A Comparative Study of Finland and Chile: the Culture-Dependent Significance of the Individual and Interindividual Levels of the Mathematics-Related Affect

  • Laura TuohilampiEmail author
  • Anu Laine
  • Markku S. Hannula
  • Leonor Varas


Mathematics-related affect is established regarding both individual and interindividual levels. However, the interaction between the levels has not been elaborated. Furthermore, it is known that people may draw either from intrinsic or extrinsic experiences to construct their identities depending on their cultural environment. Thus, affective individual and interindividual levels seem to interact with culture. In this study we focus on the significance of and the interaction between the individual and the interindividual levels of affect. This is done with respect to 2 different types of countries (Finland and Chile) to include cultural effect. We use questionnaire-based data and pupils’ drawings of their mathematics class to find out about their individual and interindividual experiences. By using mixed data, we are not only getting a wider picture of pupils’ affect but we can also avoid the most typical errors made in the cross-cultural comparisons as the pupils’ own voice is strengthened. The main finding in the study is that the 2 affective levels are not congruent and that the incongruence appears differently in different types of cultures.


Collectivist cultures Cultural comparison Cultural significances Individual cultures Mathematics-related affect 


  1. Aronsson, K. & Andersson, S. (1996). Social scaling in children’s drawings of classroom life: a cultural comparative analysis of social scaling in Africa and Sweden. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bofah, E. A. T., & Hannula, M. S. (2015). Studying the factorial structure of Ghanaian twelfth-grade students’ views on mathematics. In From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education (pp. 355-381). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fisher (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). A review of instruments created to assess affect in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 167–182.Google Scholar
  5. Ciani, K. D., Middleton, M. J., Summers, J. J. & Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Buffering against performance classroom goal structures: the importance of autonomy support and classroom community. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahlgren, A. & Sumpter, L. (2010). Childrens’ conceptions about mathematics and mathematics education. In: K. Kislenko (Ed.) Proceedings of the MAVI-16 conference (pp. 77–88). Estonia: MAVIGoogle Scholar
  8. Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B. & Chen, C. C. (1999). How did I do?” versus “how did we do?”. Cultural contrasts of performance feedback use and self-efficacy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 594–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, J. (2006). Affect and emotion in mathematical thinking. In J. Maasz & W. Schloeglmann (Eds.), New mathematics education and practice (pp. 233–255). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  10. Evans, I. M., Harvey, S. T., Bucley, L. & Yan, E. (2009). Differentiating classroom climate concepts: academic, management, and emotional environments. New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 131–146.Google Scholar
  11. Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R. & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived learning environment and students’ emotional experiences: a multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 478–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldin, G. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: a hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 59–72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, B. A., DeBacker, T. K., Ravindran, B. & Krows, A. J. (1999). Goals, values, and beliefs as predictors of achievement and effort in high school mathematics classes. Sex Roles, 40(5/6), 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hannula, M. (2011). The structure and dynamics of affect in mathematical thinking and learning. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 34–60). Rzeszów, Poland: ERME.Google Scholar
  15. Hannula, M. S. (2012). Exploring new dimensions of mathematics-related affect: embodied and social theories. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 137-161.Google Scholar
  16. Hannula, M. S., & Laakso, J. (2011). The structure of mathematics related beliefs, attitudes and motivation among Finnish grade 4 and grade 8 students. In Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, Ankara, Turkey: PME.Google Scholar
  17. Harrison, L. J., Clarke, L. & Ungerer, J. A. (2007). Children’s drawings provide a new perspective on teacher-child relationship quality and school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self. A developmental perspective. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Kearney, K. S. & Hyle, A. (2004). Drawing about emotions: the use of participant-produced drawings in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research, 4(3), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar, R., Gheen, M. H. & Kaplan, A. (2002). Goal structures in the learning environment and students’ disaffection from learning and schooling. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 143–173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Laine, A., Näveri, L., Pehkonen, E., Ahtee, M. & Hannula, M.S. (2012). Third-graders' problem solving performance and teachers' actions. In T. Bergqvist (ed.): Proceedings of the ProMath meeting in Umeå, 69–81. University of Umeå.Google Scholar
  23. Mägi, K., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., Rasku-Puttonen, H. & Kikas, E. (2010). Relations between achievement goal orientations and math achievement in primary grades: a follow-up study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(3), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy, P. K., Delli, L. A. M. & Edwards, M. N. (2004). The good teacher and good teaching. Comparing the beliefs of second-grade students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Op’t Eynde, P., de Corte, E. & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Framing students’ mathematics-related beliefs. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: a hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 13–37). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Partanen, A. M. (2011). Challenging the school mathematics culture: an investigative small-group approach; ethnographic teacher research on social and sociomathematical norms. Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 206. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of Lapland, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  29. Polychroni, F., C. Hatzichristou, C. & Sideridis, G. (2011). The role of goal orientations and goal structures in explaining classroom social and affective characteristics. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 207–217.Google Scholar
  30. Ramírez, M. (2005). Attitudes toward mathematics and academic performance among Chilean 8th graders. Estudios Pedagógicos, 31, 97–112.Google Scholar
  31. Sumpter, L. (2012). Themes and interplay of beliefs in mathematical reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1115–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010a). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do – Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I). Retrieved from Accessed 13 March 2015.
  33. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010b). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming social background—equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (volume II). Retrieved from
  34. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD indicators. Retrieved from
  35. Tikkanen, P. (2008). “Helpompaa ja hauskempaa kuin luulin.” Matematiikka suomalaisten ja unkarilaisten perusopetuksen neljäsluokkalaisten kokemana [“Easier and more fun than I thought.” Mathematics experienced by fourth-graders in Finnish and Hungarian comprehensive schools]. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 337. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University Printing House.Google Scholar
  36. Tuohilampi, L. (2011). An examination of the connections between self discrepancies and effort, enjoyment and grades in mathematics. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, (pp. 1239–1248). Rzeszów, Poland: ERME.Google Scholar
  37. Tuohilampi, L., Laine, A., & Hannula, M. S. (2014a). 9-year old students’ self-related belief structures regarding mathematics: a comparison between Finland and Chile. In M. S. Hannula, P. Portaankorva-Koivisto, A. Laine & L. Näveri (eds.): Proceedings of the 18th conference of the mathematical views. Helsinki, Finland: MAVIGoogle Scholar
  38. Tuohilampi, L., Hannula, M. S., Varas, L., Giaconi, V., Laine, A., Näveri L. & Saló i Nevado, L. (2014b). Challenging western approach to cultural comparisons: young pupils' affective structures regarding mathematics in Finland and Chile. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9562-9.
  39. Valenzuela, J. P., Bellei, C. & Ríos, D. D. L. (2014). Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system. The case of Chile. Journal of Education Policy, 29(2), 217–241.Google Scholar
  40. Wagner, J. A., III & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: concept and measure. Group and Organization studies, 11(3), 280–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhu, Y. & Leung, F. S. (2011). Motivation and achievement: is there an East Asian model? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1189–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Tuohilampi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anu Laine
    • 1
  • Markku S. Hannula
    • 1
  • Leonor Varas
    • 2
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.University of ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations