Name : Iffah Maritsatul Ulya (20310071)

Nur Sya'diyah (20310089)

Fina Ismatul Uyun (20310018)

Tenses on Conclusion

Present Perfect Tense

1. This study has shown that espoused beliefs about mathematics

2. It has shown that there can be some differences in these beliefs

Simple Present Tense

1. Mathematics education are so entrenched among many of the teachers that the impact of a reform
agenda will be minimal

2. This broadening of the sample is one way in which this study will be extended in the future

3. Another is to pursue the challenge to compare espoused and enacted beliefa of secondary
mathematics teachers

Past Future Continuous Tense

1. It would be surprising if similar result were not found

Head Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs Aboul the Learning and Teaching ofMathematics

BobPerry PeterHoward

University of WesfernSydnexjMncarthur Australian CatholicVniversil:ij

This paper reports on an investigakon nS teaches helieJs z»nceming

thenatureo1 mathematics and the learning and teaching of
mathematics. The focus is on the espoused beliefs of 40 Head
Mathematics Teachers in Australian secondary schools. These
beliefs are compared with the espoused beliefs of classroom
mathematics teachers in the same schools and with recent
mathematics education reform documents from Australia and
USA. A confirmatory factor analysis of responses from a
specificaPy constructed survey identified two factors (child-
centredness and Oansmission) which form the basis for the
comparative analysis. Interviews with eight of the Head
Mathematics Teachers who responded to %e survey provide
further detail for these comparisons. The ramifications of the
similarities and differences in espoused beliefs oS the different
groups oS teachers and the resorm documents arediscussed.

Though the investigation of teachers’ beliefs is a relative recent area of , research

(McLeod, 1992; Thompson, 1992), it is generally agreed that such beliefs play a critical
role in determining how teachers teach (Barnett & Sather, 1992; Pajares, 1992; van
Zoest, Jones, & Thornton, 1994)—even if the precise link between what teachers say
(espoused beliefs) and what they do (enacted beliefs) is not nearly so clear (Bishop &
Clarkson, 1998; Sosniak, Elhington, & Varelas, 1991; Thompson, 1992). Even further,
teachers’ espoused beliefs can often seem to be in internal conflict. Sosniak et al. (1991),
in their study of teachers’ beliefs arising from the Second International Mathematics
Study, found that teachers can “hold position about the aims of instruction in
mathematics, the role of the teacher, the ' nature of learning, and the nature of the
subject matter itself which would seem to be logically incompatible” (p . 127). In spite
of these apparent difficulties, it is clear thattheespousedbeliefs
aboutmathematics,mathematics learning,and mathematics teaching
are important and studies should be continued. This paper continues the authors’
research agenda commenced in 1994 (Perry & Howard, 1994) which has investigated
primary and secondary teachers’ espoused beliefs about lhe learning and leaching of
mathematics (Howard, Perry, & Lindsay, 1997; Perry, Howard, & Conroy, 1996; Perry,
Tracey, & Howard, 1998), and comparison between the beliefs of these two groups of
teachers (Tracey, Perry, & Howard, 1998), by considering the espoused beliefs of lhe
curriculum leaders in secondary school mathematics and those teachers whom theylead.

Beliefs about lhe nature of mathematics and how mathematics is done “are important
not only because they influence how one thinD about, approaches, and follows through
on mathematical tasks but also because they influence how one studies mathematics
and how and when one attends to mathematics instruction” (Garofalo
1989,p.502).Itisrecognised that
astudent’sprime,butbynomeansonly,sourceofmathemaficalexperiencesistheclassro
om(Franke,1988;National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1998) and that what
occurs in the mathematics classroom influences student beliefs (Relich, 1995).
Critical to the classroom implementation of the learning and teaching of
mathematics is the teacher and, in particular, the beliefs of the teacher. All teachers
hold beliefs towards the learning and teaching of mathematics. These beliefs
influence and guide teachers in their decision making and in their implementation
of teaching strategies (Baroody, 1987). Indeed, it has been suggested that the
investigation of beliefs about learning and teaching may well be the most critical
factor in educational research (Pajares,1992).

One model for categorising beliefs about the teaching of mathematics (Kuhs & Ball,
1986) suggested that teachers hold views falling into four broad categories: learner
focused; content focused with an emphasis on conceptual knowledge; content focused
with an emphasis on performance; and classroom focused. Another perspective is
offered by Thompson (1992) who reported that teachers’ conceptions of mathematics
appear to be related to their views about teaching mathematics. In particular, their
beliefs seem to evolve from their teaching experience rather than formal study and
there appears to be a strong relationship between teachers’ conceptions of teaching
and their conceptions of students’ mathematical knowledge (Sosniak et a1.,1991).

We have derived a further model of teacher beliefs from our current research anfrom
various mathematics education reform statements (Australian Education Council, 1991,
1994; Cobb & Bauersfeld, 1995; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 1995).
This model is based on two factors which describe what teachers believe about
mathematics, mathematics teaching, and mathematics learning (Perry et al., 1996; Howard
et a1., 1997). These two factors, which we call transmission and child-centredness, are
defined in thefollowing ways:

 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);
 Child-centredness: 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).
This duality of factors is not new and has been described by many authors in
various ways. Sosniak et a1. (1991) comment as follows:

Jackson (1986) labels these orientations “the mimetic and the

transformative,” terms which he says encompass the differences expressed
in long-standing debates between “traditional” and “progressive”
educators, over “subject- centred” and “child-centred” practices ... . One of
the traditions isconcerned primarily with the transmission of factual and
procedural knowledge while the other emphasises qualitative
transformations in the character and outlook of the learner. (p. 121)

Stipek & Byler (1997), in their study of early childhood teachers’ ‘beliefs about
appropriate education for young children” (p. 312), designated two similar factors
as “child-centred beliefs” and “basic skills beliefs,” while Lubinski, Thornton, Heyl, &
Klass (1994) described factors which can be compared with those introduced above
as the ends of a continuum of teachers’ beliefs. The analysis reported in this paper
considers the two factors as being separate rather than two extremes of one beliefs
factor.

Head Mathematics Teachers

Head Mathematics Teachers' (HMTs) are the leaders of school mathematics

faculties, both in terms of curriculum and personnel. The HMT is responsible for the
implementation of the mandatory mathematics syllabuses and for the standards of
teaching and professional development of all the mathematics teachers in the
school. The HMT is also a member of the school executive,
responsiblefortherunningof theschool,butusuallyhasnoroleintheselectionof
teachers to work in theschool.

The role of curriculum leaders such as HMTs in influencing their faculty’s

approaches to teaching or their beliefs about that teaching does not seem to have
excited a great deal of research activity. However, Weissglass (1991) and Milford
(1998) have noted that HMTs do play significant roles in facilitating change in their
teachers, particularly in terms of their classroom behaviours. Milford (1998)
suggests that these roles involve modelling, affirmation and support of the faculty
members.

Researchquestions
 This paper considers the following research questions dealing with the beliefs of
HMTs and their faculty about mathematics, mathematics learning, and
mathematicsteaching.

 Can the beliefs of secondary mathematics teachers be characterisedin terms

of the belief factors transmission and child-centredness?
 How do the beliefs of Head Mathematics Teachers (HMTs) and other
classroom mathematics teachers (OMTs) compare on these twofactors?
 What consequences for mathematics learning and teaching arise from this
comparison?

Method
The
termstudy reported
used in in this
New South Walespaper forms
public a subset
secondary of a larger
schools. study
In some in which
systems, they This is the as
are known
MathematicsCoordinators. Total of 939 primary and secondary mathematics
teacherresponded to a survey dealing with their use of manipulatives in mathematics
learning and teaching and their beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and
mathematics teaching. The subset of this sample on whose responses this paper is
based consists of 233 mathematics teachers in secondary schools in the South Western
suburbs of Sydney. Only data concerning the espoused beliefs of these teachers are
reported here.

The region in which the study was conducted is recognised as one of low
socioeconomic status, in which there are pockets of high unemployment and a large
number of students of non-English speaking background. Employing authorities
describe it as a relatively ‘hard-to-staff’ region for teachers and as a consequence it
has a disproportionately high number of young, inexperienced teachers in its schools.

Two data collection methods were used in the study reported in this paper. The
first was a researcher-designed questionnaire containing 20 items dealing with the
teachers’ beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and mathematics
teaching. Responses were given to each item on a three point Likert scale: disagree,
undecided, agree. Data gathered from these items relied on the self-reporting of
teachers, parallelling the approach of Hatfield (1994). The items were constructed
from sources including Australian Education Council (1991),
.Barnett&Sather(1992),Mumme&Weissglass(1991),andWood,Cobb,&Yackel (1992)
and were trialed extensively with both primary teachers and secondary
mathematics teachers, as well as being further moderated by experienced
mathematics educators from Sydney universities. Each item was constructed to
reflect either the transmission and or the child-centredness factors defined above.
The items and their predicted factors are given below in Table3.

In September 1996, the questionnaires were posted, with reply-paid

envelopes,to52secondaryschools(15Catholicand37governmentschools)intheSouth
Western suburbs of Sydney. This was all the secondary schools from these two
groups in this region of Sydney. Schools were contacted by telephone to gain the
 Principals’ initial approval to undertake the survey in the schools and to ascertain
the number of
mathematicsteachersineachschool.Sufficientnumbersofthequestionnairewereposte
dtocoverallmathematicsteachersateachschool.

A total of 249 survey responses was received. However, 16 have been excluded
from the analysis in this paper because the respondents did not designate
themselves as either an HMT or an OMT. The remaining responses came from 40
HMTs and 193 OMTs. The maximum number of HMTs whocould
haverespondedtothesurveywas52—thenumberofschoolssurveyed—sothe40
completed HMT surveys represents a response rate of 77%. The total number of
OMTsinthe52schools was323,sothe193completedOMTsurveysrepresentsa response
rate of 51% for this group ofteachers.

The second data collection method involved interviews with eight HMTs
selected randomly from the 40 who responded to the survey. These teachers were
interviewed by the first author for approximately 30 minutes each. Questions were
posed, inter alia, on their beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and
mathematics teaching. Each interview was audiotaped andtranscribed

Results

Demographic data

The sample of 233 teachers consisted of the 40 HMTs and 193 OMTs. The teaching
experience of each of the groups is shown in Table 1, while their educational
qualifications are described in Table 2.

Table 1

Percentage Disfrihufion of Teaching Experience of HMTS and OMTS

Years of teaching HJvfTs (n=40) OMTs (n =193)

Less than 1 0

1 to 5 0 22

6 to 10 1 25

11 to 20 33 34
 Less than 1 0

More than 20 65 16

Table 2

Percentage Distribution of Eduraf/onaJ Qualifications of HMTS and OMTs

Highest teacher education qualification HMTs (n 40) OMTs (n = 193)

Two year trained 5 1

Three year trained with Diploma 0 5

Four year trained with BEd 18 24

Four year trained with degree/ 63 62

DipEd/DipTeach

Postgraduate qualification 15 7

Beliefs

Table 3 shows how the HMTs and OMTs responded to the 20 beliefs statements on
the survey questionnaire. The table also shows the factors (transmission or child-
centredness) which the various statements were intended to measure. All the items
are positive with respect to the intended factor, so that agreement with each item
should indicate belief in the correspondingfactor.

Table 3

Percentage Distribution of HSE and OMT Responses to Survey BeliefStatements

Beliefstatementb HMTs OMT

Mathematics learning
C 7. Mathematics knowledge is the result of the 3 15 83 5 13 82

learner interpreting and organising the

information gained from experiences

8. Students are rational decision makers capable 28 45 28 40 37 23

of determining for themselves what is right and

wrong

T 9. Mathematics learning is being able to get the 73 20 8 84 10 7

right answers quickly

C 10. Periods of uncertainty, conflict, confusion, 5 8 88 7 10 83

surprise are a significant part ofthe

mathematics learning process

C 11. Young students are capable of much higher 20 43 38 22 43 35

levels of mathematical thought than has been

suggested traditionally

T 12. Being able to memorise facts is critical in 30 20 50 27 15 58

mathematics learning

13. Mathematics learning is enhanced by 3 5 92 1 15 84

activities which build upon and respect

students' experiences

C 14. Mathematics learning is enhanced by 0 0 100 1 6 93

challenge within a supportive environment

Table 3 (continued)
 Beliefs statement D U A D U A

Mathematics teaching

C 15. Teachers shouldprovideinstructional 3 5 93 3 17 81

activities which result in problematic situations

for learners

T 16. Teachers or the textbook - not thestudent- 58 29 13 63 18 20

are the authorities for what is right or wrong

T 17. The role of the mathematics teacheristo 33 20 48 21 18 61

transmit mathematical knowledge and to

verify that learners have received this

knowledge

C 18. Teachers should recognise thatwhatseem 3 15 83 5 23 72

like errors and confusions from an adultpoint

of view are students’ expressions of their

current understanding

C 19. Teachers should negotiatesocialnorms 8 23 69 13 24 63

with the students in order to develop a

cooperative learning environment in which

students can construct their knowledge

C 20. It is unnecessary, evendamaging, for 75 20 5 85 14 2

teachers to tell students if their answers are

correct or incorrect
t
Responses: D (disagree), U (undecided), A
(agree). bPredicted factors: T (transmission), C
(child-centredness).

Beliefs about mathematics. Very few of the respondents agreed

that“rightanswersaremuchmoreimportantinmathematicsthanthewaysinwhic
hyouget them.” As well, nearly three-quarters of all the teachers believed
that “mathematics is the dynamic searching for order and pattern in the
learner’s environment,” while 80% or more of HMT and OMT groups
believed that “mathematics is a beautiful, creative and useful human
endeavour,” perhaps reflecting the fact that most of the respondents were
university-trained mathematicians who should know the value of
mathematics. This belief was reflected in comments made by some of the
interviewed Head Mathematics Teachers:

I see mathematics as creative but the kids haven't got this idea at all.

I suppose I sit close to the process line - the fact that maths is creative and
looks at patterns and is a problem solving tool. I think maths is a process.
It’s a way of thinking.

An interesting difference between the groups of teachers occurred with the

statement “mathematics is computation.” Half of the OMTs agreed witht he
statement compared to only 32% of HMTs, while 61% of HMTs disagreed compared
with only 31% of OMTs. When a chi-squared analysis was completed on the
separate beliefs statements across the two groups of teachers, this item was the
only one of the 20 statements which yielded any statistically significant difference
(/ 2 = 12.17, p < 0.01). Backing for the HMT position is evident from the following
comments byinterviewees:

They [the students] are not interested. They just want to know how to do
something. It’s very frusCating. They don’t think beyond that. It’s
disappointing.

I’m very much against just rote learning and memory. I’m no big deal about just
getting answers right.

Beliefs about inofiteinafics fencing. There were high levels of agreement from both
groups of teachers on the statements “mathematics knowledge is the result of
the learner interpreting and organising the information gained from experiences,”
“periods of uncertainty, conflict, corfusion, surprise are a significant part of the
mathematics learning process,” “mathematics learning is enhanced by activities
which build upon and respect students’ experiences,” and “mathematics learning is
enhanced by challenge wilhin a supportive environment.” This suggests that
these teachers were, al least, in sympathy with much of the current reform agenda
in mathematics education (Australian Education Council, 1991,
1994;NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics,1989,1995).Commentsfrom
interviewed Head Mathematics Teachers support thisposition:

Maths learning is helped if you can provide some sort of challenge ... That is
basically my approach - Cy to challenge the kids.

Maths should be at least a challenge and enjoyable.

I love to get them messing about with numbers.

Further support is provided by the large proportions of both groups of teachers

who disagreed that “mathematics learning is being able to get lhe right answers
quickly.” However, memorisation was still seen to be important with 50O of HMTs
and 58% of OMTs agreeing with the statement that“being able to memorise facts is
critical in mathematicslearning.”

Beliefs about mathematics fefic£ing. There were high levels of agreement from
both groups of teachers on the statements “teachers should provide instructional
activities which result in problematic situations for learners,” “teacher s should
recognise that what seem like errors and confusions from adult point of view are
students’ expressions of their current understanding, ” “teachers should negotiate
social norms with the students in order to develop a cooperative learning
environment in which students can construct their knowledge,” while the majority
of both groups disagreed with “teachers or the textbook - not thestrident- are the
authorities for what is right or wrong.” Again, there is a suggestion that the reform
agenda, or, at least its rhetoric, may have gained some strength in the field.

On the other hand, 48% of HMTs and 61% of OMTs agreed with the statement
“the role of the mathematics teacher is to transmit mathematical knowledge and to
verify that learners have received this knowledge” and three- quarters or more of
both groups disagreed with “it is unnecessary, even damaging, for teachers to tell
students if their answers are correct or incorrect.” It would seem that, at least with
some teachers, there may be a continuation of the common (but stereotypical)
view that secondary mathematics teachers are content oriented, transmission
teachers who reluctantly accept that there are ways to teach mathematics beyond
those which they may have experienced as students in secondary school and
 university. Certainly some of the comments from the interviewed Head
Mathematics Teachers would support thisposition:

I believe that I have some knowledge and I have got to transmit it to the kids.

Mathematics is a perfect science. It is right and right for all time. It is absolute.
It is a means of describingtheworld....Persistence isimportant.

Enjoyment is not a critical aspect.

Table 4

Eactor Loadings of Belle/-s State/r/ents

Statement number Intended factora Factor I Factor II

1 T 0.26 -0.05

2 T 0.30 0.01

3 C 0.10 0.43

4 C -0.14 —0.15

5 C 0.01 0.41

6 T 0.20 -0.05

7 C 0.10 0.38

8 C -0.13 0.30

9 T 0.36 0.00

10 C —0.05 0.21

11 C -0.23 0.15

12 T 0.37 0.04

13 C -0.17 0.41

14 C 0.13 0.56

15 C 0.02 o.44
Statement number Intended factora Factor I Factor II

16 T 0.23 -0.32

17 T 0.51 0.10

28 C -0.16 0.32

19 C -0.12 0.53

20 C -0.29 0.05

Confirmation and Comparison of Beliefs Factors

PernJ,Howard,HTrac‹nj

A confirmatory factor analysis, using principal axis factoring and oblique

rotation, was conducted on the combined responses of the 233 HMTs and OMTs to
the questionnaire survey. The two-factor solution led to the loadings shown in Table
4. The solution accounted for 15% of the variance.

Except for Items 4, 11, and 16, all items showed a substantial loading on one
factor and a much smaller loading on the other. Also, with the exception of Items 4,
11, 16, and 20, all the items written to measure transmission loaded more strongly
positive on Factor I and all the items written to measure child- centredness loaded
more strongly positive on Factor II. The factor analysis thus generally supports the
authors’ model of teachers’ beliefs and provides construct validation for the
measurement of the two factors using the survey questionnaire.

Thefactoranalysiswasusedtocalculatez-scores(i.e.,scoreswithameanof0 and a
standard deviation of 1) for transmission (Factor I) and child-centredness (Factor II),
using all the items on the questionnaire. The two scores were essentially
independent (r = -0.12). Table 5 shows that the Head Mathematics Teachers were
less transmission-focussed and more child-centred than the other mathematics
teachers. The differences between the two groups were not only statistically
significant, but the effect sizes of about 0.4 show that the differences were
alsosubstantial.

Discussion

The survey used in this study has been shown, through confirmatory factor
analysis, to be suitable for the categorisation of practising teachers’ espoused
beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and mathematics teaching.
Further, it has provided evidence for the existence of two factors—transmission and
child-centredness—which can be used in the analysis of these beliefs. While there is
no doubt that individual teachers responded to the belief statements in ways which
would seem to be contradictory, reinforcing the findings of Bishop
andClarkson(1998)andSosniaketa1.(1991),thefactorstructureappearstoallow the
meaningful analysis of these beliefs. The survey results show that many secondary
mathematics teachers espouse sets of beliefs which can be described as
transmissionbeliefs,andmanyespousesetsofbeliefswhichcouldbedescribedas child-
centred.

The finding that HMTs scored significantly higher than the OMTs on the child-
centredness factor and significantly lower on the transmission factor requires some
explanation. Firstly, we note that the HMTs in the present sample were significantly
more experienced (/ 2 = 51.60, p < 0.0001) than the OMTs (see Table 1). In a system
where, until recently, promotion was almost entirely based on seniority, this was to
be expected. On the other hand, there was no significant difference found between
HMTs and OMTs in terms of their educational qualifications (see Table 2). Hence,
the differences in HMTs’ and OMTs’ beliefs would seem to be the result of HMTs’
greater teaching experience. This inference is supported by Thompson’s (1992)
finding that teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and mathematics teaching seem to
evolve from their teaching experience rather than from their formal study
inteacherpreparation.

Specifically,theHMTsmayfeelmorecomfortablethantheirlessexperienced staff
with the task of teaching mathematics in the sometimes difficult classes that
typifytheSouthWesternsuburbsofSydney.Haberman(1994,p.17)suggeststhat in many
urban schools in low socioeconomic areas, there exists a “pedagogy of poverty”
which has been described as “a highly directive style of teaching based on rote
learning of the basics, formulated without reference to adequate
pedagogicorsocialtheory”(seealsoHatton,1994,p.15).Haberman(1994,p.19)
continues by suggesting that “the pedagogy of poverty requires that teachers who
begin their careers intending to be helpers, models, guides, stimulators, and caring
sources of encouragement transform themselves into directive
authoritariansinordertofunctioninurbanschools”.Coulditbethatmanyofthey less
experienced OMTs are still working through the “survival” stage of their beginning
teaching and are reflecting the realities of their difficult classes where authority is
seen to be paramount—while the HMTs have sufficient experience and position
power to enable them to look beyond basic survival in the classroom and at least
contemplate that there might be other ways of learning and teaching mathematics?

Comments in the interviews with HMTs weighed much more heavily on

 child-centredness than on transmission, suggesting that they had begun to synthesise
the reform agenda in mathematics into their own thinking, or, at least," into their
rhetoric. They seemed to be well aware of the need for professional development
within their mathematics faculties, but they also expressed other frustrations:

I don’t know whether we are churning out any better mathematicians

[among our students] but I think the potential is there. However, a lot of
the teachers shy away fromit.

We try to make the work relevant but we are constrained by the syllabus.

Sometimes,Ifeel,thepressureof thesyllabustendstoforceustocutcornerswith the

kids. ... If I sound cheesed off, it's just that I may be a disillusioned maths teacher.

That teachers with such a wide variety of espoused beliefs as has been
reported here can come to grips successfully with the current mandatory syllabuses
and examination systems in New South Wales secondary schools is amazing. Many
of the HMTs interviewed suggested that one way of doing this is to disregard as much
of the change aspossible:

In our school, the Year 7 and 8 syllabus has not made much difference at
all to tell you thetruth.

From my experience, algebra is still taught in the same sort of way as it

always hasbeen.

I think people are still doing what they used to do in the old days.

These comments suggest that, for many Head Mathematics Teachers, the road to
survival for their teachers (and, perhaps, themselves) is to resist much of what they
see as fashion in mathematics pedagogy. They seem to be saying that if they adhere
to the “tried and true” they will not go far wrong.

In this respect, Australian mathematics teachers seem to be no different from

otherselsewhereintheworld.Sosniaketal.(1991)arguethattheverystructureof the
settings in which secondary mathematics learning and teaching is undertaken
demands a traditional approach by teachers. “Structurally and functionally . . schools
and classrooms are designed to support and promote the continued transmission of
traditional views and practices” (p. 129). Reinforcing this view, Battista (1994) notes,
with reference to USschools:

Like most adults, almost all current teachers were educated at the
elementary, secondary and university levels in curricula that promoted
the conception of mathematics as procedures rather than sense-making.
Moreover, the school environments in which teachers now teach
demand this rule-based view of mathematics. Their mathematics
 textbooks support it. State ... testing programs assess adherence to it.
(p.466)

The results of the survey on which this report is based suggest that regular classroom
mathematics teachers feel this pressure to conform to tradition even more than their
curriculum leaders in theschool.

Conclusion

This study has shown that espoused beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning,
and mathematics teaching can be measured and compared across groups of teachers.
Moreover, it has shown that there can be some differences in these beliefs between
classroom mathematics teachers and their curriculum leaders in secondary schools. In
the context of reform currently occurring in mathematics education, the impact of these
differences in beliefs might be critical. However, it may also be that traditional
approaches to mathematics education are so entrenched among many of the teachers
that the impact of a reform agenda will beminimal.

The results of this study cannot be generalised to other states of Australia or beyond because
of the differences in the structure of the education systems involved. However, it would be
surprising if similar results were not found. This broadening of the sample is one way in which
this study will be extended in the future. Another is to pursue the challenge to compare
espoused andenacted beliefs of secondary mathematics teachers. In both cases,
the aim will be to improve the mathematics education of students in our schools.

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was made possible through an Internal
Research Grant from the University of Western Sydney Macarthur and another
from the Australian Catholic University. The authors also gratefully acknowledge
the assistance of Dr SueDockett.

References

Anderson, J. (1996). Some beliefs and perceptions of problem solving. In P. C.

Clarkson(Ed.),Technologyinmathematicseducation(Proceedingsofthe19thannual
conferenceof the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 30-
37). Melbourne: MERGA.

Australian Education Council (1991). A national statement on mathematics

forAustralianschools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

Australian Education Council (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian

schools.Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Barnett, C., & Sather, S. (1992, May). Using case discussions to promote changes in
beliefs among mathematics teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco.

Baroody, A. (1987). Children’s mathematical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.

Battista, M. T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics

education.Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 462-470.

