Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: integrating two lines of inquiry

  • Charalambos Y. Charalambous
  • George N. Philippou
Article

Abstract

This study brings together two lines of research on teachers’ affective responses toward mathematics curriculum reforms: their concerns and their efficacy beliefs. Using structural equation modeling to analyze data on 151 elementary mathematics teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs 5 years into a mandated curriculum reform on problem solving, the study provides empirical support to a model integrating teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs. This model suggests that teachers’ concerns of preceding stages inform their concerns of succeeding stages; that teachers’ efficacy beliefs about using the reform affect their task and impact concerns and are, in turn, informed by their self concerns; and that efficacy beliefs about employing pre-reform instructional approaches influence all types of teacher concerns. A qualitative analysis of data from 53 teacher logs provided additional insights into teachers’ concerns about the reform. We discuss the policy and methodological implications of these findings and offer directions for future studies.

Keywords

Mathematics curriculum reform Problem solving Teacher concerns Teacher efficacy beliefs 

Notes

References

  1. Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, D. B., & Palsha, S. A. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and implications for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 226–232.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS-Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, M. W., & Mels, G. (1990). RAMONA PC: User manual. Pretoria: University of South Africa.Google Scholar
  6. Charalambous, C., Philippou, G., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). Tracing the development of preservice teachers’ efficacy in teaching mathematics during fieldwork. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 125–142.Google Scholar
  7. Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2009). Beginning teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of new mathematics curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 223–244). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., de Lange, J., et al. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in The Netherlands. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duke, D. (2004). The challenges of educational change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, F. (1969). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  15. Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 and Development, 1, 53–63.Google Scholar
  18. Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276–295). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 147342).Google Scholar
  21. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  22. Kyriakides, L., Charalambous, C., Philippou, G., & Campbell, R.J. (2006). Illuminating reform evaluation studies through incorporating teacher effectiveness research: A case study in Mathematics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 3–32.Google Scholar
  23. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Lin, H. L., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 623–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ministry of Education and Culture. (1996). Curriculum for the elementary school grades. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Education and Culture. (1998). Mathematics for fourth grade (teacher manual). Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  30. Polettini, A. F. (2000). Mathematics teaching life histories in the study of teachers’ perceptions of change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reiss, K. M., & Törner, G. (2007). Problem solving in the mathematics classroom: The German perspective. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Remillard, J. T. (2009). Part II commentary: Considering what we know about the relationship between teachers and curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 85–92). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 95, 534–562.Google Scholar
  35. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–368). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Shotsberg, P. G., & Crawford, A. R. (1999). On the elusive nature of measuring teacher change: An examination of the Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Evaluation and Research in Education, 13, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  38. Soodak, L., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stanic, G. M., & Kilpatrick, J. (1989). Historical perspectives on problem solving in the mathematics curriculum. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 1–22). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Szendrei, J. (2007). When the going gets tough, the tough gets going problem solving in Hungary, 1970-2007: research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 443–458.Google Scholar
  42. Törner, G., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Reiss, K. M. (2007). Problem solving around the world: Summing up the state of the art. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.Google Scholar
  44. Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds, from arithmetical to algebraic thinking: an application of the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van den Berg, R., & Ros, A. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of teachers during educational innovation: A concerns-based approach. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 879–906.Google Scholar
  46. van den Berg, R., Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Implementation of an innovation: Meeting the concerns of teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Xin, Y. P. (2008). The effects of schema-based instruction in solving mathematics word problems: An emphasis on prealgebraic conceptualization of multiplicative relations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 526–551.Google Scholar
  49. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charalambos Y. Charalambous
    • 1
  • George N. Philippou
    • 2
  1. 1.Harvard Graduate School of EducationHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of NicosiaNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations