Design and Development of International Context Questionnaires for Mathematics Teachers and Pupils



The FIRSTMATH research team developed two questionnaires to obtain information about the contexts of teaching and learning. These included the beginning teacher context questionnaire for beginning mathematics teachers working in primary and secondary schools, and the pupil context questionnaire for pupils in the primary (3 to 6) and secondary (7 to 12) grades. In this chapter we describe the conceptualization, and development of the questionnaires used in the study as well as approaches to analyze and interpret the data collected.


  1. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  4. Brodie, K. (2000, March). Mathematics teacher development and learner failure: Challenges for teacher education [Paper presentation]. International Mathematics Education and Society Conference, Montechoro, Portugal.Google Scholar
  5. Bruns, B., & Luque, J. (2014). Great teachers: How to raise student learning in Latin America and the Caribbean (advance edition). Washington, DC: World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology Education, 27, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chesnut, S. R., & Cullen, T. A. (2014). Effects of self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and perceptions of future work environment on preservice teacher commitment. The Teacher Educator, 49(2), 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and Abroad. Stanford, CA: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42).
  13. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 677–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadjioannou, X. (2007). Bringing the background to the foreground: What do classroom environments that support authentic discussions look like? American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 370–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hiebert, J. (2013). The constantly underestimated challenge of improving mathematics instruction. In K. R. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 45–56). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodgen, J., & Askew, M. (2007). Emotion, identity and teacher learning: Becoming a primary mathematics teacher. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 469–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopkins, M., Spillane, J. P., Jakopovic, P., & Heaton, R. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114, 200–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Factors affecting the impact of teacher education programmes on teacher preparedness: Implications for accreditation policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(4), 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, G. J., Luke, A., & Green, J. (2008). Introduction: What counts as knowledge in educational settings: Disciplinary knowledge, assessment, and curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 32, vii–x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolodner, J., Dorn, B., Thomas, J. O., & Guzdial, M. (2012). Theory and practice of case-based learning aids. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working Paper No. 33). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  24. Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2010). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linacre, J. M. (2012). Winsteps (Version 3.74) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Scholar
  26. Matsumura, L. C., Crosson, A., Wolf, M. K., Levison, A., & Resnick, L. (2006). Overview of the instructional quality assessment. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  27. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). MPlus (Version 7) [Computer software].
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions
  30. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics
  31. Pajares, F. M. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puurula, A., & Lofstrom, E. (2003, April). Development of professional identity in SMEs [Paper presention]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  33. Rodriguez, M., & Tatto, M. T. (2015, April). Conceptualizing and measuring opportunities to learn and the contexts of teaching. In M.T. Tatto (Chair) Toward a fair evaluation of teachers: Methodological challenges in a cross-national study of mathematics teachers (FIRSTMATH) [Symposium]. American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  34. Rose, R. (2001). Primary school teacher perceptions of the conditions required to include pupils with special education needs. Educational Review, 53(2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Vlerick, P., & Vermeulen, K. (2007). Teacher education, graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85–104). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, W. M. (2012). Exploring relationships among teacher change and uses of contexts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spillane, J., & Diamond, J. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(11), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 Educational Achievement (IEA).
  44. Tatto, M. T., Burn, K., Menter, I., Mutton, T., & Thompson, I. (2018). Learning to teaching in England and the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.
  46. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Bankov, K, Rodriguez, M.C., & 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 Educational Achievement (IEA).
  47. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  48. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).
  49. Williams, S. R., & Ivey, K. M. C. (2001). Affective assessment and mathematics classroom engagement: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zeichner, K. M., & Schulte, A. K. (2001). What we know and don’t know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.College of EducationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Center for Science, Mathematics & Computer EducationUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  5. 5.Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, the University of SofiaInstitute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  6. 6.Oakland Community CollegeEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations