Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 411–422 | Cite as

Teaching methods and their impact on students’ emotions in mathematics: an experience-sampling approach

  • Madeleine Bieg
  • Thomas Goetz
  • Fabio Sticca
  • Esther Brunner
  • Eva Becker
  • Vinzenz Morger
  • Kyle Hubbard
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Various theoretical approaches propose that emotions in the classroom are elicited by appraisal antecedents, with subjective experiences of control playing a crucial role in this context. Perceptions of control, in turn, are expected to be influenced by the classroom social environment, which can include the teaching methods being employed (e.g., direct instruction or small-group work). In the present study we sought to investigate the effect of various types of teaching methods on students’ emotions during mathematics lessons with students’ control-related appraisals (indicated by pace of instruction and perceived choice) mediating this effect. In a sample of 141 Swiss high-school students, discrete emotions, control-related appraisals, and teaching methods were assessed via the experience-sampling method (i.e., highly ecologically valid real-time assessments) over the course of 2 weeks (once per mathematics lesson resulting in 807 total lesson ratings). Of the three main teaching method categories, direct instruction was reported most frequently (42.6%), followed by working individually (24.5%), and working in small groups or pairs (14.1%). Results of multilevel analyses revealed that direct instruction was associated with slightly lower levels of positive emotions and higher levels of boredom compared to the other two teaching methods, whereas there were no significant differences regarding levels of anxiety or anger. The impact of teaching methods on emotions was found to be partly mediated by control-related appraisals. The role of teaching methods for fostering students’ emotions that are conducive to learning is discussed.

Keywords

Teaching methods Emotions Control–value theory Experience-sampling Direct instruction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation [Grant number 100014_131713/1] granted to Thomas Goetz (second author) and Vinzenz Morger (sixth author).

References

  1. Abdu, R., Schwarz, B., & Mavrikis, M. (2015). Whole-class scaffolding for learning to solve mathematics problems together in a computer-supported environment. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 1163–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Minnaert, A., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Students’ daily emotions in the classroom: Intra-individual variability and appraisal correlates. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 1047. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bieg, M., Goetz, T., & Hubbard, K. (2013). Can I master it and does it matter? An intraindividual analysis on control–value antecedents of trait and state academic emotions. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 102–108. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bieg, M., Goetz, T., Wolter, I., & Hall, N. C. (2015). Gender stereotype endorsement differentially predicts girls’ and boys’ trait-state discrepancy in math anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1404. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohl, T., Bönsch, M., Trautmann, M., & Wischer, B. (Eds.). (2012). Binnendifferenzierung. Teil 1: Didaktische Grundlagen und Forschungsergebnisse zur Binnendifferenzierung im Unterricht [Internal differentiation. Didactical basics and research results for internal differentiation in class]. Immenhausen bei Kassel: Prolog-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Brunner, E. (2013). Innermathematisches Beweisen und Argumentieren in der Sekundarstufe I [Mathematical proving and argumentation at secondary I level]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  8. Brunner, Esther (2014). Verschiedene Beweistypen und ihre Umsetzung im Unterrichtsgespräch. Journal für Mathematik Didaktik, 35(2), 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buff, A., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Pauli, C. (2011). Activating positive affective experiences in the classroom: ‘Nice to have’ or something more? Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 452–466. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bundesamt für Statistik Schweiz (Swiss Federal Statistical Office). (2016). http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/15/06/dos/blank/05/01.html. Accessed 24 Apr 2016.
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15–35). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536. doi: 10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Ailly, H. H. (1992a). Asian mathematics superiority: A search for explanations. Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Ailly, H. H. (1992b). Asian mathematics superiority: A search for explanations: Errata. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 405–405.Google Scholar
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 61–87). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectanices, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Compancy.Google Scholar
  17. Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, O., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Givvin, K. B., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Comparative Education Review, 49(3), 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K., & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students’ emotions and achievement- Instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE approach. Learning and Instruction, 15, 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Do girls really experience more anxiety in mathematics? Psychological Science, 24(10), 2079–2087. doi: 10.1177/0956797613486989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Stoeger, H., & Hall, N. C. (2010). Antecedents of everyday positive emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 34(1), 49–62. doi: 10.1007/s11031-009-9152-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goetz, T., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Emotion and achievement in the classroom. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 192–195). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Goetz, T., Lohrmann, K., Ganser, B., & Haag, L. (2005). Einsatz von Unterrichtsmethoden—Konstanz oder Wandel? Empirische Pädagogik, 19(4), 342–360.Google Scholar
  24. Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Nett, U. E., Keller, M. M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2013). Characteristics of teaching and students’ emotions in the classroom: Investigating differences across domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 383–394. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. doi: 10.1111/bmsp.12028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Helmke, A. (2012). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Teaching quality and teacher professionalism: Diagnosis, evaluation, and improvement of teaching] (4. überarb. Aufl.). Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer.Google Scholar
  28. Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher’s perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 309–339). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. NCES (2003–2013). Washington DC: US Department of Education/National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  30. Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 66–78. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs, J. K., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the US align with the NCTM standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  32. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  33. Kampshoff, M. (2009). Heterogenität im Blick der Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung [Heterogeneity in research on school and teaching]. In Budde, J. & Willems, K., Bildung als sozialer Prozess—zwischen Ungleichheit und Entwicklungsperspektiven [Education as a social process—between inequality and developmental perspectives] (pp. 35–52). Weinheim und München: Juventa Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Kubiak, T., & Krog, K. (2012). Computerized sampling of experiences and behavior. In M. R. Mehl & T. Conner Christensen (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lipowsky, F. (2006). Auf den Lehrer kommt es an. Empirische Evidenzen für Zusammenhänge zwischen Lehrerkompetenzen, Lehrerhandeln und dem Lernen der Schüler. In C. Allemann-Ghionda & E Terhart (Eds.), Kompetenz und Kompetenzentwicklung von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern. Beiheft der Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 51, S. 47–S. 70.Google Scholar
  38. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  39. Patall, E. A., Dent, A. L., Oyer, M., & Wynn, S. R. (2013). Student autonomy and course value: The unique and cumulative roles of various teacher practices. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 14–32. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9305-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2003). Unterrichtsskripts im schweizerischen und im deutschen Mathematikunterricht [Teaching scripts in Swiss and German mathematics teaching]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31(3), 238–272.Google Scholar
  41. Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2010). Selbst- und Unterrichtswahrnehmung der Lehrperson [Teachers’ self- and teaching perception]. In K. Reusser, C. Pauli & M. Waldis (Eds.), Unterrichtsgestaltung und Unterrichtsqualität [Teaching and teaching quality] (pp. 143–170). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  42. Pekrun, R. (2000). A social-cognitive, control–value theory of achievement emotions. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development: Developing motivation and motivating development (pp. 143–163). New York: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control–value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control–value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–549. doi: 10.1037/a0019243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rakoczy, K. (2008). Motivationsunterstützung im Mathematikunterricht—Unterricht aus der Perspektive von Lernenden und Beobachtern [Motivational support in math classes—teaching from the perspective of learners and observers]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  48. Reusser, K., & Pauli, C. (2015). Co-constructivism in educational theory and practice. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 913–917). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 934–960. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 899–915. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenshine, B. (2008). Five meanings of direct instruction. Lincoln: Center on Innovation & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/search/Resources%5CFiveDirectInstruct.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb.
  52. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwerdt, G., & Wuppermann, A. C. (2011). Is traditional teaching really all that bad? A within-student between-subject approach. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 549–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tsai, Y.-M., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 460–472. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madeleine Bieg
    • 1
  • Thomas Goetz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fabio Sticca
    • 3
  • Esther Brunner
    • 2
  • Eva Becker
    • 3
  • Vinzenz Morger
    • 1
  • Kyle Hubbard
    • 4
  1. 1.University of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  2. 2.Thurgau University of Teacher EducationKreuzlingenSwitzerland
  3. 3.University of ZuerichZuerichSwitzerland
  4. 4.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options