Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the mathematical modeling attitude scale for teachers of mathematics

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effective teaching and learning of mathematics through mathematical modeling and connecting mathematics to the real world has gained rapid growth at various educational levels all over the world. The growth in modeling practices in the United States of America (US) and the international community is the result of the development and implementation of new mathematics standards and curricula across the world. In this article, we report on the development and use of a quantitative instrument aimed at assessing teachers of mathematics attitudes toward mathematical modeling practices. Based on the responses of 310 practicing teachers of mathematics from the US, the mathematical modeling attitude scale was evaluated using item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and other psychometric properties. The scale isolated four dimensions: constructivism, understanding, relevance and real-life, and motivation and interest. These 4 factors accounted for 59% of the variation in the 28-item measure. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the overall scale was .96, and that for the subscales was .93 for constructivism, .81 for understanding, .88 for relevance and real-life, and .89 for motivation and interest. The findings suggest a psychometrically useable, reliable, and valid scale for studying teacher’s attitudes toward mathematical modeling. We discuss the instrument’s merit for research and teaching, and implications for teacher education, professional development, and future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(taken from Blum 2011, p. 18)

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. R. (1972). Research on attitudes toward mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 19, 229–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1974). Two scales of attitude toward mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5, 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1980). Attitudes measurement research. In D. A. Payne (Ed.), Recent developments in affective measurement (pp. 1–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang, K. C. (2015). Mathematical modelling in Singapore schools: A framework for instruction. In N. H. Lee & K. E. D. Ng (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: From theory to practice (pp. 57–72). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anhalt, C. O., & Cortez, R. (2015). Mathematical modeling: A structured process. The Mathematics Teacher, 108(6), 446–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asempapa, R. S. (2018). Assessing teachers’ knowledge of mathematical modeling: Results from an initial scale development. Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asempapa, R. S. (2019). Development and initial psychometric properties of the mathematical modeling attitude scale. School Science and Mathematics, 119(1), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asempapa, R. S., & Foley, G. D. (2018). Classroom assessment of mathematical modeling tasks. In M. Shelley & S. A. Kiray (Eds.), Education Research highlights in mathematics, science, and technology 2018 (pp. 6–20). Ames; IA: International Society for Research in Education and Science (ISRES).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bausmith, J. M., & Barry, C. (2011). Revisiting professional learning communities to increase college readiness the importance of pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 40, 175–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, T. E., Marks, B., Demetrikopoulos, M. K., Rose, J., Pollard, E., Thomas, A., & Muldrow, L. L. (2017). Development and validation of scientific literacy scale for college preparedness in STEM with freshmen from diverse institutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 607–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beswick, K., Callingham, R., & Watson, J. (2012). The nature and development of middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(2), 131–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W. (2011). Can modelling be taught and learnt? Some answers from empirical research. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo-Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (ICTMA 14) (pp. 15–30). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: What do we know, what can we do? In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical education: Intellectual and attitudinal challenges (pp. 73–96). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W., & Borromeo Ferri, R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt? Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. Gailbraith, & W. Blum (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Education, engineering and economics (ICTMA 12) (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (2001). Mathematical modelling and new theories of learning. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 20, 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process. ZDM, 38(2), 86–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borromeo Ferri, R. (2018). Learning how to teach mathematical modeling in school and teacher education. Picassoplatz: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demand of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 119–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: Reflections on past developments and the future. ZDM, 38(2), 178–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanelli, P. (2008). Testing survey questions. In E. D. de Leeux, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 176–200). East Sussex: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, D. (2009). Developing a scale to measure students’ attitudes toward chemistry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2185–2203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consortium for mathematics and its applications (COMAP) and Society for industrial and applied mathematics (SIAM). (2016). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in mathematical modeling education. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://www.siam.org/reports/gaimme.php.

  • Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dash, S., Magidin de Kramer, R., O’Dwyer, L. M., Masters, J., & Russell, M. (2012). Impact of online professional development or teacher quality and student achievement in fifth grade mathematics. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2001). Attitude toward mathematics: Some theoretical issues. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the IGPME (pp. 351–358). Utrecht: The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2011). Attitude towards mathematics: A bridge between beliefs and emotions. ZDM, 43(4), 471–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2015). The construct of attitude in mathematics education. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education: Exploring a mosaic of relationships and interactions (pp. 51–72). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerr, H. M., Ärlebäck, J. B., & Costello Staniec, A. (2014). Design and effectiveness of modeling-based mathematics in a summer bridge program. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 92–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, S. M. (2003). Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education, 37, 830–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2005). Attitude research in the 21st century: The current state of knowledge. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 743–767). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D., Fox, J. L., & Watters, J. J. (2005). Problem posing and solving with mathematical modeling. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12, 156–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrada, A., Batanero, C., & Lancaster, S. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards statistics. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Readings (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics: Challenges for teaching and teacher education—The 18th ICMI study (pp. 163–174). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2014). Psychometrics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying student blockages during transitions in the modelling process. ZDM, 38(2), 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, V. (2015). Mathematical modelling in Australia. In N. H. Lee & K. E. D. Ng (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: From theory to practice (pp. 73–82). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershenson, S. (2016). Linking teacher quality, student attendance, and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 11(2), 125–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Chacón, I. (2000). Affective influences in the knowledge of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 149–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, H. T. (2013). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematical modeling. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:161497.

  • Hall, G. (1984). The assessment of modelling projects. In J. S. Berry, D. N. Burghes, I. D. Huntley, D. J. G. James, & A. O. Moscardini (Eds.), Teaching and applying mathematical modelling (pp. 143–148). Chichester: Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannigan, A., Gill, O., & Leavy, A. M. (2013). An investigation of prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptual knowledge of and attitudes towards statistics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 427–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannula, M. S. (2002). Attitude towards mathematics: Emotions, expectations and values. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., & Shih, J. C. (2009). Examining the quality of statistical mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, T. (2015). Mathematical modelling in Japan. In N. H. Lee & K. E. D. Ng (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: From theory to practice (pp. 83–96). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Baccalaureate Organization (2013). Connecting IB to the core. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://www.stcs.org/view/6735.pdf.

  • Johanson, G. A., & Brooks, G. P. (2010). Initial scale development: sample size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, G., Blum, W., Borromeo Ferri, R., & Stillman, G. (2011). Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: Preface. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo-Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: ICTMA14 (pp. 1–8). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitude to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50, 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (1988). Evaluation of the management of change in ELT projects. Applied Linguistics, 9, 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny D. A. (2014). Measuring model fit. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm.

  • Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, T. J. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstad, R. K., Hughes, S., & Briggs, L. D. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward mathematics. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(1), 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leong, R. K. E. (2012). Assessment of mathematical modeling. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 3, 61–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R. (2012). Research on models and modeling and implications for common core state curriculum standards. In R. L. Mayes & L. L. Hatfield (Eds.), WISDOM e monograph: Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling: A driver for STEM integrated education and teaching in context monograph: Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling: A driver for STEM integrated education and teaching in context (Vol. 2, pp. 197–203). Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modelling perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4(2), 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, J. A., Nascimento, M. M., & Estrada, A. (2012). Looking back over their shoulders: A qualitative analysis of Portuguese teachers’ attitudes towards statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11(2), 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertler, C. A., & Reinhart, R. V. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequences. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munakata, M. (2006). A little competition goes a long way: Holding a mathematical modeling contest in your classroom. Mathematics Teacher, 100, 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Author: Washington, DC. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nortvedt, G. A., & Buchholtz, N. (2018). Assessment in mathematics education: Responding to issues regarding methodology, policy, and equity. ZDM, 50(4), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0963-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simson, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterlind, S. J. (2010). Modern measurement: Theory, principles, and applications of mental appraisal. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affects. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 257–315). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. B., Jr. (1973). Teacher attitude as related to student attitude and achievement in elementary school mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 73(6), 501–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plath, J., & Leiss, D. (2018). The impact of linguistic complexity on the solution of mathematical modelling tasks. ZDM, 50(1–2), 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, H. O. (2003). A history of the teaching of modelling. In G. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A history of school mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 647–671). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, H. O. (2011). What is mathematical modeling? Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 2, 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, H. O. (2012). What is mathematical modeling? In Gould, H. Murray, D. R. & Sanfratello, A. (Eds.), Mathematical modeling handbook (pp. viii–xi). Bedford, MA: Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications.

  • Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, C. E., Feinberg, R. G., Jilinskaia, E., & Applegate, J. C. (1999). An evaluation of a psychosocial intervention for survivors of childhood cancer: Paradoxical effects of response shift over time. Psycho-Oncology, 8(4), 344–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and National Science Foundation. (2014). Modeling across the curriculum II. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://www.siam.org/reports/modeling_14.pdf.

  • Sriram, R. (2014). Five things not to do in developing surveys for assessment in students affairs. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/5things-surveys_feb2014_web.pdf.

  • Sriraman, B., & English, L. D. (2010). Surveying theories and philosophies of mathematics education. In B. Sriraman & L. D. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers—Advances in mathematics education (pp. 7–34). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, L. S., & Ang, K. C. (2016). A school-based professional development programme for teachers of mathematical modelling in Singapore. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(5), 399–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tella, A. (2009). Teacher variables as predictors of academic achievement of primary school pupils mathematics. International Electronic Journal Environmental Education, 1(1), 16–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, O. (2010). Teachers’ attitudes towards mathematics in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(1), 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). State and county quick facts. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://quickfacts.censu.us.gov/qfd/states/39/39049.html.

  • Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, N. B. (2013). Teachers’ understanding of and concerns about mathematical modeling in the common core standards. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved November 9, 2020 from https://search.proquest.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/docview/1432193702?accountid=12954.

  • Zan, R. (2013). Solid findings on student’s attitudes to mathematics. European Mathematical Society Newsletter, 89, 51–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. D. (2007). Attitudes towards mathematics: Overcoming positive/negative dichotomy (Monograph). Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3, 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziebarth, S., Fonger, N., & Kratky, J. (2014). Instruments for studying the enacted mathematics curriculum. In D. Thompson & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Enacted mathematics curriculum: A conceptual framework and needs (pp. 97–120). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reuben S. Asempapa.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: mathematical modeling attitude scale (MMAS)

Appendix: mathematical modeling attitude scale (MMAS)

The purpose of this survey is to examine teachers’ attitude toward mathematical modeling. There are two main components with subsections to this survey. The first section collects demographic information, and the second component focuses on your attitude toward mathematical modeling.

This section addresses attitude toward mathematical modeling. The items have 6 possible responses ranging from strongly disagree through strongly agree. Please read each statement and respond to the question based upon your opinion using the 6-point scale provided.

figure a
figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asempapa, R.S., Brooks, G.P. Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the mathematical modeling attitude scale for teachers of mathematics. J Math Teacher Educ 25, 131–161 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-020-09482-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-020-09482-0

Keywords

Navigation