Advertisement

A Comparative International Study of Differences in Beliefs Between Future Teachers and Their Educators

  • Michael C. RodriguezEmail author
  • Maria Teresa Tatto
  • José Palma
  • Kyle Nickodem
Chapter

Abstract

In this study we investigate the extent to which differences exist in beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics between future teachers and their teacher educators/professors across five countries, including Chinese Taipei, Poland, Russian Federation, Singapore, and the United States. The analyses include teacher educators and future primary and secondary teachers grouped within institutions within countries and is based on meta-analytic methods to estimate effects within institutions and synthesize them across institutions within a country. We found significant differences in a number of beliefs about teaching and learning mathematics, and for some countries, the differences between future teachers and their educators vary across institutions. In a number of important and somewhat consistent ways, variation in differences in beliefs is explained by future teachers’ opportunities to learn in the areas of mathematics pedagogy, general pedagogy, and field experiences provided by their teacher preparation programs. In addition, program coherence, mathematical content knowledge, and mathematical pedagogical knowledge also moderate the magnitude of differences in beliefs between future teachers and their educators. We discuss the implications of our findings for the design of the curriculum and experiences provided by teacher education programs.

References

  1. Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (1999). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Mathematical Society. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cbmsweb.org/archive/MET2/met2.pdf
  4. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 221–235). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Burstein, L. (1993). Prologue: Studying learning, growth and instruction cross-nationally: Lessons learned about why and why not to engage in cross-national studies. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Deng, Z. (1995). Estimating the reliability of the teacher questionnaire used in the Teacher Education and Learning to Teach (TELT) study (National center for research on teacher learning technical series, 95-1). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://education.msu.edu/ncrtl/PDFs/NCRTL/TechnicalSeries/TS-95-1.pdf
  11. Egan, O. (1986). The concept of belief in cognitive theory. In L. P. Moss (Ed.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 315–350). New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Floden, R. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 231–266). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grigutsch, S., Raatz, U., & Törner, G. (1998). Einstellungen gegenüber Mathematik bei Mathematiklehrern [Mathematics teachers’ epistemological beliefs about the nature of mathematics]. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik (Journal of Mathematics Education), 19, 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsieh, F. J., Law, C. K., & Shy, H. Y. (2011). Mathematics teacher education quality in TEDS-M: Globalizing the views of future teachers and teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Husen, T. (Ed.). (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries (Vol. 1). New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  16. IEA. (2015). IDB analyzer 3.2. [software]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/eula.html
  17. Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education courses on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muis, K. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O’Sullivan, C. Y., Arora, A., & Erberber, E. (2007). TIMSS 2007 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.Google Scholar
  22. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing software. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
  24. Shavelson, R. J., & Stem, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tatto, M. T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs about teaching diverse students: Understanding the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tatto, M. T. (1998). The influence of teacher education on teachers’ beliefs about purposes of education, roles and practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tatto, M. T. (1999). The socializing influence of normative cohesive teacher education on teachers’ beliefs about instructional choice. Teachers and Teaching, 5, 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tatto, M.T. (Ed.). (2013). The Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries: Technical report. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Student Achievement. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/TEDS-M_technical_report.pdf
  29. Tatto, M. T., & Coupland, D. (2003). Teaching and measuring attitudes in teacher education. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (Advances in teacher education) (Vol. 6, pp. 123–181). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Tatto, M.T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Conceptual framework. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, Michigan State University. Retrieved from https://msu.edu/user/mttatto/documents/TEDS_FrameworkFinal.pdf
  31. Tatto, M.T., Schwille, J., Senk, S.L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M. & Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Student Achievement. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/TEDS-M_International_Report.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations