Abstract
Scholars and teacher educators alike agree that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward mathematics are key informants of teachers’ instructional approaches. Therefore, it has become clear that, in addition to enriching preservice teachers’ (PSTs) knowledge, teacher education programs should also create opportunities for prospective teachers to develop productive beliefs and attitudes toward teaching and learning mathematics. This study explored the effectiveness of a mathematics preparatory program based on the history of mathematics that aimed at enhancing PSTs’ epistemological and efficacy beliefs and their attitudes toward mathematics. Using data from a questionnaire administered four times, the study traced the development of 94 PSTs’ beliefs and attitudes over a period of 2 years. The analysis of these data showed changes in certain dimensions of the PSTs’ beliefs and attitudes; however, other dimensions were found to change in the opposite direction to that expected. Differences were also found in the development of the PSTs’ beliefs and attitudes according to their mathematical background. The data yielded from semi-structured follow-up interviews conducted with a convenience sample of PSTs largely corroborated the quantitative data and helped explain some of these changes. We discuss the effectiveness of the program considered herein and draw implications for the design of teacher education programs grounded in the history of mathematics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These two courses were the only mathematics/mathematically oriented courses that the study participants took during the 2 academic years under consideration. In addition to these courses, the study participants also took several introductory education courses (e.g., Introduction to Pedagogical Science, Sociology of Education, and Philosophy of Education), some courses on teaching methodology (e.g., Educational Technology), and other content courses (e.g., Science, Language Arts).
The Department of Education at the University of Cyprus accepts PSTs on the basis of four examinations; one in language and three in any of a set of subject areas, including mathematics.
All names used are pseudonyms.
The consistency with which the statements were clustered in the same factors across the four administrations of the questionnaire provides evidence supporting the construct validity of this instrument.
The negative items were recoded; hence the second factor reflects positive personal teacher efficacy beliefs.
The subscripts in the t statistics correspond to the four measurements/administrations of the questionnaire.
References
Adler, J., Ball, D., Krainer, K., Lin, F., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 359–381. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-5072-6.
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). CT: Ablex.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S., & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: the unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematics knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433–456, 4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barbin, E., Bagni, G., Grugnetli, L., & Kronfellner, M. (2000). Integrating history: research perspectives. In J. Fauvel, & J. Maanen (Eds.), History in mathematics education—The ICMI study (pp. 63–90). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Boaler, J. (1997). When even the winners are losers: evaluating the experiences of “top set” students. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 165–182. doi:10.1080/002202797184116.
Buehl, M., Alexander, A., & Murphy, P. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: domain general or domain specific? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1103.
Charalambous, C. Y., Philippou, G. N., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). Tracing the development of preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics during fieldwork. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 125–142. doi:10.1007/s10649-007-9084-2.
Ernest, P. (1991). Philosophy of mathematics education. New York: Falmer.
Fasanelli, F., Arcavi, A., Bekken, O., Dynnikov, C., Furinghetti, F., Grugnetii, L., et al. (2000). The political context. In J. Fauvel, & J. Maanen (Eds.), History in mathematics education—The ICMI study (pp. 1–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Furinghetti, F. (2007). Teacher education through the history of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 131–143. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9070-0.
Gill, M., Ashton, P., & Algina, S. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 164–185. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.003.
Goldin, G. A. (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: Kluwer.
Gordon, C., Lim, L., Mckinnon, D., & Nkala, F. (1998). Learning approach, control orientation and self-efficacy of beginning teacher education students. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher & Development, 1(1), 53–63.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Lin, H., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(5), 623–635. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00018-X.
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte: Information Age.
Philippou, G. N., & Christou, C. (1998). The effects of a preparatory mathematics program in changing prospective teachers` attitudes toward mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 189–206. doi:10.1023/A:1003030211453.
Radford, L., Furinghetti, F., & Katz, V. (2007). Introduction: the topos of meaning or the encounter between past and present. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 107–110. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9076-7.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65. doi:10.2307/1495395.
Schubring, G., Cousquer, E., Fung, C., El-Idrissi, A., Gispert, H., Heiede, T., et al. (2000). History of mathematics for trainee teachers. In J. Fauvel, & J. Maanen (Eds.), History in mathematics education—The ICMI study (pp. 91–142). Boston: Kluwer.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81.
Taplin, M., & Chan, C. (2001). Developing problem-solving practitioners. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(4), 285–304. doi:10.1023/A:1013331126790.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Nevertheless, the authors assume full responsibility for any errors that may appear in the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
George Philippou is retired
Appendix A
Appendix A
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Charalambous, C.Y., Panaoura, A. & Philippou, G. Using the history of mathematics to induce changes in preservice teachers’ beliefs and attitudes: insights from evaluating a teacher education program. Educ Stud Math 71, 161–180 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9170-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9170-0