Bishop, A., & Clarkson, P. (1998). What values do you think you are teaching when
you teach mathematics? In J. Gough & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics: Exploring nil
angles (Proceeedings of the 35th annual conference ofthe Mathematical Association
of Victoria, pp. 30-38). Melbourne:MAV.

Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in
classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Franke, M. (1988). Problem solving and mathematical beliefs. Arithmetic Teacher, 35(5),32-
34.

Garofalo, J. (1989). Beliefs and their influence on mathematical performance.

Mathematics Teacher, 82, 502-505.

Haberman, M. (1994). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. In E. Hatton (Ed.),
Understanding teaching: Curriculum and the social context of schooling (pp. 17-25).
Sydney: Harcourt Brace.

Hatfield, M. (1994). Use of manipulative devices: Elementary school cooperating

teachers self-report. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 303-309.

Hatton, E. (1994). Social and cultural influences on teaching. In E. Hatton (Ed.),

Understandingteaching:Curriculumandthesocialcontextofschooling(pp.3-16).Sydney:
HarcourtBrace.

Howard, P., Perry, B., & Lindsay, M. (1997). Secondary mathematics teacher beliefs
about the learning and teaching of mathematics. 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. 231-238). Rotorua,
NZ:MERGA.

Kuhs,T.M.,&Ball,D.L.(1986).Approachestoteaching mathematics:Mappingthedomainsof
knowledge, skills, and dispositions. East Lansing: Michigan State University,
Centeron

Teacher Ed ucation.
Lubinski, C., Thornton, C., Heyl, S., & Klass, P. (1994). Levels of in Cospection in
mathematical instmction. 7HafJtemafirs Education Research /ourneJ, 6,113-130.

McLeod, D. B, (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A

reconceptualization. InD.A.Grouws(Ed.),Handbookofresearchonmathematicsteachingand
learning(pp. 575-596). New York :Macmdlan.

Milford, J. (1998). Head teacher influence on classroom teachers" use of student-c eno ed
sCategies. Reflections, 23(3), 21-23.

Mumme, J., & Weissglass, J. (1991). Improving mathematicseducation through school-

based change. Jssues in Ma!hema!ics Education Offprint, American Mathematical Society
and Mathematical Association ofAmerica.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards

forschool mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995). Assessment standards forschool

mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1998). Principles and standards far school
mathematics: Discussion drafl. Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of
mathematics educations Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

consCuct. Beview of Educational Besearfh, 62, 307-322.

Perry, B., & Howard, P. (1994). Manipulatives: ConsCaints on consGuction? In G. Bell, B.

Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Ceake (Eds.), Challenges in mathematics education (Proceedings
oS the 17th anriual conference of the Mathematics EducaGon Research Group of
Ausoalasia, pp. 487-496). Lismore, NSW:MERGA.

Perry, B., Howard, P., & Conroy, J. (1996). K-6 teacher beliefs aboutthe learning and
teaching of mathemaGcs. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education
(Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of theMathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia, pp. 453-460).Melbourne:MERGA. ’

Perry, B., Tracey, D., & Howard, P. (1998). Elementary school teacher beliefs about the
learning and teaching of mathematics. In H. S. Park, Y. H. Choe, H. Shin, & S. H. Kim (Eds.),
Proceedings of !he first conference of the ICMI East Asian Regional Committee on
Mathematical Education (Vol. 2, pp. 485-498). Chungbuk, Korea: Korea Society of
MathematicalEducation.
Kelich, J. (1995). Gender, self-concept and teachers of mathematics: Effects of attitudes
to teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 179-197.

Sosniak, L. A., Ethington, C. A., & Varelas, M. (1991). Teaching mathematics without a
coherent point of view:Findings from the IEA Second International Mathematics
Study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23,119-131.Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early
childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Eor/y CJtildJtood
Research Quarterly, 12, 305-325.

Thompson,A.G.(1992).Teachers’beliefsandconceptions:asynthesisoftheresearch.

D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of ffiSfiAfCb OH Tltathematics teaching and

learning(pp.127-146). New York: Macmillan.

Tracey, D., Perry, B., & Howard, P. (1998). Teacher beliefs about the learning and
teaching of mathematics: Some comparisons. In C. Kanes,M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.),
Teaching mathematics in new !imes (Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Groupof AusYalasia, pp. 613-620). Gold Coast,
QLD:MERGA.

VanZoest,L.R.,Jones,G.A.,&Thornton,C.A(1994).Beliefsaboutmathema