Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1,39-53
Danielle Tracey
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
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
that the espoused beliefs about mathematics, 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 the learning and teaching 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 the curriculum leaders in secondary
school mathematics and those teachers whom they lead.
Beliefs' about the nature of mathematics and how mathematics is done "are
important not only because they influence how one thinks about, approaches, and
follows through on mathematical tasks but also because they influence how one
40 Perry, Howard, & Tracey
studies mathematics and how and when one attends to mathematics instruction"
(Garofalo 1989, p. 502). It is recognised that a student's prime, but by no means
only, source of mathematical experiences is the classroom (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 al., 1991).
We have derived a further model of teacher beliefs from our current research
and from 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 al., 1997). These two factors,
which we call transmission and child-centredness, are defined in the following 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 al. (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 is concerned
Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs 41
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.
Research questions
This paper considers the following research questions dealing with the beliefs
of HMTs and their faculty about mathematics, mathematics learning, and
mathematics teaching.
1. Can the beliefs of secondary mathematics teachers be characterised in
terms of the belief factors transmission and child-centredness?
2. How do the beliefs of Head Mathematics Teachers (HMTs) and other
classroom mathematics teachers (OMTs) compare on these two factors?
3. What consequences for mathematics learning and teaching arise from this
comparison?
Method
The study reported in this paper forms a subset of a larger study"in which a
1This is the term used in New South Wales public secondary schools. In some systems,
they are known as Mathematics Coordinators.
42 Perry, Howard, & Tracey
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 Distribution of Teaching Experience of HMTs and OMTs
Table 2
Percentage Distribution of Educational 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 o 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 corresponding factor.
44 Perry, Howard, & Tracey
Table 3
Percentage Distribution ofHMT and GMT Responsesa to Survey Belief Statements
D U A D U A
Mathematics
T 1. Mathematics is computation 61 8 32 31 18 51
T 2. Mathematics problems given to students 70 18 13 60 21 19
should be quickly solvable in a few steps
C 3. Mathematics isthedynamicsearclUngfQI 10 13 77 8 18 73
order and pattern in the learner's environment
C 4. Mathematics is no more sequential a subject 77 15 8 69 15 17
than any oth~r
C S. Mathematics is a beautiful, creative and 5 13 82 5 13 83
useful human endeavour that is both a way of
knowing and a way of thinking
T 6. Right answers are much more important in 90 0 10 87 8 5
mathematics than the ways in which you get
them
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
C 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 of the
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
C 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
Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs 45
Table 3 (continued)
Beliefs about mathematics. Very few of the respondents agreed that "right
answers are much more important in mathematics than the ways in which you get
them." As well, nearly three-quarters of all the teachers believed that
"mathematics is the dynamic searching for order and pattern in the leamer'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 with the
46 Perry, Howard, & Tracey
Beliefs about mathematics learning. 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, confusion, 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 within a supportive environment." This
suggests that these teachers were, at least, in sympathy with much of the current
reform agenda in mathematics education (Australian Education Council, 1991,
1994; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 1995). Comments from
interviewed Head Mathematics Teachers support this position:
Maths learning is helped if you can provide some sort of challenge ... That is
basically my approach - try to challenge the kids.
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 this position:
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 describing the world.... Persistence is important.
Enjoyment is not a critical aspect.
Table 4
Factor Loadings of Beliefs Statements
Table 5
Mean factor scores of HMTs and OMTs
Factor Mean z-score t value Significance
HMTs OMTs
Transmission -0.36 0.07 2.35 p < 0.05
Child-centredness 0.32 -0.06 -2.05 P < 0.05
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
and Clarkson (1998) and Sosniak et al. (1991), the factor structure appears to allow
the meaningful analysis of these beliefs. The survey results show that many
secondary mathematics teachers espouse sets of beliefs which can be described as
transmission beliefs, and many espouse sets of beliefs which could be described as
child-centred.
Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs 49
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 (X2 = 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 in teacher preparation.
Specifically, the HMTs may feel more comfortable than their less experienced
staff with the task of teaching mathematics in the sometimes difficult classes that
typify the South Western suburbs of Sydney. Haberman (1994, p. 17) suggests that
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
pedagogic or social theory" (see also Hatton, 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
authoritarians in order to function in urban schools". Could it be that many of theJ
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;'l
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 from it.
We try to make the work relevant but we are constrained by the syllabus.
Sometimes, I feel, the pressure of the syllabus tends to force us to cut corners with
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
50 Perry, Howard, & Tracey
amazing. Many of the HMTs interviewed suggested that one way of doing this is
to disregard as much of the change as possible:
In our school, the Year 7 and 8 syllabus has not made much difference at all to
tell you the truth.
From my experience, algebra is still taught in the same sort of way as it always
has been.
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
others elsewhere in the world. Sosniak et al. (1991) argue that the very structure of
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 US schools:
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 the school.
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
be minimal.
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 and enacted
Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs 51
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 Sue Dockett.
.References
Anderson, J. (1996). Some beliefs and perceptions of problem solving. In P. C. Clarkson
(Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of
the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 30-37). Melbourne:
MERGA.
Australian Education Council (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian
schools. 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 all angles
(Proceeedings of the 35th annual conference of the 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.),
Understanding teaching: Curriculum and the social context of schooling (pp. 3-16). Sydney:
Harcourt Brace.
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). Approaches to teaching mathematics: Mapping the domains of
knowledge, skills, and dispositions. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Center on
52 Perry, Howard, & Tracey
Teacher Education.
Lubinski, c., Thornton, c., Heyl, S., & Klass, P. (1994). Levels of introspection in
mathematical instruction. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6, 113:"130.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization.
In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
575-596). New York: Macmillan.
Milford, J. (1998). Head teacher influence on classroom teachers" use of student-centred
strategies. Reflections, 23(3), 21-23.
Mumme, J., & Weissglass, J. (1991). Improving mathematics education through school-
based change. Issues in Mathematics Education Offprint, American Mathematical Society
and· Mathematical Association of America.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995). Assessment standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1998). Principles and standards for school
mathematics: Discussion draft. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of
mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992).. Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-322. .
Perry, B., & Howard, P. (1994). Manipulatives: Constraints on construction? In G. Bell, B.
Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.), Challenges in mathematics education (Proceedings
of the 17th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia, pp. 487-496). Lismore, NSW: MERGA.
Perry, B., Howard, P., & Conroy, J. (1996). K-6 teacher beliefs about the learning and
teaching of mathematics. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education
(Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics 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 the first conference of the ICMf East Asian Regional Committee on
Mathematical Education (Vol. 2, pp. 485-498). Chungbuk, Korea: Korea Society of
Mathematical Education.
Relich, J. (1995). Gender, self-concept and teachers of mathematics: Effects of attitudes to
teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3D, 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? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12,305-325.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of the research. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
127-146). New York: Macmillan.
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 times (Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 613-620). Gold Coast,
QLD:MERGA.
Van Zoest, L. R., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A (1994). Beliefs about mathematics teaching
held by pre-service teachers involved in a first grade mentorship program.
Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs 53
Authors
Bob Perry, Faculty of Education and Languages, University of Western Sydney Macarthur,
PO Box 555, Campbelltown NSW 2560. E-mail: <b.perry@uws.edu.au>.