Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The statements appear in Table 2 in the Appendix; notice, however, that only the statements retained in the final analysis (see Section 6.1) are presented.

References

  • Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS-Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

  • Brown, M. W., & Mels, G. (1990). RAMONA PC: User manual. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D. (2004). The challenges of educational change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fuller, F. (1969). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lin, H. L., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 623–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 471–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education and Culture. (1996). Curriculum for the elementary school grades. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education and Culture. (1998). Mathematics for fourth grade (teacher manual). Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polettini, A. F. (2000). Mathematics teaching life histories in the study of teachers’ perceptions of change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 765–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 95, 534–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soodak, L., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Gutman Library, Room 459, 6 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Charalambos Y. Charalambous

  2. Department of Education, University of Nicosia, 46 Makedonitissas Ave., P.O. Box 24005, 1700, Nicosia, Cyprus

    George N. Philippou

Authors
  1. Charalambos Y. Charalambous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George N. Philippou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charalambos Y. Charalambous.

Additional information

The research reported in this article was funded by the Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation under grant P2001/21. Any opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding organization. Preliminary findings of this study were presented at the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, in Bergen, Norway.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Factor loadings of the five factors against the statements associated with teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Charalambous, C.Y., Philippou, G.N. Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: integrating two lines of inquiry. Educ Stud Math 75, 1–21 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9238-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9238-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation