The Relationship between Mathematics Teachers’ Teaching Approaches and 9th Grade Students’ Mathematical Self

• Authors: Liene Briede
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between the teaching approach adopted by mathematics teachers and their 9th grade students’ mathematical self. The study searched for the answers to three research questions: 1) the approaches prevailing in mathematics teachers’ beliefs about effective teaching and self-reports about their classroom practices, 2) the qualitative and quantitative features of students’ mathematical self and 3) the relationships between the teaching approaches supported by mathematics teachers, the indicators of their 9th grade students’ mathematical self, teachers’ sociodemographic indicators, and students’ socio-demographic indicators. The outcomes of the study show that because of the complex structure of the phenomena, it is difficult to classify mathematics teachers’ beliefs on teaching and their self-reported practice into theoretically predefined groups though the use of constructivism in a lesson has a more positive influence on students’ mathematical self than mere support of the constructivist beliefs.

Keywords

EN

teaching approach; mathematics teaching; students’ mathematical self; constructivism

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 34-47

Dates

published

2016-06-01

online

2016-06-28

Contributors

author

Liene Briede

• Daugavpils University, Parades 1, Daugavpils, LV-5401, Latvia

References

• Badjonova, J., & Iliško, I. (2015). Holistic Approach as Viewed by the Basic School Teachers in Latvia. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education. 6, (1), 132-140. DOI: 10.1515/dcse-2015-0010.[Crossref]
• Borg, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186-188.[Crossref]
• Collins, J. L. (1982). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
• Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249-254). London, Falmer Press.
• Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 23-35.[Crossref]
• Hancock, D. R., Bray M., & Nason, S. A. (2003). Influencing university students’ achievement and motivation in a technology course. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 365-372.[Crossref]
• Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2009). The influence of self-efficacy and working memory capacity on problem-solving efficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 91-100.[WoS]
• Holland, J. H. (1996). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Basic Books.
• Huitt, W. (2006). Becoming a brilliant star: A framework for discussing formative holistic education. Paper presented at the International Networking for Educational Transformation Conference, Augusta, GA. Retrieved January 8, 2012, from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/brilstar/brilstarintros.pdf
• Hycner, H. R. (1999). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (Eds.) Qualitative research. (pp. 143-164), London: Sage.
• Jess, M., Atencio, M., & Thorburn, M. (2008). Using complexity theory to support curricular, pedagogical and professional developments in Scottish Physical Education. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved August 8, 2014, from http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/jes08658.pdf
• Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism vs. Constructivism. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.[Crossref]
• Kazelskis, R. (1998). Some dimensions of mathematics anxiety: A factor analysis across instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(4), 623-634. 75.[Crossref]
• Kislenko, K., Grevholm, B., & Lepik, M. (2009). Mathematics is important but boring. Students’ beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://prosjekt.uia.no/lcm/papers/Kislenko.pdf
• Kuhn, L. (2008). Complexity and educational research: A critical reflection. Education Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 177-189.[Crossref]
• Lepik, M., & Pipere, A. (2011). Baltic-Nordic comparative study on mathematics teachers’ beliefs: Designing research instrument to describe the beliefs and practices of mathematics teachers. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 27, 115-123.
• Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human information processing. New York: Academic Press.
• Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathematics: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 89-120.[Crossref]
• Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Explaining paradoxical relations between academic self-concepts and achievements: Cross-cultural generalizability of the internal/ external frame of reference predictions across 26 countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 56-67.[Crossref]
• Morony, S., Kleitman, S., Lee, Y., & Stankov, L. (2013). Predicting achievement: Confidence vs self-efficacy, anxiety, and self-concept in Confucian and European countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 79-96.[Crossref][WoS]
• Morrison, K. (2008). Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Education Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19-34.[Crossref]
• Mubeen, S., Saeed, S., & Arif, M. H. (2013). Attitude towards mathematics and academic achievement in mathematics among secondary level boys and girls. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(4), 38-41.
• Norman, G. (2011). Chaos, complexity and complicatedness: lessons from rocket science. Medical Education, 45, 549-559.[Crossref][WoS]
• Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.[Crossref]
• Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193 - 203.[Crossref]
• Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203-220.
• Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective variables and mathematics education. Elementary School Journal, 84, 558-581.[Crossref]
• Salīte, I. (2015). Searching for Sustainability in Teacher Education and Educational Research: Experiences from the Baltic and Black Sea Circle Consortium for educational research. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education. 6, (1), 21-29. DOI: 10.1515/dcse-2015-0002.[Crossref]
• Stevens, T., Olivárez, Jr. A., & Hamman, D. (2006). The role of cognition, motivation, and emotion in explaining the mathematics achievement gap between Hispanic and White students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(2), 161-186.[Crossref]
• UNECE (2011). Learning for the future: Competences in Education for Sustainable Development (ECE/CEP/AC. 13/2011/6). Retrieved January 12, 2014, from http://www.lne.be/themas/natuur-en-milieueducatie/algemeen/nme-internationaal/ECE_CEP_AC13_2011_6-20COMPETENCES-20EN.pdf
• Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301. [Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/jtes-2016-0003