Body

Chapter I
The Problem and its Background
“Pre-service teachers enter teacher education programs with well-
established beliefs about the teaching profession that are shaped by their
experiences as students, and these beliefs typically remain stable throughout their
teacher preparation program and into the early years of teaching”. In addition to
general teaching beliefs, pre-service teachers who are prepared to teach all subject
areas may have more precise and varying beliefs in particular subject areas, such
as mathematics and science (Book, Byers, & Freeman, 1983; Buchmann, 1984;
Fajet, Bello, Leftwich, Mesler, & Shaver, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, McDiarmid,
Melnick, & Parker, 1988; Taylor & Sobel, 2001; Weinstein, 1989). Therefore,
examining pre-service teachers’ beliefs in these areas are important in order to
enhance their understandings of teaching strategies and content in mathematics.
Teachers’ and students’ mathematical beliefs have been a topic of interest
in mathematics education research for the last three decades and have been
studied from different perspectives (Handal, 2003; Kagan, 1992; Leder et al,
2002; Roesken, 2011). For more than decades ago an individual’s attitude toward
mathematics was brought up as one of the central research topics in mathematics
education. But, the focus of research has changed from broadly defined attitudes
to more specific sub-concepts: emotions, narrowly defined attitudes, values, and,
most commonly, beliefs (Pehkonen, 2004, p.2). Goldin (2002) also distinguished
emotions, attitudes, beliefs and values in mathematics education: (1) emotions
1
(rapidly changing states of feeling, mild to very intense, that are usually local or
embedded in context), (2) attitudes (moderately stable predispositions toward
ways of feeling in classes of situations, involving a balance of affect and
cognition), (3) beliefs (internal representations to which the holder attributes truth,
validity, or applicability, usually stable and highly cognitive, may be highly
structured), and (4) values, ethics, and morals (deeply-held preferences, possibly
characterized as “personal truths”, stable, highly affective as well as cognitive,
may also be highly structured), (p. 61).
This research examines the nature and role of teachers’ mathematical
beliefs in instruction and student learning. It is argued that teachers’ mathematical
beliefs can be categorized in multiple dimensions. These beliefs are said to
originate from previous traditional learning experiences mainly during schooling.
Once acquired, teachers’ beliefs are eventually reproduced in classroom
instruction. It is also argued that due to their conservative nature, educational
environments foster and reinforce the development of traditional instructional
beliefs. Although there are evidences that teachers’ beliefs influence their
instructional behaviors, the nature of the relationship is complex and mediated by
external factors.
After conducting the research, the researchers will be able to:
A. Determine the beliefs of pre-service teachers in nature, learning, and
efficacy in teaching mathematics.
B. Create generalizations based on the findings in the interpretation of data.
2
In line with the objectives, researchers will try their best in order to answer the
following questions:
1. What are the different beliefs of pre-service teachers in the nature of
Mathematics?
2. What are the different beliefs of pre-service teachers in the learning of
Mathematics?
3. What are the different beliefs of pre-service teachers in the teaching efficacy
in Mathematics?
Significance of the Study
What goes on in the mathematics classroom may be directly related to the
beliefs teachers hold about mathematics. For this reason, it has been argued that
teacher beliefs play a major role in their students’ achievement and in their
formation of beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics (Emenaker, 1996).
Student teachers need to be aware on how their beliefs affect their class
management and performance. Studies show that the rapport between teachers'
mathematical beliefs and their instructional practice is dialectical in nature and is
mediated by many contradictory factors (Thompson, 1992; Wood et al., 1991;
Pajares, 1992, Ponte, 1999). Teachers’ beliefs do influence their instructional
practice; however, a precise one-to-one causal relationship cannot be asserted
because of the interference of contingencies that are set in the school and
classroom culture. Teachers’ teaching methods and classroom practices convey
little by little their view of mathematics to students (Laine at al., 2004). At the
3
same time, according to results of various research studies, beliefs of teachers
about the nature and the teaching of mathematics influence both efficiency of
teaching of mathematics and the occurrence of their students' beliefs about those
subjects (Bulut & Baydar, 2002).
Teachers’ mathematical beliefs are personal and are therefore mental
constructs peculiar to each individual (Brown & Rose, 1995). A number of studies
have been conducted to obtain “typical” teachers’ mathematical beliefs.
Mathematical beliefs of teachers have been analyzed statistically and in many
instances judgments were passed on right-and-wrong criteria by researchers.
Although patterns are identifiable within representative samples, these studies
have at the same time revealed a broad diversity in the direction and intensity of
these beliefs (Carpenter, Fennema, Loef, & Peterson, 1989; Moreira, 1991;
Schmidt & Kennedy, 1990). This fact led some researchers to think that these
differences could be alternatively interpreted either as stages of a developmental
process, individual cognitive differences, or simply due to differences in socio-
economic status, educational systems, or cultural environments (Moreira, 1991;
Stonewater & Oprea, 1988; Thompson, 1991; Whitman & Morris, 1990).
Firm beliefs about what it takes to be an effective teacher are usually
carried by pre-service teachers as they enter teacher education programs (Book,
Byers, & Freeman, 1983; Buchmann, 1984; Fajet, Bello, Leftwich, Mesler, &
Shaver, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, McDiarmid, Melnick, & Parker, 1988; Taylor &
Sobel, 2001; Weinstein, 1989).
4
Pre-service teachers’ mathematical and science teaching beliefs are often
mixed with anxiety, hesitancy, and feeling of incompetent.Cheng, 2002; Hart,
2002; Kiviet & Mji, 2003; Sottile, Carter, Murphy, 2002; Tosun, 2000; Watters,
& Ginns, 1997). Frequently, these beliefs do not surface until new teachers start
teaching in their own classrooms (Doolittle, Dodds, & Placek, 1993; Zeichner &
Tabacknick, 1981). Therefore, in order to create a substantial paradigm shift
teacher education programs must challenge pre-service teachers’ beliefs (Pajares,
1992).
A recurring theme in the teacher education literature is that teacher
education programs do little to change pre-service teachers’ beliefs (i.e., Bandura,
1997; Cakiroglu, & Boone, 2002; Hart, 2002; Jesky- Smith, 2002; Kelly, 2001;
Kiviet & Mji, 2003; Plourde & Alawiye, 2003; Tosun, 2000).
Through participating in appropriate method courses that are taught by
teacher educators who scaffold the students in confronting their beliefs (Kiviet &
Mji, 2003), it is well established that pre-service teachers’ beliefs can be enhanced
and/or changed (i.e., Bandura, 1997; Cakiroglu, & Boone, 2002; Hart, 2002;
Jesky- Smith, 2002; Kelly, 2001; Kiviet & Mji, 2003; Plourde & Alawiye, 2003;
Tosun, 2000) Furthermore, according to several studies, university professors and
mentor teachers influence the pre-service teachers’ beliefs during their practicum.
(Calderhead, 1988; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1989). The goals embedded within methods
courses include developing positive beliefs systems with pre-service teachers
(Finson, et al., 2002) and convincing them that mathematics and science are
interesting (Crowther, 1998). Therefore, invaluable opportunities for teacher
5
educators are provided by science and mathematics methods courses to change
pre-service teachers’ beliefs.
A growing body of literature suggests that pre-service teachers, that is,
student teachers attending teacher education institutions, hold sets of beliefs more
traditional than progressive with respect to the teaching of mathematics. Research
findings reveal that pre-service teachers bring into their education program mental
structures overvaluing the role of memorization of rules and procedures in the
learning and teaching of school mathematics.
Frank (1990) surveyed the mathematical beliefs of pre-service teachers
and found a high level agreement in items such as: (a) “Some people have a
mathematical mind and some don’t”, (b) “Mathematics requires logic not
intuition”, and (c) “You must always know how you got the answer”. Moreover,
Foss and Kleinsasser (1996, p. 438) surveyed, observed, and interviewed pre-
service elementary teachers and found that the participants placed great emphasis
on practice and memorization. Teachers were of the opinion that ability in
mathematics was innate. Southwell and Khamis (1992) surveyed 71 pre-service
teachers and found that most participants perceive that mathematics learned in
school should be based on memorization of facts and rules. Lappan and Even
(1989) and Wood and Floden (1990) reported similar findings.
Taking account into the reasons which mentioned above, the research
about mathematical beliefs of pre-service secondary mathematics teachers is
important and useful in education. In addition, investigating relationship between
6
nature and teaching of mathematics will enable a better understanding of
mathematical beliefs.
Scope and Limitation
This research focused on the student teachers’ mathematical beliefs. The
scope of this research is on the beliefs in the nature of Mathematics, learning
Mathematics, and teaching efficacy in Mathematics of student teachers of
Philippine Normal University. The answers to the survey questionnaire were
obtained from the students of the said university. This study was limited to 36
Fourth Year BSE Mathematics students who were chosen using random sampling.
Assumption of the Study
In this study, the researchers assumed that the participants answered the
instrument truthfully which reflect their true beliefs encountered in teaching
Mathematics.
Theoretical Framework
Many researches discuss about beliefs and practices of the teachers or the
students toward mathematics. Many are in the field of the art of teaching the
subject itself or the art of learning mathematics lesson. If we are going to
conceptualize the ideas of these various we may arrive at certain questions on
what happens to those who belong to the “middle portion” of the persons involve-
the future mathematics teachers or the student teachers who teach Mathematics.
7
One of the factors affecting the teachers’ performance in mathematics is
their beliefs. Previously stated, “Not . . . what opinions are held, but . . . how they
are held: instead of being held dogmatically, [liberal] opinions are held
tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead
to their abandonment.” (Russell B., 1950). Beliefs are viewed as “psychologically
held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be
true” (Richardson, 1996, p. 103), across disciplines of anthropology, social
psychology and philosophy. One of the more common distinctions drawn between
belief and knowledge is that the notion of belief is thought to be true (Pajares,
1992; Thompson, A. G. 1992), with researchers often viewing knowledge as
“belief with certainty” (Clement, 1999). Plato’s definition of knowledge as
“justified true belief” (McDowell, 1987, cited in Furinghetti & Pehkonen, 2002, p.
42) is similar with Pajares and Thompson’s definition, but with one more
important difference. Plato implied the existence of an external reality of which
one could know and be certain, by using the term true, and von Glasersfeld’s
observation that there reigns the conviction that knowledge is knowledge only if it
reflects the worlds as it is (von Glasersfeld, 1984, p. 20) captures the sense that
the view of knowledge put forth by Plato continues to prevail.
8
Figure 1: Factors affecting teacher’s mathematical beliefs
(adapted from Raymond’s model)
School experiences, along with early childhood experiences form a
category of factors that falls in the realm of student mathematical beliefs. It is
important to look at these as determinant in the process of belief formation and as
a guide in understanding the strength, centrality and resilience of some beliefs.
The strong influence of past school and childhood experiences has been
suggested, among others, by Harel (1993), Cooney and Wilson (2002) and Handal
(2002) and confirmed, among others, by Cross (2009) and Frost (2010) who
investigated the correlation of biographical factors and episodes and teaching
approaches.
9
Immediate classroom situations (students’ abilities, attitudes, and
behaviour, time constraints, the mathematics topic at hand), however, seem to
play their short term role in activating sets of beliefs.
Definition of Terms
The following terms need to be considered as we go through the entire research
process:
1. Beliefs (Psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about
the world that are thought to be true). Beliefs are more cognitive, are felt less
intensely, and are harder to change than attitudes. Beliefs might be thought of as
lenses that affect one’s view of some aspect of the world or as dispositions toward
action. Beliefs, unlike knowledge, may be held with varying degrees of conviction
and are not consensual. Beliefs are more cognitive than emotions and attitudes.
(We do not indent this definition under affect because, although beliefs are
considered a component of affect by those studying affect, they are not seen in
this way by most who study teachers’ beliefs.) Beliefs are internal representations
to which the holder attributes truth, validity, or applicability, usually stable and
highly cognitive, may be highly structured.)
2. Efficacy (belief in a teacher’s ability to teach effectively and positively affect
student learning outcomes)
3. Affect (a disposition or tendency or an emotion or feeling attached to an idea or
object. Affect is comprised of emotions, attitudes, and beliefs.)
10
a. Emotions (feelings or states of consciousness, distinguished from
cognition. Emotions change more rapidly and are felt more intensely than
attitudes and beliefs. Emotions are rapidly changing states of feeling, mild to very
intense, that are usually local or embedded in context Emotions may be positive
(e.g., the feeling of “aha”) or negative (e.g., the feeling of panic). Emotions are
less cognitive than attitudes.)
b. Attitudes (moderately stable predispositions toward ways of feeling in
classes of situations, involving a balance of affect and cognition. Manners of
acting, feeling, or thinking that show one’s disposition or opinion. Attitudes
change more slowly than emotions, but they change more quickly than beliefs.
Attitudes, like emotions, may involve positive or negative feelings, and they are
felt with less intensity than emotions. Attitudes are more cognitive than emotion
but less cognitive than beliefs.)
4. Conception (a general notion or mental structure encompassing beliefs,
meanings, concepts, propositions, rules, mental images, and preferences.)
5. Beliefs System (a metaphor for describing the manner in which one’s beliefs
are organized in a cluster, generally around a particular idea or object. Beliefs
systems are associated with three aspects: (a) Beliefs within a beliefs system may
be primary or derivative; (b) beliefs within a beliefs system may be central or
peripheral; (c) beliefs are never held in isolation and might be thought of as
existing in clusters.)
11
6. Knowledge (beliefs held with certainty or justified true belief. What is
knowledge for one person may be belief for another, depending upon whether one
holds the conception as beyond question.)
7. Value (the worth of something. A belief one holds deeply, even to the point of
cherishing, and acts upon. Whereas beliefs are associated with a true/false
dichotomy, values are associated with a desirable/undesirable dichotomy. Values
are less context-specific than belief.)
8. Ethics, and morals (deeply-held preferences, possibly characterized as
“personal truths”, stable, highly affective as well as cognitive, may also be highly
structured), and
9. Pedagogy (the art or science of teaching).
10. Identity (the embodiment of an individual’s knowledge, beliefs, values,
commitments, intentions, and affect as they relate to one’s participation within a
particular community of practice; the ways one has learned to think, act, and
interact.)
12
Chapter II
Review of Related Literature and Studies
Related Literature
According to Richardson (1996), beliefs are “psychologically held
understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be true”.
Raymond (1997) defined mathematics beliefs as personal judgments about
mathematics formulated from experiences in mathematics, including beliefs about
the nature of mathematics, learning mathematics, and teaching mathematics.
Teachers’ beliefs are “implicit assumptions about students, learning, classrooms,
and the subject matter to be taught” (Kagan, 1992).
The concept of Mathematical beliefs is broad and therefore can be
classified into different groups and types, or can be categorized into groups.
Gorman (1991) divided mathematics beliefs into three parts: beliefs about
mathematics as a discipline, beliefs that individuals hold about themselves and
how they learn mathematics, and beliefs about what an individual do to learn
mathematics. Since the range of an individual’s beliefs is very wide, they are
usually being grouped in clusters. Beliefs form systems that have a quasi-logical
structure, and that might or might not be in connection with other belief systems.
Therefore, the term belief system is used as a metaphor to represent how the
individual’s beliefs are structured (Pehkonen, 2004).
13
In a meta-analysis of a study conducted by Kagan (1992), she concluded
that teachers’ beliefs about their profession fell into two categories: teaching self-
efficacy and content-specific beliefs. Self-efficacy is the ability to produce the
intended influence on students and has two faces: personal teaching efficacy and
general or outcome teaching efficacy. Personal teaching efficacy refers to the
belief teachers have in themselves as effective teachers. General teaching efficacy
deals with outcomes expectancy, such as the ability to improve students’
achievement. Learning and knowing the field to be taught are considered content-
specific beliefs (Ashton, 1884; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Riggs, & Enochs, 1990).
Beliefs can also be categorized into two: transmission and child-
centeredness.
Transmission: The traditional view of mathematics as a static discipline
which is taught and learned through the transmission of mathematical skills and
knowledge from the teacher to the learner and where "mathematics [is seen] as a
rigid system of externally dictated rules governed by standards of accuracy, speed
and memory." (National Research Council 1989, p.44; cited in Perry et al., 2006,
p.439).
Child-centeredness: Students are actively involved with mathematics
through "constructing their own meaning as they are confronted with learning
experiences which build on and challenge existing knowledge." (Anderson, 1996,
p. 31).
14
Furinghetti and Torner (2002) discuss two other constructs from which
beliefs are often distinguished: knowledge (e.g., considering beliefs as subjective
knowledge and viewing knowledge as objective facts, within the limits of
subjective philosophical definitions of both) and attitude (which brings in an
element of affect). The affective component and its role in the teaching and
learning process are highlighted by some of them. Goldin (2002) expresses the
interrelatedness of attitude, emotions and belief systems:
The consensus is that beliefs, attitudes and values are the consequence
of an evolutionary process that involves all of an individual’s experiences
with mathematics throughout their entire life. An exception is emotions,
which are based on an individual’s general mental mechanisms, evoked
when reacting to situational and local problems. Nevertheless, these
reactions can also lead to longer-term consequences. (p. vii).
Teacher knowledge is directly related to student achievement. (Hill,
Rowan & Ball, 2005). Efficacy is a teacher’s belief in his or her ability to teach
effectively and positively affect student learning outcomes (Bandura, 1986;
Enochs, Smith & Huinker, 2000), and is an important factor for successful
teaching. An individual’s sense of efficacy is a judgement of his or her
capabilities to accomplish certain levels of performance. A teacher’s sense of
efficacy is a judgement of his or her capabilities to bring desired outcomes of
student engagement and learning, even among students who may be difficult or
unmotivated (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The pre-service teachers’ efficacy
in mathematics can be a predictor of their future ability to teach mathematics
15
since teacher efficacy is context specific (Bandura, 1986), academic domain
specific (Bandura, 1997), and subject-matter specific (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998).
Teachers’ concepts of efficacy affect instructional decision-making, which
impacts students learning (Pajares, 1992; Soodak & Podell, 1997). A relationship
between mathematics and content knowledge and concepts of efficacy for
elementary teachers taking a mathematics methods course was found by (Newton,
et al. 2012). According to Swars et al. (2006) lower mathematics anxiety was
related to higher concepts of efficacy. Bandura (1986) and Ernest (1989) said that
it is possible that beliefs about efficacy may be a greater variable in quality
teaching than content knowledge alone. Evans (2010) found a significant
relationship between attitudes toward mathematics and concepts of efficacy.
Mathematics anxiety and teaching efficacy was found to have a significant
inverse relationship for pre-service teachers (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006; Gresham,
2008; Swars et al., 2006).
Highly efficacious teachers are more likely to use inquiry and student-
centred teaching strategies (Wenta, 2000), while teachers of low level efficacy are
more likely to use teacher-directed strategies (Czerniak, 1990). The teacher
efficacy has positive effects on their personal commitment to teaching and
students (Coladarci, 1992), and also to the student outcomes such as academic
achievement (Moore & Esselman, 1992) and motivation (Midgeley, Feldlaufer &
Eccles, 1989).
16
Related Studies
One of the most important aspects in doing a research on beliefs is to
define or sufficiently describe what is meant by the term “beliefs”. According to
Pajares (1992), it is inevitable that any research be preceded by “deciding what
(we) wish belief to mean and how this meaning will differ from that of similar
constructs” (p. 308). This decision seems to be given a varying degree of
importance and meticulousness, ranging from the adoption of previously loosely
defined constructs — such as Pajares’ or Thompson’s — and their inherent
characteristics (Andrews, Hatch, 1999; Barkatsas, Malone, 2005; Leatham, 2006),
to leaving the term itself undefined, focusing rather on the objects and
characteristics of beliefs (e.g., Stipek et al., 2001; Speer, 2008), and/or attempting
to arrive at a precise definition (Torner, 2002; Goldin, 2002) .
On a study conducted by A.G. Thompson (1992) on changing teachers’
conceptions, she reported studies of pre-service teachers who showed little
change, and she noted that teachers often assimilate new ideas to fit their existing
schemata instead of accommodating their existing schemata to internalize new
ideas. She suggested that studies providing in-depth, detailed analyses would be
required to better elucidate teachers’ difficulties in accommodating new ideas into
their existing schemata.
Ernest (1989) gave a basic outline in which he states that as relates to
teaching mathematics, it makes sense to study teacher’s views, conceptions or
models of
17
 the nature of mathematics,
 the nature of mathematics teaching, and
 the process of learning mathematics.
Obviously, these categories are too broad and may still be explored and
further subcategorized. Pehkonen (2004) noticed a trend to add further
subcategories (especially including an affective domain): beliefs about
mathematics education, beliefs about self, and beliefs about the social context.
Restricting to teachers’ mathematical beliefs, Goldin (2002) makes a “preliminary
list” of sub-categories that also include affective and cognitive elements:
 Beliefs about the physical world, and about the correspondence of
mathematics to the physical world;
 Specific beliefs, including misconceptions, about mathematical
facts, rules, equations, theorems, etc.;
 Beliefs about mathematical validity, or how mathematical truths
are established;
 Beliefs about effective mathematical reasoning methods or
strategies and heuristics;
 Beliefs about the nature of mathematics, including the foundations,
metaphysics, or philosophy of mathematics;
 Beliefs about mathematics as a social phenomenon;
 Beliefs about aesthetics, beauty, meaningfulness, or power in
mathematics;
18
 Beliefs about individual people who do mathematics, or famous
mathematicians, their traits and characteristics;
 Beliefs about mathematical ability, how it manifests itself or can
be assessed;
 Beliefs about the learning of mathematics, the teaching of
mathematics, and the psychology of doing mathematics;
 Beliefs about oneself in relation to mathematics, including one’s
ability, emotions, history, integrity, motivations, self-concept,
stature in the eyes of others, etc. (pp. 67–68)
Based from this list, it is perceptible that the object of mathematical
beliefs can range from a very specific mathematical concept or process to a
philosophical question, from a particular educational strategy to a role of
mathematics, etc.
Skott (2001) attempted to solve the problem of viewing beliefs and
practice as inconsistent by limiting the types of beliefs he studied. He did this by
focusing his research on beliefs he described as ‘‘teachers’ explicit priorities’’.
These are beliefs of which teachers are explicitly aware and that they can
articulate. His purpose was then to study the relationships that might exist
between these priorities and what takes place in the classroom. Skott focused on
finding what made these explicit priorities and practices consistent rather than
inconsistent.
19
Summary
The study of various literatures from different sources provided the bases
of our study because these studies focused on the nature and understanding of
mathematical beliefs.
It is believed that there is a need to determine the mathematical beliefs in
terms of nature of Mathematics, the learning of Mathematics, and the teaching
efficacy in Mathematics of student teachers of Philippine Normal University. This
will be beneficial to us in our future researches in our teaching profession.
From the union of ideas taken from the reviewed literature, the researchers
enriched their background on the subject of their study specifically on the
mathematical beliefs of student teachers on the nature of Mathematics, the
learning of Mathematics, and the teaching efficacy in Mathematics. In general, the
review provided a solid foundation upon which this study was based.
20
Chapter III
Methodology
Research Design
21
Participants of the Study
Student teachers are the sole participants in this research. Thirty-six fourth
year BSE Mathematics students from the Philippine Normal University-Manila
were randomly selected regardless of their gender to answer the research
instrument. It is assured that the students have undergone their practice teaching
by the time they have answered the questionnaire.
Instrument
The flow chart in Figure 2 represents the visual summary of the steps that
the researchers followed in the construction of the instrument that was used in this
study.
Figure 2. Flow Chart of the Development of the Research Development
The researchers had undergone various researches in different libraries
and websites. They had found out that there are varieties of instruments with
regards to beliefs but only few focuses on the beliefs of practice teachers in
22
learning mathematics. With this, they had adapted the research instruments
Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) developed
by Tatto, Ingvarson, Schwille, Senk, Penk, and Rowley (2008), and the
Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (MTEBI) by Enochs and
Riggs (2002), which were both used in international researches. By the approval
of their research adviser, the research instruments that have been mentioned above
will be used for the data collection.
In this research, three Mathematics Belief Scales were used namely; (a)
the beliefs about nature of mathematics, (b) the beliefs about learning
mathematics, and (c) the mathematics teaching efficacy belief instrument. The
first two instruments are six-point Likert scale and were developed by Tatto,
Ingvarson, Schwille, Senk, Penk, and Rowley (2008). The first instrument is
composed of 12 items and the items included in this area include questions that
explore how future teachers perceive mathematics as a subject (e.g., mathematics
as formal, structural, procedural, or applied). The items are based on works by
Grigutsch et al. (1998) and by Ingvarson et al. (2005, 2007) while the second
instrument is composed of 14 items and the items included in this area includes
questions about the appropriateness of particular instructional activities, questions
about students’ cognition processes, and questions about the purposes of
mathematics as a school subject. The items were scaled as (1) Strongly Disagree,
(2) Disagree, (3) Slightly Disagree, (4) Slightly Agree, (5) Agree, and (6)
Strongly Agree. The third instrument is a five-point Likert scale composed of 23
items and was developed by Enochs and Riggs (2002). The items were scaled as
23
(A) Strongly Agree, (B) Agree, (C) Uncertain, (D) Disagree, and (E) Strongly
Disagree.
Data Gathering Procedure
The flow chart below gives a visual summary of the sequence of data
gathering procedures performed by the researchers in the study.
Figure 3.Flow chart of the Data Gathering Procedure
The group decided to select 36 BSE Mathematics students who finished
their practice teaching from the Philippine Normal University-Manila. The group
had coordinated with the respective students who had been chosen to be a part of
the research and agreed that any answer that they will give in the research
instrument is confidential and will not be directly attributed to them. March 6,
24
2013- the respondents had answered the beliefs scales and after administration,
the researchers had retrieved and tabulated the answers.
Statistical Treatment of Data
For the group of respondents, the proportion of responses endorsing the
statements could then be presented as a measure of the student teachers
endorsement about the belief. If 90 percent of responses fell into the agree and
strongly agree categories, their responses indicated strong support for the belief.
On the contrary, if only 10 or 20 percent of responses fell into these categories,
the belief is seen as receiving little support from the group (Tatto, Schwille, Senk,
Ingverson, Peck, & Rowley, 2008).
The interpretation of the computed mean of the responses for the beliefs in
nature of mathematics and learning mathematics are based on the table below:
Range of the Computed

Description
Mean
4.6 – 6.0 The Mathematics Student Teachers Strongly Agree
1.0 – 4.5 The Mathematics Student Teachers Strongly Disagree
The interpretation of the computed mean of the responses for the beliefs in
teaching efficacy will be based on the preceding table:
Range of the Computed Mean Description

3.6 - 5.0 The Mathematics Student Teachers Agree
1.0 – 3.5 The Mathematics Student Teachers Disagree
25
Chapter IV
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
4.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the analysis of data followed by a discussion of
research findings. The findings relate to research questions that guided the study.
The data were analyzed to identify and describe the Mathematics belief of student
teachers in the nature of mathematics, learning mathematics, and teaching
effectiveness in mathematics. Data were obtained from self-administered
questionnaires, completed by 36 student teachers (n=36), a 36% response rate.
Based on the information that came from the class presidents of the Fourth Year
BSE Mathematics students that all of them had undergone their practice teaching,
this mean that 99 students is the total population (N=99).
A total of 36 questionnaires had been received and all of these 36
questionnaires for this study had met the required inclusion criteria as discussed in
the previous chapter. This represented 36% of the total population.
The questionnaire is comprised of three sections and data gathered will be
presented as follows:
 The first section is the Beliefs about the Nature of Mathematics.
 The second section is the Beliefs about Learning Mathematics.
 The third section is the Beliefs about Teaching Efficacy in
Mathematics.
26
4.2 Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation of Data
Descriptive statistical analysis was used to identify frequencies and
percentages to answer all of the questions in the questionnaire. All of the
respondents answered all the questions therefore percentages reported correspond
to the number of sample (n=36).
4.3 Discussion of Findings
4.3.1 The Beliefs about the Nature of Mathematics
A. Mathematics is a collection of rules and procedures that prescribe
how to solve of problem.
B. Mathematics involves the remembering and application of
definitions, formulas, mathematical facts, and procedures.
C. Mathematics involves creativity and new ideas.
D. In mathematics, many things can be discovered and tried out by
oneself.
E. When solving mathematical task, you need to know the correct
procedure or else you would be lost.
F. If you engage in mathematical tasks, you can discover new
things (e.g., connections, rules, concepts).
G. Fundamental to mathematics is its logical rigor and preciseness.
H. Mathematical problems are can be solved correctly in many
ways.
I. Many aspects of mathematics have practical relevance.
27
J. Mathematics helps solve everyday problems and tasks.
K. To do mathematics requires much practice, correct application of
routines, and problem-solving strategies.
L. Mathematics means learning, remembering, and applying.
All questions generated positive responses (agree or strongly agree)
indicating a favourable response (positive attitude) towards the beliefs in the
nature of mathematics.
The following results were obtained indicating a support with regards to
the beliefs about the nature of mathematics.
 Question A – 72% of the participants (n=26) either agreed or strongly
agreed that Mathematics is a collection of rules and procedures that
prescribe how to solve of problem.
 Question B – 69% of the participants (n=25) either agreed or strongly
agreed that Mathematics involves the remembering and application of
 Question C – 92% of the participants (n=33) either agreed or strongly
agreed that Mathematics involves creativity and new ideas.
 Question D – 86% of the participants (n=31) either agreed or strongly
agreed that in mathematics, many things can be discovered and tried out
by oneself.
28
 Question E – 61% of the participants (n=22) either agreed or strongly
agreed that when solving mathematical task, you need to know the correct
 Question F – 86% of the participants (n=31) either agreed or strongly
agreed that if you engage in mathematical tasks, you can discover new
 Question G – 83% of the participants (n=30) either agreed or strongly
agreed that fundamental to mathematics is its logical rigor and
preciseness.
 Question H - 83% of the participants (n=30) either agreed or strongly
agreed that Mathematical problems are can be solved correctly in many
ways.
 Question I - 83% of the participants (n=30) either agreed or strongly
agreed that many aspects of mathematics have practical relevance.
 Question J - 83% of the participants (n=30) either agreed or strongly
agreed that Mathematics helps solve everyday problems and tasks.
 Question K - 86% of the participants (n=31) either agreed or strongly
agreed that to do mathematics requires much practice, connect application
of routines, and problem-solving strategies.
 Question L - 83% of the participants (n=30) either agreed or strongly
agreed that Mathematics means learning, remembering, and applying.
Thus, the above findings manifest a positive response from the
respondents since the percentage of responses is greater than 50%. The
29
statement Mathematics involves creativity and new ideas got more than 90%
of responses and is said to be strongly supported by the participants (see page
28).
4.3.1.1. Classification of Each Item
The items included in this area include questions that explore how
future teachers perceive mathematics as a subject. Based on the work of
Grigutsch et al. (1998), the items were classified into four subgroups:
a) Mathematics as formal
b) Mathematics as procedural
c) Mathematics as structural; and
d) Mathematics as applied
a. Mathematics as formal subject
The first subgroup includes the first three items (A, B, and C
respectively). The third item as stated a while ago, got the strongest
support from the respondents. Generally, this subgroup was supported and
therefore, can be said to be accepted by the respondents. Also, this
subgroup got an endorsement mean of 5.05 that indicate a strong support
from the respondents (see page 28).
b. Mathematics as procedural subject
The second subgroup that is comprised of items D, E, and F was
also seemed to be supported by the respondents (see page 29) , items D
and F got the same endorsement from the respondents (86%) while it is
30
noticeable that item E got the least support yielding only 61%. Also,
notice that even if items D and F got some percentage (86%) of support, it
cannot be necessarily denoted that the endorsement mean of items D and F
are also the same (refer to Appendix A.1.2.2). Item D got an endorsement
mean of 5.31 while item F got 5.39. This is due to deviation of
respondents between their decisions whether to agree or strongly agree on
the items. This subgroup gathered an endorsement mean of 5.13,
generally, agreed by most respondents.
c. Mathematics as structural subject
The third subgroup is composed of the consecutive items G, H, and
I which were remarkably seen on page 29 because of the same support
(5/6 of the sample) gathered from the respondents. Hence, this subgroup
also gained endorsement from the sample. As stated, in the previous
discussion, it is evident that items under this subgroup got same support
but the endorsement mean differs significantly. Item G got an average of
5.17, H and I got 5.36 specifically. But still, this subgroup seemed not to
change its position and gathered a favourable and highest among the four
subgroups and got total endorsement mean of 5.30. Notice also that items
H and I are still having the same mean but as compared to the deviation of
scores the statement many aspects of mathematics have practical
relevance (Item I), got a lower standard deviation equal to 0.76 (see Table
1.1 on page 76). This means that the respondents favoured item I than item
H, but still, as stated, both gathered the support of the participants.
31
d. Mathematics as applied subject
The fourth subgroup includes the last three items specifically items
J, K, and L. This subgroup of items also gathered strong support from the
respondents. As noticed in pages 27 and 28, no item got an endorsement
less than 80%. Notice that items J and L gathered same percentage of
endorsement but item J got a lower mean than item L. This gradually
implies that item L which is, mathematics means learning, remembering,
and applying is more favourable to the respondents. Generally, this
subgroup got an endorsement mean of 5.24 which indicate a strong
support from the respondents. Thus, it can be said that student teacher
holds a belief that Mathematics is an applied subject.
4.3.1.2 The Two scales of Beliefs about the Nature of Mathematics
Aside from the perception of Mathematics as a subject, the items
are used in this research are separated into two scales:
1. Mathematics as a set of Rules and Procedures
2. Mathematics as a Process of Enquiry
The respondents were not forced to choose between the two sets of beliefs
about the nature of Mathematics; it is quite possible for them to endorse both set
of propositions that is to believe that Mathematics is a set of Rules and
Procedures and a Process of Enquiry. Using these two scales, the research team
expected that future teachers would lean toward one on other view of the nature of
32
Mathematics which implies that there should be a negative correlation between
the two scales.
4.3.1.2.1Mathematics as a set of Rules and Procedures
Respondents who typically agree with statements are precisely the
ones who score highly in this scale and therefore tend to see mathematics
as a set of procedures to be learned, with strict rules as to what is correct
and what is incorrect. The items included in this scale are the following:
1. Item A - Mathematics is a collection of rules and procedures that
prescribe how to solve of problem.
2. Item B - Mathematics involves the remembering and application of
3. Item E - When solving mathematical task, you need to know the correct
4. Item G - Fundamental to mathematics is its logical rigor and preciseness.
5. Item K - To do mathematics requires much practice, correct application of
routines, and problem-solving strategies.
6. Item L - Mathematics means learning, remembering, and applying.
Findings:
Items included in this scale tend to have lower endorsement than
other items (specifically A, B, and E) but this scale got an overall
response mean of 5.01 indicating an evidence that the respondents hold a
strong belief that Mathematics is a set of rules and procedures. Evidently,
33
on the results of the study conducted by Tatto et al. (2008), out of 17
participating countries, Philippines remarkably set the highest percentage
of support from this scale ranging from 88.6% to 89.8% respectively.
4.3.1.2.2 Mathematics as a Process of Enquiry
Respondents who typically agree with the statement included in this
scale are definitely the ones who scored the items highly. They see
mathematics as a means of answering questions and solving problems.
They see mathematical procedures as tools of enquiry. This scale is
comprised with the following statements:
1. Item C - Mathematics involves creativity and new ideas.
2. Item D - In mathematics, many things can be discovered and tried out by
oneself.
3. Item F - If you engage in mathematical tasks, you can discover new
4. Item H - Mathematical problems are can be solved correctly in many
ways.
5. Item I - Many aspects of mathematics have practical relevance.
6. Item J - Mathematics helps solve everyday problems and tasks.
Findings:
Items in this scale on the other hand, tend to have higher
endorsement than other items. Similarly, this scale got an overall response
mean of 5.34 indicating a stronger support compared to the first scale
34
from the respondents. Thus, student teachers hold that Mathematics is a
process of enquiry. An evidence of this finding is the result of the study
conducted by Tatto et al. (2008), that Philippines had shown strong
support for this scale ranging from 89% to 92%.
Overall Findings
As expected by the researchers, the two aforementioned scales should be
negatively correlated but the coefficient of correlation for these two scales yields
0.51 from which, as stated by Garret (1981) that this coefficient indicates a
substantial or marked correlation. Likewise, as stated by Sevilla et al. (1992) that
this coefficient is indicating a moderate correlation. Thus, this finding signifies
that the student teachers prove the possibility that they can endorse the same
proposition at the same time.
The items are found to be really substantial in general when it comes to
the practice of teaching since the student teachers possess beliefs that are
beneficial to their future profession.
4.3.2. The Beliefs about Learning Mathematics
In this section, the researchers focus on the appropriateness of particular
instructional activities, questions about the purposes of mathematics as a school
subject.
The items on this scale are as follows:
A. The best way to do well in mathematics is to memorize all the
formulas.
35
B. Pupils need to be taught exact procedures for solving mathematical
problems.
C. It doesn’t really matter if you understand a mathematical concept.
D. To be good in mathematics you must be able to solve problems
quickly.
E. Pupils learn mathematics best by attending to teacher’s explanations.
F. When pupils are working on mathematical problems, more emphasis
should be put on getting the correct answer than on the process
followed.
G. In addition to getting a right answer in mathematics, it is important to
understand why the answer is correct.
H. Teachers should allow pupils to figure out their own ways to solve
mathematical problems.
I. Non-standard procedures should be discouraged because they can
interfere with learning the correct procedure.
J. Hands-on mathematics experiences aren’t worth the time and expense.
K. Time used to investigate why a solution to a mathematical problem
works is time well spent.
L. Pupils can figure out a way to solve mathematical problems without a
teacher’s help.
M. Teachers should encourage pupils to find their own solutions to
mathematical problems even if they are inefficient.
36
N. It is helpful for pupils to discuss different ways to solve particular
problems.
Not all questions generated positive responses towards the beliefs in
learning mathematics. The following results were obtained indicating the
percentage response of the respondents.
 Question A - 8.33% of the participants (n=3) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that the best way to do well in mathematics is to memorize all
the formulas.
 Question B – 27.78% of the participants (n=10) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that pupils need to be taught exact procedures for solving
 Question C – 2.78% of the participants (n=1) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that it doesn’t really matter if you understand a mathematical
concept.
 Question D - 2.78% of the participants (n=1) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that to be good in mathematics you must be able to solve
problems quickly.
 Question E – 36.11% of the participants (n=13) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that pupils learn mathematics best by attending to teacher’s
explanations.
 Question F –25% of the participants (n=9) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that when pupils are working on mathematical problems, more
37
emphasis should be put on getting the correct answer than on the process
followed.
 Question G – 75% of the participants (n=27) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that in addition to getting a right answer in mathematics, it is
important to understand why the answer is correct.
 Question H – 83% of the participants (n=30) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that teachers should allow pupils to figure out their own ways to
solve mathematical problems.
 Question I – 11.11% of the participants (n=4) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that non-standard procedures should be discouraged because
they can interfere with learning the correct procedure.
 Question J – 5% of the participants (n=2) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that hands-on mathematics experiences aren’t worth the time
and expense.
 Question K - 83% of the participants (n=30) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that time used to investigate why a solution to a mathematical
problem works is time well spent.
 Question L – 36% of the participants (n=13) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that pupils can figure out a way to solve mathematical problems
without a teacher’s help.
 Question M – 50% of the participants (n=18) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that teachers should encourage pupils to find their own solutions
to mathematical problems even if they are inefficient.
38
 Question N – 86% of the participants (n=31) either agreed or strongly
disagreed that it is helpful for pupils to discuss different ways to solve
particular problems.
Based on the findings above, it can be evidently seen that most items
generated negative responses from the respondents. Only items G, H, K, and M
were supported based on the percentage of responses. In addition, items A, C, D,
I, and J received little support from the respondents.
4.3.2.1 Classifications of Each Item
The items in this area are classified into three:
a) appropriateness of particular instructional activities,
b) cognitive processes of students, and
c) purposes of Mathematics as a school subject
a. Appropriateness of Particular Instructional Activities
This subgroup includes five items (E, F, H, M, and N). As seen on
page 38-39, only items H and N got the support of the respondents. Items
E, F, and M did not get the support of the respondents. Item E got a mean
of 4.00 while item F got 3.17 similarly, item F got 4.53. These three
statements from this subgroup got minimal disagreement on the part of the
respondents. Items H and M on the other hand both yielded a mean of 5.36
which reveals that these items are supported by the respondents.
39
Generally, this subgroup yielded a mean of 4.18 that signifies
minimal disagreement from the respondents due to the low support of the
participants on other statements included in this subgroup.
b. Cognitive Processes of Students
The second subgroup is comprised of items B, C, G, K, and L
respectively. Items B, C and L did not get the endorsement from the
respondents while items G and K were favoured by the participants
gathering an at least 75% of the support.
Items B, C, and L, as stated, were not endorsed by the respondents.
Aside from low frequency of participants who either agreed or strongly
agreed these three items only gathered the following averages: 3.78, 2.53,
and 4.22. On contrary, items G and K, also as stated, were seemed to be
endorsed by the student teachers that gathered high averages (5.13 and
5.19) that resulted to a conclusion that student teachers believe that it is
also important to understand why the answer is correct aside from only
getting it correctly, and the time used to investigate why a solution to a
mathematical problem works is time well spent.
Generally, this subgroup yielded a mean of 4.18 that indicates a
minimal disagreement from the respondents. Again, as stated a while ago
that the mean that was computed from this subgroup was affected by the
statements which were not agreed by the respondents.
40
c. Purposes of Mathematics as a School Subject
This subgroup is composed of four items- items A, D, I, and J
respectively. As seen on pages 37-39, none of these items were endorsed
by the student teachers. Similarly, all these items got low mean (see Table
2.4 on page 88).
Generally, this subgroup yielded a mean of 2.65 that denotes
disagreement on the part of the respondents. Thus, this shows that the
respondents do not accept the statements that were proposed to them.
4.3.2.2 Two Scales of Beliefs about Learning Mathematics
There were two scales developed under this area and these are as follows:
1. Learning Mathematics through Following Teacher Direction.
2. Learning Mathematics through Active Involvement.
As with the scales reflecting the beliefs about the nature of
mathematics, respondents are not forced to choose between the two sets of
beliefs about mathematics learning, and can thus endorse both sets of
propositions, believing that mathematics is learned both through active
student involvement and by following teacher directions. Our expectation
was that future teachers would learn toward one or the other view of
learning, and that the two sets would be negatively correlated. This proved
to be the case.
41
4.3.2.2.1. Learning Mathematics through Following Teacher
Direction
Respondents who score highly on this scale tend to see
mathematics as being heavily teacher-centred: the students’ role is to
follow instructions from the teacher, and through doing so learn
mathematics. These respondents typically agree with the following
statements which were included in this scale:
1. The best way to do well in mathematics is to memorize all the
formulas.
2. Pupils need to be taught exact procedures for solving mathematical
problems.
3. It does not really matter if you understand a mathematical problem,
if you can get the right answer.
4. To be good in mathematics you must be able to solve problems
quickly.
5. Pupils learn mathematics best by attending to the teacher’s
explanation.
6. When pupils are working on mathematical problems, more
emphasis should be put on getting the correct answer than on the
process followed.
7. Non-procedures should be discouraged because they can interfere
with learning the correct procedure.
42
8. Hands on mathematics experience aren’t worth the time and
expense.
Findings:
Items in this scale have relatively low mean (see Table 2.5
on page 89). Considering the items, the respondents disagreed to
the first statement. This may imply that the best way to excel in
Mathematics is not to memorize all the formulas. Similarly, pupils
should not always be taught the exact procedure for solving
mathematical procedures because there are easier ways in solving
mathematical problems. Another thing that can be implied from
this result is that the students still need to understand the problem
even if they got the right answer. With regards to the fourth
statement, respondents do not believe that solving mathematics
problems quickly implies being good in mathematics itself.
Another, student teachers did not also agree about putting more
emphasis on getting the correct answer than on process that
supposed to be followed. Student teachers also disagreed about
discouraging non-standard procedures because it can interfere with
the correct learning procedure. Lastly, many respondents did not
agree that the time and amount of money spent for hands on
experience are not worth.
Generally, the mean of this scale is 3.01 which directly
imply that these respondents tend not to see mathematics learning
43
as heavily teacher-centred. An evidence of this finding can be seen
on the research conducted by Tatto et al. (2008) that the student
teachers from the Philippines do not consider teacher-centred
instruction in learning Mathematics.
4.3.2.2.2. Learning Mathematics through Active Involvement
Respondents who score highly on this scale tend to see
mathematics learning as being active learning; students must do
mathematics, conduct their own enquiries, and develop ways to solve
problems if their mathematics learning is to be effective. These
respondents usually agree with statements such as the following, included
in the scale:
1. In addition to getting a right answer in mathematics, it is important to
understand why the answer is correct.
2. Teachers should allow pupils to figure out their own ways to solve
3. Time used to investigate why a solution to a mathematical problem
works is time well spent.
4. Pupils can figure out a way to solve mathematical problems without a
teacher’s help
5. Teachers should encourage pupils to find their own solutions to
mathematical problems even if they are inefficient.
44
6. It is helpful for pupils to discuss different ways to solve particular
problems.
Findings:
Items in this scale have relatively high mean (see Table 2.6 on
page 90) and thus can be inferred as accepted by the student teachers
compared to the preceding scale presented. Respondents agreed on the
statements presented in this scale except items L and M.
Generally, this scale got a mean of 4.97 which implies that student
teachers believe that students learn mathematics through active
involvement. The respondents believe that learning takes place more
effectively using a student-centred classroom. On the study carried-out by
Tatto et al. (2008), it has been revealed that student teachers from the
Philippines hold a belief that students are learning mathematics through
active participation and involvement.
Overall Findings
negatively correlated and the coefficient of correlation for these two scales yields
-0.17 from which, as stated by Garret (1981) that this coefficient indicates a
negligible correlation. Likewise, as stated by Sevilla et al. (1992) that this
coefficient is indicating a negligible correlation. Thus, this finding signifies that
the student teachers lean on one belief, that is, learning mathematics is best
whenever students are actively involved in classroom discussion.
45
The items are found to be really substantial in general when it comes to
their practice teaching since the student teachers possess beliefs that are beneficial
to their future profession.
4.3.3 Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs
In this section, the researchers focus on the beliefs of student teachers
based on their personal efficacy beliefs and the outcome expectancy. The
following items are the statements included in this scale:
1. When a student does better than usual in mathematics, it is often because
the teacher exerted a little extra effort.
2. I will continually find better ways to teach mathematics.
3. Even if I try very hard, I do not teach mathematics as well as I do most
subjects.
4. When the mathematics grades of students improve, it is often due to their
teacher having found a more effective teaching approach.
5. I know the steps necessary to teach mathematics concepts effectively.
6. I am not very effective in monitoring mathematics activities.
7. If students are underachieving in mathematics, it is most likely due to
ineffective mathematics teaching.
8. I generally teach mathematics ineffectively.
9. The inadequacy of a student’s mathematics background can be overcome
by good teaching.
10. The low mathematics achievement of some students cannot generally be
blames on their teachers.
46
11. When a low-achieving child progresses in mathematics, it is usually due to
extra attention given by the teacher.
12. I understand mathematics concepts well enough to be effective in teaching
mathematics.
13. Increased effort in mathematics teaching produces little change in some
students’ mathematics achievement.
14. The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of students in
mathematics.
15. Students’ achievement in mathematics is directly related to their teacher’s
effectiveness in mathematics teaching.
16. If parents comment that their child is showing more interest in
mathematics at school, it is probably due to the performance of the child’s
teacher.
17. I find it difficult to use manipulatives to explain to students why
mathematics works.
18. I am typically able to answer students’ mathematics questions.
19. I wonder if I have the necessary skills to teach mathematics.
20. Given a choice, I would not invite the principal to evaluate my
mathematics teaching.
21. When a student has difficulty understanding a mathematics concept, I am
usually at a loss as to how to help the student understand it better.
22. When teaching mathematics, I usually welcome student questions.
23. I do not know what to do to turn students on to mathematics.
47
Not all questions generated positive responses (agree or strongly agree)
indicating a favourable response (positive attitude) towards the teaching efficacy
in Mathematics.
The following results were obtained indicating a support with regards to
the beliefs about the nature of mathematics.
 Question 1 – 58.33% of the participants (n=21) either agreed or strongly
agreed that when a student does better than usual in mathematics, it is
often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort.
 Question 2 –97.22% of the participants (n=35) either agreed or strongly
agreed that they will continually find better ways to teach mathematics.
agreed that even if they try very hard, they do not teach mathematics as
well as they do most subjects.
agreed that when the mathematics grades of students improve, it is often
due to their teacher having found a more effective teaching approach.
agreed that they know the steps necessary to teach mathematics concepts
effectively.
agreed that they are not very effective in monitoring mathematics
activities.
48
agreed that if students are underachieving in mathematics, it is most likely
due to ineffective mathematics teaching.
agreed that they generally teach mathematics ineffectively.
agreed that the inadequacy of a student’s mathematics background can be
overcome by good teaching.
agreed that the low mathematics achievement of some students cannot
generally be blames on their teachers.
agreed that when a low-achieving child progresses in mathematics, it is
usually due to extra attention given by the teacher.
agreed that they understand mathematics concepts well enough to be
effective in teaching mathematics.
agreed that increased effort in mathematics teaching produces little change
in some students’ mathematics achievement.
agreed that the teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of
students in mathematics.
49
agreed that students’ achievement in mathematics is directly related to
their teacher’s effectiveness in mathematics teaching.
 Question 16 - 75% of the participants (n=27) either agreed or strongly
agreed that if parents comment that their child is showing more interest in
mathematics at school, it is probably due to the performance of the child’s
teacher.
agreed that they find it difficult to use manipulatives to explain to students
why mathematics works.
agreed that they are typically able to answer students’ mathematics
questions.
agreed that they wonder if they have the necessary skills to teach
mathematics.
agreed that given a choice, they would not invite the principal to evaluate
their mathematics teaching.
agreed that when a student has difficulty understanding a mathematics
concept, they are usually at a loss as to how to help the student understand
it better.
50
agreed that when teaching mathematics, they usually welcome student
questions.
agreed that they do not know what to do to turn students on to
mathematics.
Furthermore, this belief scale had been divided into two sub scales:
1. Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy.
2. Mathematics Teaching Outcome Expectancy.
The researchers expect that personal beliefs and outcome expectancy should
accompany each other and thus can be established as positively correlated.
Further, the researchers also expect that the student teachers should not lean on
one subscale from another.
4.3.3.1 Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy
Respondents who scored higher in this subscale tend to hold on
that their beliefs about personal teaching efficacy were substantial in their
teaching practices. These respondents usually agree with statements such
as the following, included in the scale:
1. I will continually find better ways to teach mathematics. (Item 2)
2. Even if I try very hard, I do not teach mathematics as well as I do most
subjects. (Item 3)
51
3. I know the steps necessary to teach mathematics concepts effectively.
(Item 5)
4. I am not very effective in monitoring mathematics activities. (Item 6)
5. I generally teach mathematics ineffectively. (Item 8)
6. The inadequacy of a student’s mathematics background can be
overcome by good teaching. (Item 9)
7. I understand mathematics concepts well enough to be effective in
teaching mathematics. (Item 12)
8. I find it difficult to use manipulatives to explain to students why
mathematics works. (Item 17)
9. I am typically able to answer students’ mathematics questions. (Item
18)
10. I wonder if I have the necessary skills to teach mathematics. (Item 19)
11. Given a choice, I would not invite the principal to evaluate my
mathematics teaching. (Item 20)
12. When a student has difficulty understanding a mathematics concept, I
am usually at a loss as to how to help the student understand it better.
(Item 21)
13. When teaching mathematics, I usually welcome student questions.
(Item 22)
14. I do not know what to do to turn students on to mathematics. (Item 23)
52
Findings:
Of the 14 items included in this subscale, six items (items 2, 5, 9,
12, 18, and 22) were agreed by the respondents while eight items (items 3,
6, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23) were not agreed by the respondents (see
Tables 3.1-3.2 on pages 93-94).
According to the student teachers, good teaching can overcome the
inadequacy of a students’ mathematics background. When teaching
mathematics, they usually welcome students’ questions. They are typically
able to answer students’ mathematics questions and at the same time, they
understand mathematics concept well enough to be effective in teaching
mathematics. Further, these student teachers know the steps necessary to
teach mathematic effectively and they will continually find better ways to
teach mathematics.
The response of the student teachers also denoted their refusal to
agree on other statements presented into them in this subscale. They
believe that they have the necessary skill in teaching mathematics. They
are always ready for an evaluation, if given a choice, from the principal.
Further, they also believe that they teach mathematics well to their
students. They find it not difficult to use manipulatives in explaining
students why mathematics works. They know what to do to turn students
on to mathematics and that whenever the student has difficulty in
mathematics; they know how to help the student understand it better.
53
On the test conducted by the researchers, the results showed that
the personal mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs of student teachers
really affect their beliefs in their teaching effectiveness in mathematics.
Therefore, student teachers tend to have positive beliefs about their
personal teaching efficacy in mathematics.
4.3.3.2 Mathematics Teaching Outcome Expectancy
Respondents who scored higher in this subscale tend to hold on
that their beliefs about their mathematics teaching outcome expectancy
were substantial in their teaching practices. These respondents usually
agree with statements such as the following, included in the scale:
1. When a student does better than usual in mathematics, it is often
because the teacher exerted a little extra effort. (Item 1)
2. When the mathematics grades of students improve, it is often due to
their teacher having found a more effective teaching approach. (Item
4)
3. If students are underachieving in mathematics, it is most likely due to
ineffective mathematics teaching. (Item 7)
4. The low mathematics achievement of some students cannot generally
be blames on their teachers. (Item 10)
5. When a low-achieving child progresses in mathematics, it is usually
due to extra attention given by the teacher. (Item 11)
6. Increased effort in mathematics teaching produces little change in
some students’ mathematics achievement. (Item 13)
54
7. The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of students in
mathematics. (Item 14)
8. Students’ achievement in mathematics is directly related to their
teacher’s effectiveness in mathematics teaching. (Item 15)
9. If parents comment that their child is showing more interest in
mathematics at school, it is probably due to the performance of the
child’s teacher. (Item 16)
Findings:
Of the 9 items included in this subscale, six items (items 4, 10, 11,
14, 15, and 16) were agreed by the respondents while three items (items 1,
7, and 13) were not agreed by the respondents (see Tables 3.1-3.2 on
pages 93-94).
According to the student teachers, a new found more effective
teaching approach may lead to the improvement of the students’ grade;
similarly, extra attention given by the teachers to the low-achieving
children may result to progresses in Mathematics. More interest shown in
Mathematics by the child may also be probably due to the performance of
the teacher. But, the students low mathematics achievement cannot
generally be blamed on their teachers even though the latter has generally
the responsible for the students’ achievement.
Also, according to the student teachers, when a student does better
than usual in Mathematics, it is often because the teacher exerted a more
55
extra effort; likewise, increased effort in Mathematics teaching produces a
big change in the students’ mathematics achievement.
Overall Findings
positively correlated and the coefficient of correlation for these two scales yields
0.47 from which, as stated by Garret (1981) that this coefficient indicates a
substantial or marked correlation. Likewise, as stated by Sevilla et al. (1992) that
this coefficient is indicating a moderate correlation. Thus, this finding signifies
that there is a relationship between the personal mathematics teaching efficacy
beliefs and the mathematics teaching outcome expectancy.
The items in this instrument are found to be really substantial in general
because the aforementioned items are visibly seen, based on their responses, in
their practice of teaching.
4.4. General Discussion
The student teachers’ responses on the questionnaire about the nature of
Mathematics revealed that they believe there are rules to be strictly followed as
what is correct and what is not. Also, their responses denoted that they see
Mathematics as a means of answering questions and solving problems.
In learning Mathematics, they have considered the role of the students as
to not directly following all the instructions given by the teachers in solving
problem. They see mathematics learning as being active learning; students must
56
do mathematics, conduct their own enquiries, and develop ways to solve problems
if their mathematics learning is to be effective.
According to their responses on the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Belief
Instrument, they believe that they teach mathematics effectively to their students
and effectively monitor the mathematics activities. In addition to that, it was also
shown in the data gathered that students’ achievement in Mathematics is directly
related to the teacher’s effectiveness in Mathematics teaching.
57
Chapter V
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
Summary of Findings
The Pearson-Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r) was performed
as a means to identify the relationships between the different mathematical beliefs
of the student teachers. For the beliefs on the nature of Mathematics, which was
divided into Mathematics as a set of rules and procedures and Mathematics as a
process of inquiry, the correlation coefficient indicated that there was a substantial
or marked correlation between the two (Garret, 1981), which was contradicting to
the assumption of the researchers that they should be negatively correlated. This
might be due to the possibility that student teachers can endorse the same
proposition at the same time.
For the beliefs on learning Mathematics, which was further scaled into
Learning Mathematics through Following Teacher Directions and Learning
Mathematics through Active Involvement, the correlation coefficient computed
indicated a negligible correlation. This signifies that the student teachers lean on
the beliefs that learning Mathematics is best whenever students are actively
involved in classroom discussion.
Furthermore, for the Mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs that was scaled
into Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy and Mathematics Teaching
Outcome Expectancy, the correlation coefficient showed that the two scales have
58
substantial or marked correlation (Garret, 1981), which implies that there is a
relationship between the two scales.
Conclusions
This study on the mathematical beliefs add further evidences that student
teacher hold beliefs even before their practice teaching and apply these in their
teaching practice. The result of the study implies that there are connections
between their beliefs in the nature and learning of mathematics towards their
beliefs in their efficiency in teaching. This study also found that the beliefs in the
nature of mathematics held by student teachers are also related to their beliefs in
learning mathematics. The results give support to the researchers’ assumptions in
the literature that the beliefs about nature and learning mathematics held by
student teachers are evident in their practice to their field. The significance of
beliefs in the mathematics teaching efficacy is becoming obvious, with support
found in other research literature and this study. Thus, mathematics teaching
efficacy beliefs are expected to become more significant in analysis of teacher
education, not only in understanding the current teaching performance of
mathematics teachers but also in understanding the performance of the students.
In summary, student teachers’ beliefs in mathematics are essential tools in
their future teaching career. It can also be noted that the performance of students
are also affected by the beliefs held by their teacher.
Recommendations
Good teaching can overcome the inadequacy of a students’ mathematics
background. Pre-service teachers should welcome students’ questions when
59
teaching mathematics and be able to answer students’ mathematics questions. At
the same time, they should also understand the concept of mathematics well
enough to be effective in teaching mathematics. Further, the pre-service teachers
should continually find better ways to teach mathematics.
Pre-service teachers should have the necessary skill in teaching
mathematics and thus teach mathematics effectively to their students; they should
also find a more effective teaching approach that may lead to the improvement of
their students’ grade; similarly, they should give extra attention to the low-
achieving children for the students to progress in Mathematics. Pre-service
teachers should increase their effort in teaching mathematics for this will give a
positive result to the performance of the students.
60
Bibliography
Anderson, J. (1997). Teachers’ reported use of problem solving teaching

strategies in primary mathematics classrooms. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr
(Eds.), People in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 20th Annual
Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp.
50–57). Rotorua, NZ: MERGA.
Andrews, P., & Hatch, G. (1999). A new look at secondary teachers’ conceptions
of mathematics and its teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2),
203–223.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a motivational paradigm for effective teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28–32.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching:
Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we
decide? American Educator, 14-17, 20-22, & 43-46.
Bandura, A. (1986). A social cognitive theory. Social foundations of thought and
action.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barkatsas, A., Malone, J. A. (2005). Typology of Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs
about Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Instructional Practices. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, roč. 17, č. 2, s. 69–90.
Baydar, C. (2000). Beliefs of pre-service mathematics teachers at the Middle East
Technical Universty and the Gazi University about the nature of mathematics
and teaching of mathematics. Ortadoğu Üniversitesi Master Thesis.
Belief research in mathematics education. Nordic Studies in Mathematics
Education.
Berger, P. (1999). Affective Components of Teachers' Computer Beliefs: Role
Specific Aspects. European Research in Mathematics Education I.III: From a
Study of Teaching Practices to Issues in Teacher Education: Vol. 3.
Brian, E. (2011). Elementary teacher’s mathematical content knowledge, efficacy,
problem solving abilities, and beliefs in two alternative certification programs.
Mathematics teaching-research journal online, Vol. 5 No. 1.
Brown, D. F., & Rose, T. D. (1995). Self-reported classroom impact of teachers’
theories about learning and obstacles to implementation. Action in Teacher
Education, 17(1), 20–29.
Buchmann, M. (1987). Teacher knowledge: The lights that teachers live by.
Oxford Review of Education, 13, 151–164.
Bulut, S. & Baydar, B. (2002). Öğretmenlerin matematiğin doğası ve öğretimi ile
ilgili inançlarının matematik eğitimindeki önemi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23:62-66.
Cakiroglu, J., & Boone, W.J. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs and their conceptions of photosynthesis and inheritance. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 14(1), 1-14.
61
Calderhead, J. (1996).Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C.
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York:
Macmillan.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Loef, M., & Peterson, P. L. (1989). Teachers’
pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1),
1–40.
Chan, Kwok-wai (2004) "Preservice Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs and
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning : Cultural Implications for
Research in Teacher Education.," Australian Journal of Teacher Education:
Vol. 29: Iss. 1, Article 1.
Cheng, M. H. (2002). Becoming confident teachers of science: Changes of
science teaching efficacy beliefs. (ERIC Reproduction Service Number:
ED463977).
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255-296).
New York: MacMillan.
Clement, L. L. (1999). The constitution of teachers’ orientations toward teaching
mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, and
San Diego State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International,
60(06), 1949A.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching.
Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337.
Contreras, L., Climent, N. & Carrillo, J. (1999). Teachers' Beliefs on Problem
Solving and Mathematics Education. European Research in Mathematics
Education I.III: From a Study of Teaching Practices to Issues in Teacher
Education: Vol. 3.
Cross, Dionne I. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: Examining
mathematics teachers’ belief structures and their influence on instructional
practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, roč. 12, č. 5, s. 325–
346.
Czerniak, C. M. (1990, April). A study of self-efficacy, anxiety, and science
knowledge in pre-service elementary teachers. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching in
Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dede, Y. & Uysal, F. (June 2012). Examining Turkish Preservice Elementary
Teachers' Beliefs about the Nature and the Teaching of Mathematics.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science: Vol. 2, No. 12.
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-
making. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12.
Enochs L., & Riggs I. Mathematics teaching efficacy belief instrument (MTEBI).
Ernest, P. (1989a). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P.
Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of art (pp. 249–254). New
York: Falmer.
Ernest, P. (1989b). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics
teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13–34.
62
Fajet, W., Bello, M., Leftwich, S. A., Mesler, J.L., & Shaver, A.N. (2005). Pre-
service teachers’ perceptions in beginning education classes. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(6), 717-727.
Flake, C.L. (1993). Holistic Education: Principles, perspectives and practices. A
Book of readings based on education 2000: A Holistic Perspective. Brandon:
Holistic Education Press.
Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996) Preservice elementary teachers’ views of
pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 12(4), 429–442.
Frank, M. L. (1990). What myths about mathematics are held and conveyed by
teachers? The Arithmetic Teacher, 37(5), 10–12.
Frost, J. H. (2010). Looking through the lens of a teacher’s life: The power of
prototypical stories in understanding teachers’ instructional decisions in
mathematics. Teaching and teacher education., roč. 26, č. 2.
Furinghetti, F. & Pehkonen, E. (2002). Rethinking characterizations of beliefs. In
G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. To¨ rner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in
mathematics education? ( Vol. 31, pp. 39–57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Goldin, G. A. (2002a). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In
G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in
mathematics education (pp. 59–72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Goldin, G. A. (2002b). Representation in mathematical learning and problem
solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 197–218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Handal, B. (2002, September). Teachers’ beliefs and gender, faculty position,
teaching socio-Economic area, teaching experience and academic
qualifications. Proceedings of the 2002 International Biannual Conference of
the UWS Self Research Centre, Sydney.
Handal, B. (2003). Teachers' Mathematical Beliefs: A Review. The Mathematics
Educator: Vol. 13, No. 2.
Harel, G. (1993). On teacher education programs in mathematics. International
Journal for Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, č. 25, s. 113–
119.
Hart, L. C. (2002). Preservice teachers’ beliefs and practice after participating in
an integrated content/methods course. School Science and Mathematics, 102,
4–14.
House, J. (2006). Mathematics Beliefs and Achievement of Elementary School
Students in Japan and the United States: Results From the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study. The Journal of Genetic Psychology.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1989). Supervising student teachers. In A. E.
Woolfolk (Ed.), Research perspectives on the graduate education of teachers
(pp. 108-131). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hoy, W., & Woolfolk, A. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 279–300.
63
Hoyles, C., Newman, K., & Noss, R. (2001). Changing patterns of transition from
school to university mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics
Education in Science and Technology 32(6), 829-845.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Jesky-Smith, R. (2002). Me, teach science? Science and Children, 39(6), 26-30.
Jirotkova, D. (2012). Tool for diagnosing the teacher’s educational style in
mathematics. Orbis Scholae. roč. 6, č. 2.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27, 65}90.
Kiviet A.M., & Mji A. (2003). Sex differences in self-efficacy beliefs of
elementary science teachers. Psychol Rep. 92(1), 333-338.
Lappan, G., & Even, R. (1989). Learning to teach: Constructing meaningful
understanding of mathematical content. East Lansing, MI: National Center for
Research on Teacher Education.
Latvian Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs on Effective Teaching.
Leatham, K. (2006). Viewing Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs as Sensible Systems.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education.
Leatham, K. R. (2002). Preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ beliefs about
teaching with technology. Athens, GA: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Georgia.
Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E. & Torner, G. (Eds.) (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable
in mathematics education? (Vol. 31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Lovat, T. J., & Smith, D. (1995). Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited.
Australia: Social Science Press.
McAninch, A. M. (1993). Teacher thinking and the case method. New York:
Teachers College Press.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: a
reconceptualisation. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 575-596). New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and
student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to
junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258
Miller, R. (1991). “Introduction” in Miller, R. (Ed.), New Directions in
Education, pp 1–3, Brandon, VT. Holistic Education Press.
Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and
achievement: A desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Moreira, C. (1991). Teachers’ attitudes towards mathematics and mathematics
teaching: perspectives across two countries. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
64
Education. Assissi, Italy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
413164.)
Murphy, E. (1997). Characteristics of constructivist learning and teaching.
Universite Laval, Quebec. Retrieved from http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/
~elmurphy/emurphy/ cle3.html.
National Research Council (1989). Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on
the Future of Mathematics Education, National Academy Press, Washington,
DC.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Pehkonen, E. (2008). State-of-the-art in mathematical beliefs research: Regular
Lecture. In ICME-10 proceedings: ICME 10 2004. [online]. [cit. 2012–05–
08]. Dostupne z _http://www.icme10.dk/proceedings/pages/side01main.htm_.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college
years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 256 s.
Philipp, R. Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs and Affect. Teachers and Teaching.
Plourde, L.A., & Alawiye, O. (2003). Constructivism and elementary preservice
science teacher preparation: knowledge to application, College student
journal, 37(3), 334-342.
Ponte, J. (1999). Teachers' Beliefs and Conceptions as a Fundamental Topic in
Teacher Education. European Research in Mathematics Education I.III: From
a Study of Teaching Practices to Issues in Teacher Education: Vol. 3.
Ponte, J. P. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions as a fundamental topic in
teacher education. In K. Krainer, F. Goffree & P. Berger (Eds.) Proceedings
of the First Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics
Education. Vol 3, pp. 43-49.
Ponte, J., Berger, P., Cannizzaro, L., Contreras,L. & Safuanov, I. (1999).
Research on Teachers' Beliefs: Empirical Work and Methodological
Challenges. European Research in Mathematics Education I.III: From a
Study of Teaching Practices to Issues in Teacher Education: Vol. 3.
Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school
teacher's mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550-576.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.
Sikula (Ed.), The handbook of research in teacher education (pp. 102–119).
New York: Macmillan.
Riggs, E. M., & Kimbrough, D.L. (2002). Implementation of constructivist
pedagogy in a geoscience course designed for pre-service k-6 teachers:
progress, pitfalls, and lessons learned. Journal of Geoscience Education,
50(1), 49-55.
Roesken, B. & Casper, M. (2011). Current State of Research on Mathematical
Beliefs XVII.
Roesken, B. (2011). Hidden dimensions in the professional development of
mathematics teachers. Sense Publishers.
65
Ryang, D. (2012). Exploratory analysis of Korean elementary preservice teachers’
mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs. In Z. Argun, International electronic
journal of mathematics education, 7(2), 45-61.
Schmidt, W. H., & Kennedy, M. M. (1990). Teachers’ and teacher candidates’
beliefs about subject matter and about teaching responsibilities. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320902.)
Schubert, N.A. (1981). Educators' perceptions of the degree that their students
learn according to selected principles of learning. University of Southern
Mississippi. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 222491).
Sevilla, C. G., Ochave, J. A., Punsalan, T. G., Regala, B. P., Uriarte, G. G. (1992).
Research methods. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Skott, J. (2010) Shifting the Direction of Belief Research: From Beliefs to
Patterns of Participation. In: Pinto, M.F. & Kawasaki, T.F. (Eds) Proceedings
of the 34th Conference of the International Group for Psychology of
Mathematics Education. 4, 193-200 Belo Horizonte, Brazil: PME.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1998). Teacher efficacy and the vulnerability of
the difficult-to-teach student. In J. Brophy (Ed.). Advances in Research on
Teaching, 7: Expectations in the Classroom. New York, NY: JAI Press.
Southwell, B. & Khamis, M. (1992). Beliefs about mathematics and mathematics
education. In K. Owens, B. Perry, & B. Southwell (Eds.) Space, the first and
final frontier. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the
MathematicsResearch Group of Australasia (pp. 497–509). Sydney:MERGA.
Speer, N. M. (2008). Connecting Beliefs and Practices: A Fine-Grained Analysis
of a College Mathematics Teacher’s Collections of Beliefs and Their
Relationship to His Instructional Practices. Cognition and Instruction. roč. 26,
č. 2, s. 218–267.
Stemhagen, K. Democracy and School Math: Teacher Belief-Practice Tensions
and the Problem of Empirical Research on Educational Aims. Democracy &
Education: Vol. 19, No. 2.
Stipek, D., Givvin, K., Salmon, J.& MacGyvers, V. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and
practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education
17.
Stipek, D., Salmon, J., Givvin, K., Kazemi, E., Saxe, G., & Mac- Gyvers, V.
(1998). The value (and convergence) of practices promoted by motivation
researchers and mathematics education reformers. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 29, 465}488.
Stonewater, J. K., & Oprea, J. M. (1988). An analysis of in-service teachers’
mathematical beliefs: A cognitive development perspective. In M. J. Behr, C.
B. Lacampagne, & M. M.
Swars, S. L., Daane, C. J., & Giesen, J. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and
mathematics teacher efficacy: What is the relationship in elementary
preservice teachers? School Science and Mathematics, 106(7), 306-315.
Sztajn, P. (2003). Adapting reform ideas in different mathematics classrooms:
Beliefs beyond mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6,
53–75.
66
Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. (1984). The impact of the student teaching
experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher
Education, 35(6), 28-36.
Tatto, M., Schwille J., Senk S., Ingverson L., Peck R., & Rowley G. (2008).
Teacher education and development studies (TEDS-M). International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA):
Netherlands.
Taylor, T. (1990). Mathematical attitude development from a Vygotskian
perspective. Mathematical Education Research Journal, 4(3), 8–23.
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 (pp. 127}146). New York: Macmillan.
Torner, G. (2002). Mathematical Beliefs — A Search for a Common Ground:
Some Theoretical Considerations on Structuring Beliefs, Some Research
Questions, and Some Phenomenological Observations. In Pehkonen, E.,
Leder, G. C., Torner, G. (eds). Beliefs: a hidden variable in mathematics
education? Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers, s. 73–94.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
UNESCO-APNIEVE. (2002). Learning To Be: A Holistic and Integrated
Approach to Values Education for Human Development: A UNESCO-
APNIEVE Sourcebook No. 2 for Teachers, Students and Tertiary Level
Instructors. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for
Education.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P.
Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17–40). New York: W. W.
Norton.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (1997). Peer assisted learning: impact on self-
efficacy and achievement. (ERIC Reproduction Service Number: ED409324).
Weinstein, G. L. (2004). Their side of the story: Remedial college algebra
students. Mathematics and Computer Education, 38(2), 230-240.
Wenta, R. G. (2000). Efficacy of preservice elementary mathematics teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Whitman, N. C., & Morris, K. L. (1990). Similarities and differences in teachers’
beliefs about effective teaching of mathematics: Japan and Hawaii.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 71–81.
Wilson, M. & Cooney, T. J. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and
development. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Torner (Eds.), Beliefs: A
hidden variable in mathematics education? ( Vol. 31, pp. 127–147).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wood, E. F., & Floden, R. E. (1990). Where teacher education students agree:
Beliefs widely shared before teacher education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 331781.)
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A
case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587}616.
67
Yesil-Dagli, U., Lake, V. & Jones, I. Preservice Teachers' Beliefs about
Mathematics and Science Content and Teaching. Journal of Research in
Education: Vol. 21, No. 2.
Zalska, J. (2012). Mathematics Teachers' Mathematical Beliefs: A
Comprehensive Review of International Research. Scientia in educatione 3(1).
68

Body

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

Body

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter I

The Problem and its Background

“Pre-service teachers enter teacher education programs with well-

Fajet, Bello, Leftwich, Mesler, & Shaver, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, McDiarmid,

examining pre-service teachers’ beliefs in these areas are important in order to

enhance their understandings of teaching strategies and content in mathematics.

Teachers’ and students’ mathematical beliefs have been a topic of interest

mathematics was brought up as one of the central research topics in mathematics

to more specific sub-concepts: emotions, narrowly defined attitudes, values, and,

emotions, attitudes, beliefs and values in mathematics education: (1) emotions

embedded in context), (2) attitudes (moderately stable predispositions toward

ways of feeling in classes of situations, involving a balance of affect and

validity, or applicability, usually stable and highly cognitive, may be highly

characterized as “personal truths”, stable, highly affective as well as cognitive,

may also be highly structured), (p. 61).

This research examines the nature and role of teachers’ mathematical

beliefs in instruction and student learning. It is argued that teachers’ mathematical

beliefs can be categorized in multiple dimensions. These beliefs are said to

originate from previous traditional learning experiences mainly during schooling.

Once acquired, teachers’ beliefs are eventually reproduced in classroom

instruction. It is also argued that due to their conservative nature, educational

environments foster and reinforce the development of traditional instructional

instructional behaviors, the nature of the relationship is complex and mediated by

After conducting the research, the researchers will be able to:

A. Determine the beliefs of pre-service teachers in nature, learning, and

efficacy in teaching mathematics.

B. Create generalizations based on the findings in the interpretation of data.

1. What are the different beliefs of pre-service teachers in the nature of

2. What are the different beliefs of pre-service teachers in the learning of

Significance of the Study

What goes on in the mathematics classroom may be directly related to the

formation of beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics (Emenaker, 1996).

mathematical beliefs and their instructional practice is dialectical in nature and is

mediated by many contradictory factors (Thompson, 1992; Wood et al., 1991;

Pajares, 1992, Ponte, 1999). Teachers’ beliefs do influence their instructional

practice; however, a precise one-to-one causal relationship cannot be asserted

classroom culture. Teachers’ teaching methods and classroom practices convey

subjects (Bulut & Baydar, 2002).

Teachers’ mathematical beliefs are personal and are therefore mental

have been conducted to obtain “typical” teachers’ mathematical beliefs.

Mathematical beliefs of teachers have been analyzed statistically and in many

instances judgments were passed on right-and-wrong criteria by researchers.

Although patterns are identifiable within representative samples, these studies

differences could be alternatively interpreted either as stages of a developmental

process, individual cognitive differences, or simply due to differences in socio-

economic status, educational systems, or cultural environments (Moreira, 1991;

Firm beliefs about what it takes to be an effective teacher are usually

carried by pre-service teachers as they enter teacher education programs (Book,

Sobel, 2001; Weinstein, 1989).

mixed with anxiety, hesitancy, and feeling of incompetent.Cheng, 2002; Hart,

Tabacknick, 1981). Therefore, in order to create a substantial paradigm shift

teacher education programs must challenge pre-service teachers’ beliefs (Pajares,

A recurring theme in the teacher education literature is that teacher

education programs do little to change pre-service teachers’ beliefs (i.e., Bandura,

Through participating in appropriate method courses that are taught by

Tosun, 2000) Furthermore, according to several studies, university professors and

courses include developing positive beliefs systems with pre-service teachers

interesting (Crowther, 1998). Therefore, invaluable opportunities for teacher

pre-service teachers’ beliefs.

A growing body of literature suggests that pre-service teachers, that is,

traditional than progressive with respect to the teaching of mathematics. Research

structures overvaluing the role of memorization of rules and procedures in the

learning and teaching of school mathematics.