The Sense of Didactic Self-efficacy in Mathematics Teachers with Various Personal Theories Regarding Gender Differences and Mathematical Giftedness

• Authors: Krzysztof Rubacha , Mariana Sirotova

Abstracts

EN

The paper presents a quasi-experimental study clarifying the variability of maths teachers’ sense of self-efficacy based on their personal theories regarding differences in mathematical giftedness between girls and boys. Didactic self-efficacy is understood as a judgment of the possibility of teaching all learners. A ‘personal theory’ is understood as a verbalized group of judgments regarding the source of mathematical giftedness among girls and boys. The two variables, i.e. ‘personal theories’ and ‘biological sex’, were introduced in a two-factor NOVA model. A strong main effect for ‘personal theories’ was noted, while there was no statistically significant effect for biological sex. The result shows that gender stereotypes can weaken teachers’ sense of didactic self-efficacy, and consequently block pupils’ opportunity for development.

Keywords

EN

didactic self-efficacy; mathematics teachers; teachers’ personal theories; gender differences; mathematical giftedness

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: The New Educational Review
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 53
• Pages: 261-270

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Krzysztof Rubacha

• Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

author

Mariana Sirotova

• University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius v Trnave

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, In: R.F. Baumeister (ed.), The self in Social Psychology, Ann Arbor Press, Philadelphia.
• Bussey K., Bandura, A. (1999), Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation, Psychological Review, 4.
• Cervone, D. & Pervin, L.A. (2016). Personality: Theory and Research, 13th Wiley.
• Chomczyńska-Rubacha, M. & Rubacha, K. (2013) Educational strategies of teachers with various senses of efficacy. New Educational Review, 31, no. 1, p. 105 – 115.
• Clarricoates, K. (1983). Classroom Interaction, In: J. Whyld (ed.) Sexism in the Secondary Curriculum. London (Harper & Row).
• Francis. B., Skelton. Ch. (2005) Reassessing Gender and Achievement. Questioning contemporary key debates. London–New York, Routledge.
• Haag. P. (2002). Single-sex Education in grades K-12. What does the research tell us? In. S.M. Bayley (ed.) Gender in Education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass A Wiley Company.
• Kaplan. P.S. (1990) Educational Psychology for Tomorrow`s Teacher. St. Paul: West Pub. Co
• Lubinski, D.. Benbow, C.P. (1992). Gender Differences in Abilities and Preferences Among the Gifted. Implications for the Math/science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science. No 1.
• Meighan, R., Harber, C. (2007). A Sociology of Educating. Bloomsbury London-Oxford.
• Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press and Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Whyld, J. (1983). (ed.) Sexism in the Secondary Curriculum. London (Harper & Row).
• McClellan, E. (1985). “Defining Giftedness.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children; ERIC.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/tner.2018.53.3.22

Biblioteka Nauki

1969296