memorize formulas and procedures EST 3.2±0.7 15.1 84.9 +
FIN 2.2±0.6 80 20
LAT 3.0±0.7 23.2 76.8
2. Apply facts, concepts and EST 3.6±0.6 6.30 93.7 +
procedures to solve routine problems FIN 3.3±0.7 12 88
LAT 3.5±0.6 5.50 94.5
3. Work on problems for which there EST 2.4±1.6 62.6 37.4 +
is no obvious method of solution FIN 2.4±0.8 64 36
LAT 2.3±0.6 72.5 27.5
4. Relate what they are learning in EST 2.6±0.7 47.9 52.1 +
mathematics to their daily lives FIN 2.5±0.7 52 48
LAT 2.9±0.7 28.9 71.1
5. Decide on their own procedures for EST 2.4±0.6 64.8 35.2 +
solving complex problems FIN 2.1±0.8 76 24
LAT 2.3±0.6 74.8 25.2
6. Work together in small groups EST 2.1±0.6 81.4 18.6 +
FIN 2.3±0.8 72 28
LAT 2.5±0.6 54.2 45.8
7. Work in an investigative manner: to EST 1.9±0.5 90.7 9.30 +
try to find patterns, formulate FIN 1.8±0.8 84 16
statements and prove them LAT 2.2±0.5 79.2 20.8
The percentage of Estinian teachers declaring that in about half to every lesson they ask pupils to memorize formulas and solve
routine problems is very high (85...94%). At the same time only about 19% of teachers ask their pupils to work in small groups and
even half less (9%) let pupils to work in an investigative manner.
Similarly as in Estonian sample of teachers, the percentage of Latvian teachers shows that they also very often ask pupils to memorize
and to solve routinge problems (from 77 to 95%). However, they answers shows that they ask their students to work in small groups
and work in investigative manner twice often than their Estonian collegues (46 and 21% respectively) and they make their students to
relate mathematics to their daily lifes to the greater extent. At the same time, the percentage shows that Latvian teachers invite their
students to work on challenging, new problems and let them independently work on complex problems less than their counterparts in
Estonia

KK: I also added the cross-tables for better interpretation.

G6 riik
G1 riik Estonia Latvia
Estonia Latvia 1 11,0% 1,5%
1 ,4% ,8% 2 70,3% 55,0%
2 14,7% 23,7% 3 16,1% 39,3%
3 52,5% 48,6% 4 2,5% 4,1%
4 32,4% 27,0%
G4 riik
Estonia Latvia
G2 riik
1 1,3% ,3%
Estonia Latvia
2 46,6% 32,6%
2 6,3% 5,7%
3 38,7% 49,2%
3 29,4% 40,9%
4 13,4% 17,9%
4 64,3% 53,5% G7 riik
Estonia Latvia
G5 riik
G3 riik 1 16,5% 4,1%
Estonia Latvia 2
Estonia Latvia 74,2% 73,8%
1 2,1% 2,6%
1 1,7% 2,6% 3 8,9% 19,2%
2 62,7% 72,3%
2 60,9% 70,5% 4 ,4% 2,8%
3 30,1% 20,3%
3 31,5% 23,3%
4 5,1% 4,9%
4 5,9% 3,3%
G8 riik
 Estonia Latvia
1 16,8% 21,3%
2 67,6% 74,4%
3 12,6% 3,8%
4 2,9% ,5%