The Evolution of Student Teachers’ Concerns Regarding Mathematics Curricular Reform

  • Patrick JohnsonEmail author
  • Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin
  • Máire Ní Ríordáin
  • Mark Prendergast


In this research, we investigate the concerns regarding a national mathematics curricular reform of a cohort of student teachers over the course of their 2-year postgraduate initial teacher education (ITE) programme. The concerns of 41 student teachers from four third-level institutions in Ireland were initially recorded at the commencement of their ITE programme. A qualitative study examining the evolution of these concerns for 12 student teachers was undertaken over three different stages of the 2-year programme. Qualitative responses were generated and analysed according to their stages of concerns. Findings suggest that, at the commencement of their ITE programme, student teachers displayed few informational concerns yet they possessed several incorrect assumptions regarding the intention of the reform. Over time, these concerns evolved towards their capabilities to implement the curriculum in classrooms and consequences of the reform on student learning. At the end of their ITE programme, many expressed concerns about implementing reform practices when they become newly qualified teachers.


Curriculum reform Teacher concerns Student teachers Initial teacher education Mathematics education 

Supplementary material

10763_2019_10023_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 14 kb)


  1. Assarroudi, A., Heshmati Nabavi, F., Armat, M. R., Ebadi, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2018). Directed qualitative content analysis: The description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1), 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braund, M., & Campbell, B. (2010). Learning to teach about ideas and evidence in science: The student teacher as change agent. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charalambous, C. Y., & Philippou, G. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: Integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1–21. Scholar
  4. Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum: An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(2), 157–176. Scholar
  5. Clerkin, A. (2012). Personal development in secondary education: The Irish transition year. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(38).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61(3), 279–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A re-examination of Fuller’s concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 465–482. Scholar
  8. Datnow, A. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last? Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 215–239. Scholar
  9. Duke, D. L. (2004). The challenges of educational change Boston. MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fullan, M. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50, 12–17.Google Scholar
  12. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226 Retrieved from Scholar
  13. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458. Retrieved from Scholar
  14. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12. Retrieved from Scholar
  15. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin: U. o. T. Research and Development center for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  16. Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59–69. Scholar
  17. Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irish Mathematics Teachers Association. (2013). Project Maths and the Irish Maths Teachers Association. Dublin: IMTA Scholar
  19. Jeffes, J., Jones, E., Wilson, M., Lamont, E., Straw, S., Wheater, R., & Dawson, A. (2013). Research into the impact of Project Maths on student achievement, learning and motivation: Final report. Slough: NFER.Google Scholar
  20. Jofli, Z., & Watts, M. (1995). Changing teachers’ thinking through critical constructivism and critical action research. Teachers and Teaching, 1(213-227). Scholar
  21. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyons, M., Lynch, K., Close, S., Sheerin, E., & Boland, P. (2003). Inside classrooms: The teaching and learning of mathematics in social context Dublin: Insitute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  23. Marcovitz, D. (1997). Technology and changes in schools: The roles of student teachers. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  24. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution.Google Scholar
  25. McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(5), 471–485. Scholar
  26. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murray, F., & Stotko, E. (2004). The student teacher as an agent of instructional reform: Effects of student teachers on supervising teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 26(3), 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O'Meara, N., & Prendergast, M. (2018a). Time allocated to mathematics in post-primary schools in Ireland: are we in double trouble?. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(4), 501-516.Google Scholar
  29. Orafi, S. M. S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System, 37(2), 243–253. Retrieved from Scholar
  30. Pigge, F. L., & Marso, R. N. (1997). A seven year longitudinal mult-factor assessment of teaching concerns development through preparation and early years of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(2), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prendergast, M., & Treacy, P. (2018b). Curriculum reform in Irish secondary schools–a focus on algebra. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(1), 126-143.Google Scholar
  32. Project Maths Implementation Support Group. (2010). Report of the project maths implementation support group. Dublin: D. o. E. Skills.Google Scholar
  33. Rogan, J. M., Borich, G. D., & Taylor, H. P. (1992). Validation of the stages of concern questionnaire. Action in Teacher Education, 14(2), 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’education, 17(1), 51–65. Retrieved from Scholar
  35. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational researcher, 43(8), 404-412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith Senger, E. (1999). Reflective reform in mathematics: The recursive nature of teacher change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(3), 199–221 Retrieved from Scholar
  37. Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?: Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 396–423. Retrieved from Scholar
  38. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175. Scholar
  39. The Teaching Council. (2011). Policy on the continuum of teacher education. Maynooth, Ireland: The Teaching Council.Google Scholar
  40. The Teaching Council. (2017). Initial teacher education: Criteria and guidelines for programme providers. Maynooth: T. T. Council.Google Scholar
  41. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. Retrieved from Scholar
  42. Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebraic thinking: An application of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 161–183. Scholar
  43. van den Berg, R., & Ros, A. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of teachers during educational innovation: A concerns-based approach. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 879–906. Retrieved from Scholar
  44. Wallace, C. S., & Priestley, M. (2011). Teacher beliefs and the mediation of curriculum innovation in Scotland: A socio-cultural perspective on professional development and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang, F., & Clarke, A. (2014). The practicum experiences of English language major student teachers during a period of profound curriculum reform in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 36, 108–116. Retrieved from Scholar
  46. Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5–22. Retrieved from Scholar
  47. Yu, L. L., & Ortlieb, E. T. (2009). Teacher candidates as innovative change agents. Current Issues in Education, 11(5), 1–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.School of Mathematics & StatisticsUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  3. 3.School of EducationUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations