Received: 14 December 2017

| Revised: 15 November 2018

| Accepted: 12 December 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12329

R E S E A RC H PA P E R – M AT H E M AT I C S E D U C AT I O N

Elementary teachers’ mathematical beliefs and mathematics

anxiety: How do they shape instructional practices?

Pamela Hughes1 | Susan Swars Auslander2 | David W. Stinson1 | C. Kevin Fortner3

1
Department of Middle and Secondary
Education, Georgia State University,
Abstract
Atlanta, Georgia This quantitative study investigated the relationships among practicing elementary
2
Department of Early Childhood and teachers’ (N = 153) beliefs about mathematics and its teaching and learning, mathe-
Elementary Education, Georgia State
matics anxiety, and instructional practices in mathematics. When viewed singly, the
University, Atlanta, Georgia
3 findings reveal the teachers with higher levels of mathematics anxiety tend to use less
Department of Educational Policy
Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, standards‐based instruction and those with beliefs oriented toward a problem‐solving
Georgia view of mathematics reported more standards‐based teaching. A combined analysis
Correspondence
shows that after controlling for mathematical beliefs, teaching longevity, and educa-
Susan Swars Auslander, Department of tional degree attainment, there is no relationship between teachers’ mathematics
Early Childhood and Elementary Education, anxiety and instructional practices. These findings suggest a spurious relationship
Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3978,
Atlanta, GA 30302‐3978. between anxiety and practices, with beliefs having the strongest relationship with
Email: sswars@gsu.edu practices. Several suggestions for positively influencing the mathematical beliefs and
affect in general of elementary teachers while learning mathematics are offered.

KEYWORDS
attitudes/beliefs, curriculum, elementary teachers and teaching, learning processes, reform

1 | IN T RO D U C T ION mathematics lessons delivered via review, demonstration, and

Adopted by most states in the United States, the Standards for
Mathematical Practice in the Common Core State Standards
for Mathematics (CCSS‐M) depict classroom learning environ-
ments that develop conceptual understandings of mathematics,
along with procedural fluency built upon these understandings,
and have dialogic discourse as an important element of instruc-
tion. Elementary teachers should engage students in authentic
problem‐solving tasks and productive discussions intended
to develop students’ individual and shared understandings of
mathematics concepts and practices in ways that nurture their
abilities to make sense of mathematics and also reason and
communicate mathematically (Charalambous & Hill, 2012;
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM],
2014). Developing such learning environments, however, is
difficult for many elementary teachers, as too many believe stu-
dents should be taught as they were (Harbin & Newton, 2013;
Hiebert, 2003; Maasepp & Bobis, 2014/2015; NCTM, 2014),
through memorization of facts, formulas, and procedures with
repeated practice. Changing these engrained “traditional,”
procedural beliefs and practices is arduous and made all the
more challenging by the tendencies of this population to have
mathematics anxiety (Bekdemir, 2010; Conference Board of
the Mathematical Sciences [CBMS], 2012).
Though some argue the teacher beliefs‐practice link is less
causal and more dynamic, with the impact of beliefs molded
by other facets, such as resources and goals and modified by
contextual constraints (Schoenfeld, 2015; Skott, 2015), there
is “broad acceptance that mathematics teachers’ beliefs about
mathematics influence the ways in which they teach the sub-
ject” (Beswick, 2012, p. 127). Over time, research has estab-
lished a relationship between teachers’ affect, which includes
beliefs and attitudes, and teaching by showing that affective
factors shape teacher thinking and behaviors, including in-
structional decision‐making and use of curriculum materials
(Beswick, 2006; Cross Francis, 2015; Philipp, 2007; Polly et al.,
2013; Wilkins, 2008). There have been recent efforts to clarify
teacher affect, specifically its conceptualization as “productive

School Science and Mathematics. 2019;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ssm © 2019 School Science and Mathematics Association | 1
2
|    HUGHES et al.
disposition for teaching mathematics” (Jacobson & Kilpatrick,
2015, p. 402) constituting mathematics teachers’ malleable ori-
entation, including beliefs, attitudes, and emotions, toward the
subject of mathematics and its teaching and learning, which is
necessarily entangled with knowledge and practice.
With a need for “increased articulation and coordination
of research on teacher affect in mathematics” (Jacobson &
Kilpatrick, 2015, p. 402), quantitative study of teacher affect
and its relationship with instruction affords the possibility
of providing more general understanding of the nature and
consistency of potential linkages. Most studies of affective
factors and instructional practices examine only two of these
variables simultaneously and has prospective elementary
teachers as participants, rather than multi‐dimensional study
of practicing elementary teachers. Thus, the goal of this in-
quiry was to investigate the relationships among elementary
teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and its teaching and
learning, mathematics anxiety, and instructional practices in
mathematics. The findings advance the literature by expand-
ing the knowledge base about the possible interrelatedness
of teacher affect and teaching practices in elementary class-
rooms and provide insights for needed emphases during uni-
versity‐based mathematics methods and content courses and
school‐based professional learning of mathematics.
2 | THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVES AND RELATED
RESEARCH
Reform in mathematics education in the United States has
been largely guided by the recommendations of NCTM.
NCTM’s (2014) recent document, Principles to Actions, rec-
ommends the use of a research‐based framework including
eight Mathematics Teaching Practices comprised of a core
set of high‐leverage practices and essential teaching skills.
This framework supports the “characterization of mathemat-
ics learning as an active process, in which each student builds
his or her own mathematical knowledge from personal experi-
ences, coupled with feedback from peers, teachers and other
adults, and themselves” (NCTM, 2014, p. 9). According to
these eight practices, teachers should: establish mathematics
goals to focus learning, implement tasks that promote reason-
ing and problem solving, use and connect mathematical repre-
sentations, facilitate meaningful mathematical discourse, pose
purposeful questions, build procedural fluency from concep-
tual understanding, support productive struggle in the learning
of mathematics, and elicit and use evidence of student thinking.
There are many factors that shape teachers’ instructional
practices, with mathematical affect as one. Affect is “com-
prised of emotions, attitudes, and beliefs” (Philipp, 2007, p.
259). Beliefs have been characterized as: mental constructs
that are subjectively true for an individual; value‐laden, held
with a certain degree of commitment, and relatively stable;
and “expected to significantly influence individuals’ percep-
tions and interpretations of experiential encounters and their
contributions to the practices in which they engage” (Skott,
2015, p. 6). Attitudes are considered as “manners of acting,
feeling, or thinking that show one’s disposition or opinion”
(Philipp, 2007, p. 259). Two affective constructs relevant to
this study are beliefs about mathematics and its teaching and
learning and also mathematics anxiety, a form of attitude.
Beliefs about mathematics, or the nature of mathematics,
are formed across teachers’ seminal years as students in K–12
classrooms, and the resultant beliefs can be robust (Schoenfeld,
2015). A mathematical belief framework has been proposed
that includes three perspectives: the instrumentalist view, the
Platonist view, and the problem‐solving view (Ernest, 1989).
The instrumentalist view sees mathematics as a utilitarian col-
lection of unrelated facts, rules, and skills; the Platonist view
regards mathematics as a static body of certain knowledge that
is discovered and created by the gods; and the problem‐solving
view perceives mathematics as an ever changing, expanding
field created by humans that is cultural in nature. Within this
third perspective, mathematics involves an inquiry process
of coming to know it; mathematics is never a finished prod-
uct but rather is continually subject to changes and revisions.
According to Ernest’s framework, teachers’ personal views or
philosophies of mathematics and what it means to do mathe-
matics influence their beliefs about mathematics teaching and
learning, with others supporting this assertion (Beswick, 2006;
Handal, 2003). The instrumentalist and Platonist views most
closely align with traditional instruction (Hiebert, 2003); the
problem‐solving view most closely aligns with NCTM’s rec-
ommendations for instruction in mathematics classrooms.
The mathematics anxiety of elementary teachers has been
of long‐standing concern, with research showing this anxi-
ety to be prevalent (Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, & Levine,
2010; Hembree, 1990). Mathematics anxiety has been defined
as a negative emotional response that arises when confronted
with a mathematical task (Beilock et al., 2010), or feelings
of tension, helplessness, or mental disorganization when
required to manipulate numbers and shapes (Richardson &
Suinn, 1972). Recent research provides insight into the com-
plexity of mathematics anxiety, including that individuals
may interpret this anxiety as specific and distinct fears (e.g.,
lack of mathematical competency as loss of social belong-
ing), with associated strategies for coping with these fears
(Stoehr, 2017). Studies have focused mostly on prospective
elementary teachers and less on practicing elementary teach-
ers, showing mathematics anxiety is negatively related to
mathematics achievement goals (Gonzalez‐DeHass, Furner,
Vasquez‐Colina, & Morris, 2017), mathematics teaching
efficacy (Swars, Smith, Smith, & Hart, 2009), and mathe-
matical performance (Novak & Tassell, 2017). Over time,
research has revealed that mathematics anxiety has important
HUGHES et al.
implications for classroom instructional practices that in turn
influence students’ attitudes and achievement (Aslan, 2013;
Bush, 1989; Gresham, 2007; Hadley & Dorward, 2011; Karp,
1991; Ma, 1999). For example, elementary teachers who ex-
perience mathematics anxiety tend to use more traditional
approaches during instruction and spend less time teaching
mathematics. Further, a study of prospective elementary
teachers showed they projected their own mathematics anx-
iety to expectations formed about students, thus potentially
affecting their capacity to development inclusive classroom
learning environments (Mizala, Martinez, & Martinez, 2015).
Research using quantitative methods shows the inter-
connectedness of mathematical affect and instructional
practices of both prospective and practicing elementary
teachers. For example, a study of 53 elementary teachers’
beliefs about the teaching and learning of mathematics evi-
denced a significant relationship with instructional practices
(i.e., those with more teacher‐centered beliefs used more
teacher‐centered practices, and vice versa) (Polly et al.,
2013). Also, inquiry involving 301 prospective elemen-
tary teachers showed those with more cognitively oriented
mathematical pedagogical beliefs had lower mathematics
anxiety (Haciomeroglu, 2013). Furthermore, a study of 481
elementary teachers revealed teachers’ attitudes and be-
liefs about mathematics were related to their instructional
practices (Wilkins, 2008). Specifically, teachers with more
positive attitudes toward mathematics were more likely to
believe in the effectiveness of inquiry‐based instruction and
use it more frequently in their classrooms. Beliefs had the
strongest effect on instructional practices, even more so
than content knowledge, and were found to partially medi-
ate the effect of attitudes on instructional practices.
3 | R E S EA RCH QU E ST ION S
This quantitative study was guided by the following research
questions:
1. What are the relationships between the mathematics
anxiety, mathematical beliefs, and mathematics instruc-
tional practices of elementary teachers?
2. In a combined model, is mathematics anxiety or mathe-
matical beliefs a better predictor of mathematics instruc-
tional practices of elementary teachers?
4 | M ET H OD
4.1 | Participants and context
All elementary teachers in one public school district, ap-
proximately 500, were invited through email to partici-
pate in the study and complete the online survey. One
   
| 3
hundred fifty‐three elementary teachers elected to partici-
pate, which provided a return rate of 30% and representa-
tion from all 19 elementary schools in the district. For the
respondents, years of teaching experience were: 8% with
0–5 years, 44% with 6–15 years, and 48% with 16 years of
more; thus, they were largely experienced rather than nov-
ice teachers. Educational attainment of the participants in-
cluded 28% with a bachelor’s degree, 43% with a master’s
degree, and 29% with an educational specialist or doctoral
degree. Participants were asked to provide the number of
mathematics courses completed during their undergraduate
degree, with the options of: 0, 1, 2, or 3+. Interestingly, the
number of those who were enrolled in 3 or more mathemat-
ics courses (n = 105) is considerably larger than the other
groups: 0 (n = 2), 1 (n = 11), and 2 (n = 35).
The school district is located in a suburban county in the
southeastern United States and served 10,849 elementary
students during the year of the study. The teacher retention
rate for the entire school district was 95%, and the aver-
age number of years of teaching experience was 13.7 years
with few first‐year teachers. The lack of teacher turnover
is worth noting in light of the disconcerting rate of teacher
mobility and attrition on the national scale. The student
population was made up of: 64% Caucasian, 21% African
American, 8% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 5% Multiracial. Of
these students, 13% were eligible for the free/reduced‐price
lunch program.
The elementary schools were provided a common
curriculum with most of it drawn from the state created
curriculum, called the Mathematics Frameworks Units,
which was guided by the state standards aligned with the
CCSS‐M. Additionally, teachers were provided a variety
of other resources focusing on Number Talks, mathemat-
ics vocabulary, and problem solving. The CCSS‐M were
adopted by the state in 2010, with roll‐out including com-
munication and administrator training during 2010–11 and
teacher training during 2011–12. Initial classroom imple-
mentation of the standards was expected in fall 2012, with
full implementation in fall 2014. At the time of data col-
lection, the teachers were starting their second year of full
implementation of the CCSS‐M.
4.2 | Data collection
Data were collected via an online survey that contained three
embedded instruments: the Mathematics Anxiety Rating
Scale: Short Version (MARS‐SV, Suinn & Winston, 2003),
the Teacher Beliefs Survey (TBS, Beswick, 2005), and the
Elementary Teachers Commitment to Mathematics Education
Reform Survey (ETCMER, Ross, McDougall, Hogaboam‐
Gray, & LeSage, 2003). These instruments were chosen
based on their acceptance and wide use, high levels of reli-
ability and validity, and relevance to the research questions.
4
|    HUGHES et al.
Additional questions requested demographic information
from the teachers (e.g., years of teaching experience, years of
mathematics teaching experience, highest educational degree
attainment, and number of mathematics courses taken during
undergraduate degree completion). The research coordina-
tor for the school district emailed all elementary teachers at
the beginning of the school year, inviting them to participate
and providing a link to the online survey, along with two fol-
low‐up reminder emails. The teachers were given 3 weeks to
respond before the online survey was closed.
The MARS‐SV is a 30‐item instrument consisting of
brief scenarios pertaining to mathematics and the degree
to which they trigger mathematics anxiety. It contains two
factors constituting the core dimensions measured, including
mathematics test anxiety and mathematics numerical anxiety.
The MARS‐SV was developed by Suinn and Winston (2003)
and provides a shorter version of the 98‐item Mathematics
Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS, Richardson & Suinn, 1972).
The instrument uses a Likert‐type scale, with higher scores
indicating greater levels of mathematics anxiety. Cronbach’s
alpha was found to be 0.96, an indication of high internal con-
sistency, along with a determination of test‐retest reliability
of 0.90 (Suinn & Winston, 2003). Concurrent validity of the
MARS‐SV with the MARS was conducted using a Pearson
correlation, with r = 0.92 indicating a high correlation be-
tween the short and long versions of the instrument.
The 26‐item TBS (Beswick, 2005) measures teachers’
beliefs about the nature of mathematics and corresponding
beliefs regarding its teaching and learning. It contains two
subscales aligned with Ernest’s (1989) conceptualizations
of mathematics, with 14 items on the problem‐solving view
subscale and 12 items on the instrumentalist view subscale. A
teacher who has a problem‐solving view believes mathemat-
ics is an ever changing, expanding field created by humans
that is cultural in nature. Mathematics involves an inquiry
process of coming to know it; it is never a finished prod-
uct but rather continually subject to changes and revisions.
Corresponding beliefs about pedagogy include instruction
that is learner centered and involves students’ autonomous
exploration of their own interests. A teacher who has an in-
strumentalist view believes mathematics is a utilitarian col-
lection of unrelated facts, rules, and skills. Associated beliefs
about pedagogy include teaching that is content‐focused with
an emphasis on performance and learning via passive recep-
tion of knowledge and mastery of skills. The items have a
5‐point response scale, with higher scores indicating more
alignment with a problem‐solving view. For the subscales,
the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient associated with
the problem‐solving view subscale is 0.78 and the instrumen-
talist view subscale is 0.77.
The 20‐item ETCMER measures elementary teachers’
self‐report of the implementation of instructional practices
consistent with mathematics education reform (Ross et al.,
2003). Based on a review of key NCTM documents and 153
empirical studies, the developers created a blueprint for stan-
dards‐based teaching containing nine dimensions of reform‐
based mathematics teaching practices, such as teacher use of:
complex, open‐ended problems during instruction; manipu-
latives and tools to support students’ problem solving; and
student‐to‐student interaction during learning. Furthermore,
instruction is centered on students’ construction of their
mathematical ideas through discovery, and the teacher’s role
is that of co‐learner and creator of a mathematical commu-
nity. The survey developed from this blueprint uses a 5‐point
response scale, with higher scores indicating more standards‐
based instruction. Using Cronbach’s alpha, a reliability co-
efficient of 0.88 was obtained in two independent analyses.
Elementary teachers established content and face validity
through review.
4.3 | Data analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential sta-
tistics. Multiple regression analyses were conducted with
mathematics instructional practices as the dependent vari-
able. Such analyses can establish that a set of independent
variables explains a proportion of the variance in a depend-
ent variable at a statistically significant level, as well as es-
tablish the relative predictive importance of the independent
variables (Creswell, 2003). The analysis identified three
groups of participants according to years of teaching experi-
ence: novice (0–5 years), mid‐career (6–15 years), and vet-
eran (16 + years). The participants in the sample were also
divided into three groups according to their educational at-
tainment: bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and specialist/
doctoral degree. Teaching longevity and educational degree
attainment were included as control variables in the regres-
sion models.
5 | RESULTS
5.1 | Descriptive findings from the
instruments
The MARS‐SV mathematics anxiety measure uses a 5‐point
response scale, with 1 representing low anxiety and 5 represent-
ing high anxiety. The participants had an overall mean score of
2.35 (SD = 0.90), which reveals they had a moderate to low
level of mathematics anxiety. The four items with the highest
mean scores across the participants are shown in Table 1, which
gives a sense of which scenarios would trigger the most mathe-
matics anxiety. Items with the highest means involve situations
within academic contexts, with specific connections to testing.
In contrast, the item with the lowest mean score (1.45) is related
to the reading of a cash register receipt after a purchase, focused
HUGHES et al.
TABLE 1 MARS‐SV overall and highest mean scores with
standard deviations
M SD
MARS‐SV (Overall) 2.35
14. Being given a homework assignment of 3.32
many difficult problems due the next class
period
11. Taking the methematics section of a 3.31
college entrance exam
13. Being given a “pop quiz” in class 3.30
5. Thinking about an upcoming math test 3.28
5 minutes before
more so on the use of mathematics and numbers in everyday
life.
The TBS mathematical beliefs measure uses a 5‐point
response scale, with 5 representing “Strongly Agree” and
1 representing “Strongly Disagree.” Higher scores indicate
teacher beliefs more aligned with a problem‐solving view of
mathematics and its teaching and learning. Lower scores in-
dicate teacher beliefs more consistent with an instrumentalist
view of mathematics and its teaching and learning. The over-
all mean score was 3.54 (SD = 0.39), which indicates the ele-
mentary teachers leaned somewhat toward a problem‐solving
view. Table 2 shows the four items with the highest mean
scores, illuminating the problem‐solving view of the partici-
pants, including the importance of a comfortable learning en-
vironment in mathematics for all students where they engage
in problem solving and reflect on learning.
The ETCMER instructional practices measure uses a 5‐
point response scale ranging from 5 representing “Strongly
Agree” to 1 representing “Strongly Disagree.” The over-
all mean score was 3.12 (SD = 0.45), a moderate score on
the scale showing teachers reported a mix of instructional
TABLE 2 TBS overall and highest mean scores with standard
deviations
M SD
TBS (Overall) 3.54
23. Teachers can create for all students a 4.25
nonthreatening environment for learning
mathematics
7. It is important teachers to understand the 4.14
structured way in which mathematics concepts
and skills relate to each other
1. A vital task for the teacher is motivating 4.11
children to solve their own mathematical
problems
5. It is important for children to be given 4.09
opportunities to reflect on and evaluate their
learning
   
| 5
practices—standards‐based and not—in their classrooms.
Table 3 shows the four items with the highest mean scores to
provide insights into which instructional practices are most
commonly used. Of the four practices, two indicate a more
0.90
standards‐based approach and two indicate practices consid-
1.25 ered to be less standards‐based (e.g., an emphasis on correct
answers and students working together is not very produc-
tive). For analysis, items are coded such that higher scores
1.28
on the ETCMER indicate more standards‐based instructional
practices by teachers.
1.17
1.26
5.2 | Multiple regression analyses of the
affective constructs and instructional practices
Table 4 presents the results of multiple regression analy-
ses focused on the research questions. All models include
controls for teaching longevity and educational degree at-
tainment of the participants. The dependent variable in all
models is the reported instructional practices of teachers
(ECTMER).
In Model 1, which reports the relationship between
mathematics anxiety (MARS‐SV) and instructional prac-
tices (ECTMER), the findings show a 1‐point increase in
the teachers’ mathematics anxiety scale is associated with a
0.186‐point decrease in the instructional practices scale when
controlling for differences in teachers’ experience and degree
attainment. When focusing exclusively on the relationship
between mathematics anxiety and instructional practices,
teachers with greater mathematics anxiety tend to utilize
fewer standards‐based instructional practices.
Model 2 reports the results of a regression model fo-
cused on the second research question regarding the
relationship between mathematical beliefs (TBS) and in-
structional practices (ECTMER). The findings reveal that
teachers with more problem‐solving views of mathemat-
ics are more likely to utilize standards‐based instructional
practices. Specifically, holding constant differences in
teachers’ experience and degree attainment, teachers who
score 1 point higher on the measure of mathematical be-
liefs (TBS) reported instructional practices that are about
0.39 0.738 points higher on the measure of instructional prac-
0.67 tices (ECTMER).
Model 3 focuses on the final research question and exe-
cutes a model that includes measures of mathematics anxiety
0.72 and mathematical beliefs in the same regression analysis. In
this combined model, there is no statistically significant re-
lationship between the measures of mathematics anxiety and
0.85 instructional practices, but there is a statistically significant
relationship between the measures of mathematical beliefs
and instructional practices. In this model, holding constant
0.92 teachers’ mathematics anxiety, teaching experience, and de-
gree attainment, a 1‐point increase in the teachers’ mathemat-
ical beliefs scale is associated with a 0.716‐point increase in
6
|    HUGHES et al.

TABLE 3 ETCMER overall and

M SD
highest mean scores with standard
ETCMER (overall) 3.12 0.45 deviations
7. Every child in my room should feel that mathematics is 4.38 0.80
something he/she can do
11. When students are working on math problems, I put more 3.94 0.92
emphasis on getting the correct answer than on the
process followed
6. It is not very productive for students to work together 3.76 1.00
during math time
17. I teach students how to explain their mathematical ideas 3.61 0.93

TABLE 4 Models predicting instructional practices (ECTMER)

(1) (2) (3)

Mathematics anxiety and

Model Mathematics anxiety Mathematical beliefs mathematical beliefs
Mathematics anxiety −0.186** (0.048) −0.018 (0.045)
**
Mathematical beliefs 0.738 (0.060) 0.716** (0.087)
+
Teaching longevity (Middle) −0.216 (0.158) −0.217 (0.113) −0.227+ (0.119)
Teaching longevity (Veteran) −0.300+ (0.162) −0.349** (0.115) −0.357** (0.120)
Degree level (Master’s) 0.064 (0.099) 0.035 (0.081) 0.037 (0.082)
Degree level (Specialist/Doctorate) 0.123 (0.107) 0.071 (0.089) 0.071 (0.090)
** **
Constant 3.732 (0.193) 0.736 (0.193) 0.864* (0.402)
N 153 153 153
2
R 0.149 0.408 0.409
Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses.
+
p < 0.10 *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01.

the instructional practice scale, indicating that teachers with
more problem‐solving views of mathematics tend to utilize
more standards‐based instructional practices, regardless of
their level of mathematics anxiety.
Focusing on the differences across models with the variables
of interest, the findings show the relationship between teach-
ers’ mathematical beliefs and instructional practices remains
relatively stable across Models 2 and 3 (coefficients of 0.738
and 0.716 respectively), but the coefficients on teachers’ math-
ematics anxiety strongly differ across Models 1 and 3 (coeffi-
cients of −0.186 and 0.018, respectively). With the inclusion
of mathematical beliefs, the results for mathematical anxiety
lose statistical significance, suggesting a spurious relation-
ship between mathematics anxiety and instructional practices.
Teachers’ mathematical beliefs are a much better predictor of
their instructional practices compared to mathematics anxiety.
Also noteworthy among the results is that teachers with
increasing levels of experience are less likely to incorporate
standards‐based instructional practices as measured by the
ECTMER. Veteran teachers, those with 16 or more years of
experience, had ECTMER scores about 0.357 points lower
than novice teachers (0–5 years of experience) when hold-
ing constant teachers’ mathematics anxiety, mathematical
beliefs, and degree attainment. No controls for degree attain-
ment were statistically significant predictors of instructional
practices in these models.
6 | DISCUSSION
The results of this study confirm, extend, and challenge
the extant literature. The findings indicate the teachers as a
group had a lower to neutral sense of mathematics anxiety.
The data also show those with lower levels of anxiety tend
to use more standards‐based instructional practices and those
with more anxiety tend to use less standards‐based instruc-
tion. The general finding of this analysis is consistent with
the extant literature (Bush, 1989; Gresham, 2007; Hadley &
Dorward, 2011; Karp, 1991; Ma, 1999), as mathematics anx-
iety has shown to influence classroom instructional practices,
including that elementary teachers who experience anxiety
tend to use more traditional approaches. It is noteworthy that
overall the elementary teachers in this study did not seem to
suffer from high levels of mathematics anxiety, contrary to
other claims in the literature about this specific population.
However, when considering this result and others from the
HUGHES et al.
study, one must be mindful these elementary teachers were
largely veteran teachers and had completed multiple math-
ematics courses, perhaps influencing the findings.
When considering mathematical beliefs, the data suggest
the elementary teachers generally held a neutral view, with
these beliefs slightly leaning toward a problem‐solving view of
mathematics. This small inclination toward the problem‐solv-
ing view implies teacher beliefs that mathematics is an ever
changing, expanding field created by humans and cultural in
nature, and classroom instruction should be learner centered
and involve students’ autonomous exploration of their own in-
terests. Teachers with an instrumentalist view of mathematics
(i.e., mathematics is a utilitarian collection of unrelated facts,
rules, and skills; teaching should be content‐focused with an
emphasis on performance; and learning via passive reception of
knowledge and mastery of skills) were less inclined to use stan-
dards‐based instruction. Those teachers with the problem‐solv-
ing view of mathematics were more apt to use standards‐based
teaching. Other research has similarly indicated that teachers’
mathematical beliefs shape instructional choices and practices
(Barkatsas & Malone, 2005; Beswick, 2005; Cross Francis,
2015; Handal, 2003; Phillip, 2007; Polly et al., 2013; Wilkins,
2008). But it must be mentioned there are instances in the liter-
ature when teachers’ beliefs and practices do not align, possibly
due to other influencing factors, with ongoing work to clarify
and refine beliefs as a construct and their part (or not) in shap-
ing practices.
When considering the extent to which the reported in-
structional practices of the teachers were standards‐based
or not, a moderate overall mean score was found indicating
teachers use a mix of teaching practices—standards‐based
and not—in the classroom. Given that the teachers were in
their second year of full implementation of the CCSS‐M
(after a couple of years of training and initial implementa-
tion), with these standards necessitating a standards‐based
pedagogy, such as that described in NCTM’s documents,
this report of moderate use of these practices is somewhat
surprising. However, the introduction of the CCSS‐M re-
quires many teachers to change what and how they teach
(Griffin & David, 2014), and this shift is a difficult process.
For the teachers in this study, the veteran teachers were less
likely to incorporate such an instructional emphasis and for
these experienced teachers, the revolving door of standards
in the state may have been an issue. That is, across the past
10 years, the CCSS‐M was the third set of academic stan-
dards for K–12 education, thus potentially contributing to
an understandable degree of skepticism about change and
adoption of new instructional practices that support the
standards. Also, for all of the teachers in this study, per-
haps their formative years of experiencing mathematics
instruction as students in K–12 classrooms lead them to
believe their own students should be taught in the same
manner (Harbin & Newton, 2013; Hiebert, 2003; Maasepp
   
| 7
& Bobis, 2014/2015; NCTM, 2014), through memoriza-
tion of facts, formulas, and procedures with mathematics
lessons delivered via review, demonstration, and repeated
practice.
Multiple linear regressions were conducted to determine
whether mathematics anxiety and mathematical beliefs could
be considered predictors of teachers’ instructional practices.
The results initially produced significant results for anxi-
ety and practices, but when beliefs were incorporated into the
design, the relationship no longer existed. Regression anal-
ysis was used to test these variables controlling for teaching
longevity and educational degree attainment. As before, the
relationship between anxiety, when controlling for the afore-
mentioned demographic factors, disappeared when beliefs
were incorporated into the model. These findings suggest
a spurious relationship between anxiety and practices, as it
is actually beliefs that are a better predictor of their instruc-
tional practices compared to mathematics anxiety. The ele-
mentary teachers’ beliefs had the strongest overall influence
on their use of standards‐based instruction. This finding is in
line with Wilkins’ (2008) study in which mathematical be-
liefs were found to partially mediate the effects of attitudes
(of which anxiety is a type) on instructional practices.
7 | IM PLICATIONS
Given these findings about the key role of mathematical be-
liefs in relationship to instructional practices, the extant litera-
ture suggests specific ways of positively changing the beliefs
of prospective and practicing elementary teachers while
learning mathematics. One avenue for prompting changes in
beliefs and affect in general is teacher reflection. Teachers
are often unaware of the mathematical affect that drives their
actions; Schoenfeld (2015, p. 403) asserts: “It is difficult to
change something if you don’t know you should be attending
to it. If there is an underlying reason for the practices we en-
gage in, then reflecting on those reasons may give us reason
to problematize the practices.” Through reflection,
teachers learn new ways to make sense of what
they observe, enabling them to see differently
those things that they had been seeing while
developing the ability to see things previous
unnoticed. While teachers are learning to see
differently, they challenge their existing beliefs,
leading to associated belief changes. (Philipp,
2007, pp. 280–281)
Reflecting on affect toward mathematics provides an op-
portunity for hidden emotions, attitudes, and beliefs to become
overt, thus this awareness in and of itself is important for change.
Such reflection can prompt consciousness of inconsistencies
8
|    HUGHES et al.
and conflicts in beliefs and attitudes, thus perhaps creating a
mindset for change and generation of more complete and com-
plementary belief systems. For those elementary teachers with
high levels of mathematics anxiety, engaging in reflective activ-
ity can be particularly beneficial.
Another emphasis shown to positively influence elemen-
tary teachers’ beliefs and affect in general is having them
experience mathematics as a sense‐making activity, provid-
ing time and opportunities to think about, discuss, and ex-
plain mathematical ideas (CBMS, 2012; Liljedahl, 2005;
Schoenfeld, 2015; Swars et al., 2009). For example, Liljedahl
(2005) studied mathematical discovery and affect, specif-
ically the effect of AHA! experiences (i.e., the moment of
mathematical illumination) with prospective elementary
teachers. Through posing problems, allowing substantial
time for working on problems immediately after being as-
signed, providing time to revisit already assigned problems,
working with peers in small groups, and engaging in reflec-
tion about the AHA! experience, attitudes and beliefs about
mathematics were positively transformed. Simply telling
teachers that mathematics is a sense‐making discipline is not
enough—they need to experience it for themselves in sup-
ported, successful ways.
Studying children’s thinking during mathematics pro-
fessional learning also provides a potential avenue for pos-
itive shifts in beliefs about mathematics (Lannin & Chval,
2013; Philipp et al., 2007). It has been posited that instead
of trying to interest elementary teachers in mathematics
for the sake of mathematics itself, teacher learning should
provide connections to children’s thinking, in which teach-
ers are fundamentally concerned. One means of doing so
is through the professional development materials from
the Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI, Carpenter,
Fennema, Franke, Levi, & Empson, 2014) Project. CGI is
an approach to teaching and learning mathematics focus-
ing on teachers using knowledge of children’s mathemat-
ical thinking to make instructional decisions. It includes
research‐based knowledge about children’s mathematical
thinking and well‐defined taxonomies of problem types
and children’s strategies for mathematical operations. The
use of CGI in university courses and professional develop-
ment shows that participating elementary teachers changed
their mathematical beliefs (Swars, Smith, Smith, & Hart,
2009; Fennema et al., 1996; Peterson, Fennema, Carpenter,
& Loef, 1989; Vacc & Bright, 1999).
The use of cognitively demanding tasks focused on ele-
mentary mathematics is also a means of changing elemen-
tary teachers’ beliefs and affect in general (Lannin & Chval,
2013). For example, Stein, Smith, Henningsen, and Silver
(2009) encourage the analysis of mathematics instructional
tasks by teachers for “the level and kind of thinking in which
students engage” (p. 1) in order to successfully solve the task.
They offer a useful framework in Implementing Standards
Based Mathematics Instruction, categorizing tasks into those
with lower‐level and higher‐level demands. For example,
some characteristics of cognitively demanding tasks includ-
ing requiring: complex and non‐algorithmic thinking with
no suggested solution pathway; exploration of the nature of
mathematical concepts, processes, or relationships; signifi-
cant effort and persistence (e.g., productive struggle); student
self‐monitoring; and careful analysis of the task, including
potential constraints that limit solutions and solution strat-
egies. These tasks have the potential to engage teachers in
complex forms of thinking with the goal of increasing teach-
ers’ abilities to reason and solve problems, while increasing
their confidence as mathematical thinkers. Also, teachers
perceive the relevance of these tasks given their applications
to the elementary classroom. Professional learning of math-
ematics with elementary teachers could involve analysis of
and engagement in cognitively demanding tasks focused on
elementary mathematics, along with the development of a
collection of such tasks.
The findings of this study show the importance of elemen-
tary teacher affect, particularly beliefs, as it relates to choices
about instructional methods. Given the widespread adoption
of the CCSS‐M in the United States providing an unparalleled
opportunity for systemic change in mathematics education,
the instructional practices that teachers use to teach these
standards are paramount. The findings from this study suggest
instructional practices are influenced by teacher affect, which
should be a target for change during university preparation and
teacher professional development. Studying children’s think-
ing, using cognitively‐demanding instructional tasks, focusing
on mathematics as a sense‐making activity, and engaging in
teacher reflection are all possible avenues for better equipping
confident teachers of elementary mathematics.
8 | LIM ITATIONS
The design of this study and the variables used may limit
the causal links that can be made, as there could be other
confounding variables such as contextual factors and content
knowledge also influencing teachers’ instructional practices.
For example, perhaps teachers are influenced by the beliefs
and policies espoused by their school, principal, and peers,
so that if a school environment does not support the use of
standards‐based instruction a teacher will not use these meth-
ods even if there is a personal belief in their effectiveness. An
additional limitation is that all participants were elementary
teachers in one school system, so it would be important to
replicate this study with other populations of teachers, in-
cluding those who have more balanced representation of nov-
ice, mid‐career, and veteran teachers. Furthermore, because
this study relied on accessible and willing participants, this
non‐random voluntary nature of participant recruitment may
HUGHES et al.
have limited the sample to those elementary teachers more
comfortable with mathematics. Those who hold higher levels
of mathematics anxiety may have avoided the mathematics‐
related surveys. Additionally, the inclusion of instructional
practices as a variable surveyed may have “cued” the par-
ticipants to select answers that sound more theoretically ap-
propriate rather than select answers corresponding with their
actual, enacted instructional practices. However, even with
these limitations, the findings from this study offer important
evidence of relationships between the study variables and
offer teacher educators with insights into the importance of
teacher affect at it relates to instructional practices.
R E F E R E NC E S
Aslan, D. (2013). A comparison of pre‐ and in‐service preschool teachers’
mathematical anxiety and beliefs about mathematics for young chil-
dren. Academic Research International, 4(2), 225–230. Retrieved from
http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.4(2)/2013(4.2–22).pdf
Barkatsas, A., & Malone, J. (2005). A typology of mathematics teach-
ers’ beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics and instruc-
tional practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2),
69–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217416
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010).
Female teachers’math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 1860–1863.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910967107
Bekdemir, M. (2010). The pre‐service teachers’ mathematics anxiety
related to depth of negative experiences in mathematics classroom
while they were students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75,
311–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9260-7
Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined
contexts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39–68.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217415
Beswick, K. (2006). The importance of mathematics teachers’ beliefs.
The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 62(4), 17–22.
Beswick, K. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs about school mathematics and
mathematicians’ mathematics and their relationship to practice.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 127–147. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10649-011-9333-2
Bush, W. S. (1989). Mathematics anxiety in upper elementary teachers.
School Science & Mathematics, 89(6), 499–509.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S.
B. (2014). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, cur-
riculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex
relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 443–466. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.650215
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The math-
ematical education of teachers II. Providence, RI: American
Mathematical Society.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross Francis, D. L. (2015). Dispelling the notion of inconsistencies
in teachers’ mathematics beliefs and practices: A 3‐year case study.
   
| 9
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 173–201. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9276-5
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of the mathe-
matics teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15,
13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747890150102
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V.
R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to
use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 404–434. https://doi.
org/10.2307/749875
Gonzalez‐DeHass, A. R., Furner, J. M., Vasquez‐Colina, M. D., &
Morris, J. D. (2017). Pre‐service elementary teachers’ achieve-
ment goals and their relationship to mathematics anxiety. Learning
and Individual Differences, 60, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2017.10.002
Gresham, G. (2007). A study of mathematics anxiety in pre‐service
teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 181–188. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0174-7
Griffin, L., & Ward, D. (2014). Teachable moments in math. Educational
Leadership, 72, 34–40.
Haciomeroglu, G. (2013). Mathematics anxiety and mathematical be-
liefs: What is the relationship in elementary pre‐service teachers?
Issues in the Undergraduate Preparation of Mathematics School
Teachers, 5. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1005311.pdf
Hadley, K. M., & Dorward, J. (2011). The relationship among elemen-
tary teachers’ mathematics anxiety, mathematics instructional prac-
tices, and student mathematics achievement. Journal of Curriculum
and Instruction, 5(2), 27–44.
Handal, B. (2003). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs: A review. The
Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 47–57.
Harbin, J., & Newton, J. (2013). Do perceptions and practices align?
Case studies in intermediate elementary mathematics. Education,
133, 538–543.
Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anx-
iety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 33–46.
https://doi.org/10.2307/749455
Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J.
Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research compan-
ion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–23).
Reston, VA: NCTM.
Jacobson, E., & Kilpatrick, J. (2015). Understanding teacher affect,
knowledge, and instruction over time: An agenda for research
on productive disposition for teaching mathematics. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 401–406. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10857-015-9316-9
Karp, K. S. (1991). Elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward
mathematics: The impact on students’ autonomous learning
skills. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 265–270. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1991.tb12095.x
Lannin, J. K., & Chval, K. B. (2013). Challenge beginning teacher
beliefs. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19, 508–515. https://doi.
org/10.5951/teacchilmath.19.8.0508
Liljedahl, P. G. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The ef-
fect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 36, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739041233
1316997
10
|    HUGHES et al.
Ma, X. (1999). A meta‐analysis of the relationship between anxiety
toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 520–540. https://doi.
org/10.2307/749772
Maasepp, B., & Bobis, J. (2014/2015). Prospective primary teachers’
beliefs about mathematics. Mathematics Teacher Education and
Development, 16, 89–107.
Mizala, A., Martinez, F., & Martinez, S. (2015). Pre‐service elemen-
tary school teachers’ expectations about student performance: How
their beliefs are effected by their mathematics anxiety and student’s
gender. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 70–78. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.04.006
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to ac-
tions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Novak, E., & Tassell, J. L. (2017). Studying preservice teacher math
anxiety and mathematics performance in geometry, word, and non‐
word problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 54,
20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.005
Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers’
pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and
Instruction, 6, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0601_1
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K.
Lester (Ed.), Second handbook on mathematics teaching and learn-
ing (pp. 1099–1109). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Philipp, R. A., Ambrose, R., Lamb, L., Sowder, J. L., Schappelle,
B. P., & Sowder, L. (2007). Effects of early field experiences
on the mathematics content knowledge and beliefs of prospec-
tive elementary teachers: An experimental study. Journal for
Research on Mathematics Education, 38, 438–476. https://doi.
org/10.2307/30034961
Polly, D., McGee, J. R., Wang, C., Lambert, R. G., Pugalee, D. K.,
& Johnson, S. (2013). The association between teachers’ be-
liefs, enacted practices, and student learning in mathematics. The
Mathematics Educator, 22(2), 11–30.
Richardson, F., & Suinn, R. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating
scale: Psychometric data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19,
551–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033456
Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., Hogaboam‐Gray, A., & LeSage, A. (2003).
A survey measuring teachers’ implementation of standards‐based
mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 34, 344–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034787
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). What counts, when? Reflection on beliefs,
affect, attitude, orientations, habits of mind, grain size, time scale,
context, theory, and method. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken‐Winter
(Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics ed-
ucation (pp. 395–404). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
Skott, J. (2015). Towards a participatory approach to ‘beliefs’ in mathe-
matics education. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken‐Winter (Eds.), From be-
liefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education (pp. 3–23).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009).
Implementing standards‐based mathematics instruction. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press and NCTM.
Stoehr, K. J. (2017). Mathematics anxiety: One size does not
fit all. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 69–84. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022487116676316
Suinn, R. M., & Winston, E. H. (2003). The mathematics anxiety rating
scale, a brief version: Psychometric data. Psychology Reports, 92,
167–173. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.167
Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., & Hart, L. C. (2009). A lon-
gitudinal study of effects of a developmental teacher preparation
program on elementary prospective teachers’ mathematics beliefs.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 47–66. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10857-008-9092-x
Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’
changing beliefs and instructional use of children’s mathematical
thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 89–
110. https://doi.org/10.2307/749631
Wilkins, J. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teach-
ers’ content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 139–164. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10857-007-9068-2
How to cite this article: Hughes P, Swars Auslander
S, Stinson DW, Fortner CK. Elementary teachers’
mathematical beliefs and mathematics anxiety: How
do they shape instructional practices? School Science
and Mathematics. 2019;00:1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ssm.12329