Teachers’ ratings and students’ outcomes: a comparison in primary mathematics education

Author(s):

Hendrik Van SteenbruggeAnnemie Desoete Martin Valcke

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

24. Mathematics Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

24 SES 10, Teacher Knowledge & Teacher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-30

14:45-16:15

Room:

NIG, HS III

Chair:

Tansy Hardy

Contribution

Research question and theoretical framework Although the prevalence of reading problems on the one hand and mathematics learning problems on the other hand seems to be equal (Desoete, Roeyers, & De Clercq, 2004; Dowker, 2005), the amount of research in both fields does not reflect this finding (Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). Far more research is conducted in the field of reading, while the field of mathematics remains underexposed (Ginsburg, 1997). Therefore, this study focuses on mathematics education. Moreover, taken into account that interventions should take place at an early stage (Dowker, 2004, Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003), we focus on primary education. Instead of a technical-instrumental view on teacher professionalism where the teachers’ autonomy is restricted to the classroom and where the teacher executes what others prescribe (Spencer, 2001; Louis & Smith, 1990), recently a more extended view is put forward in which the teacher is considered as active and self-accountable (Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). A lot of studies also point at the teacher as a very important actor in educational contexts (Gravemeijer et al., 1993; Sood & Jitendra, 2007) and underline that teachers’ knowledge should not be ignored in educational studies (Ball, Lubienski & Mewborn, 2001; Shulman, 1986, 1987). Nonetheless, the attention given to teacher knowledge in the field of mathematics in current international studies like PISA (OECD, 2007) and TIMSS (Mullis, Martin, Foy, 2005) and national studies like PPON (Janssen, Van der Schoot, & Hemker, 2005) in The Netherlands and The first sample survey of mathematics and reading in primary education in Belgium (Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department of Education, 2004) is relatively slight. In this study, an attempt is made towards a stronger integration of teachers’ knowledge within the research field of mathematics education. By means of ratings, teachers could indicate to what extent specific topics of the mathematics curriculum in primary education are difficult for their students. This enabled us to draw a concrete picture of the difficulties in primary mathematics education. As a research objective, we compared teachers’ ratings with learning outcomes of their students to see to what extent teachers’ ratings match with students’ learning outcomes. This is operationalized in two research questions: 1. To what extent do teachers’ ratings overlap with the results of an earlier national mathematics performance study? 2. To what extent do teachers’ ratings overlap with the mathematics performance results on standardized tests of their own students?

Method

Methodology In order to examine teachers’ ratings, a structured questionnaire was developed. More than 900 teachers from all grades (1-6) in primary education answered the questionnaire. All schools were located in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium and the sample is representative for education in Flanders. At the same time, completed mathematics performance test of more than 2000 students of the teachers who completed the questionnaire were collected and analysed. These were standardised tests by which we were able to compare the mathematics performance results of students from different classes and schools. Considering the exploratory nature of the study, statistical analysis of the teachers’ ratings and of the mathematics performance results of the students, is mainly based on basic inferential statistics and descriptives. The relation between teachers’ ratings and the mathematics performance results of the students is analysed by means of a multilevel analysis.

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions, outcomes and findings With regard to the first research question, we observed a partial level of agreement and some disagreement between the quantitative findings in the 2002 sample study and teachers’ ratings. With regard to the second research question, preliminary results reveal a higher level of similarity between teachers’ ratings and the mathematics performance results of their own students. We can conclude that there is a partial overlap between teachers’ ratings and students’ outcomes. This overlap seems to be more obvious when comparing teachers’ ratings and the performance outcomes of their own students. This should not be surprising, although we have to keep in mind that for the second research objective, we based findings on preliminary results. A limitation of the study is that we focus on teacher’s ratings and student outcomes. Further research should also focus on teachers’ practices (Pajares, 1992; Perkkilä, 2003; Philipp, 2007; Thompson, 1992).

References

References Ball, D.L., Lubienski, S.T., Spangler Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: the unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. (pp. 433-456). In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Fourth edition. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2004). Children with mathematics learning disabilities in Belgium. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 32-41. Dowker, A. (2004). What works for children with mathematical difficulties? Research Report No 554. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills. Dowker, A. (2005). Individual differences in arithmetic. Implications for psychology, neuroscience and education. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: structural and conceptual alternatives. In W.R. Houston & M. Haberman (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212-233). New York: MacMillan. Ginsburg, H.P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: a view from developmental psychology. Journal of learning disabilities, 30, 20-33. Gravemeijer, K., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen. M., van Donselaar. G., Ruesink, N.. Streefland, L.. Vermeulen. W.. te Woerd. E.. & van der Ploeg, D. (1993). Methoden in het rekenwiskundeonderwijs, een rijke context voor vergelijkend onderzoek [Textbook series in mathematics education, a rich situation for comparative research]. Utrecht: Centrum voor Didactiek van de B-wetenschappen. Janssen, J., Van der Schoot, F., Hemker, B. (2005). Periodieke peiling van het onderwijsniveau. Balans van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs aan het einde van de basisschool 4 [Periodical Sample Survey of the Educational Level. Balance of mathematics education at the end of primary education 4].Arnhem: Cito. Korthagen, F.A.J., & Kessels, J.P.A.M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational researcher, 28(4), 4-17. Kroesbergen, E.H., & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: a meta-analysis. Remedial & special education, 24, 97-114. Louis, K.S., & Smith, B. (1990). Teacher working conditions. In P. Reyes (Ed.), Teachers and their workplace: commitment, performance, and productivity (pp. 23-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mazzocco M.M., & Myers G.F. (2003). Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics learning disability in the primary school age years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53: 218-253. Ministry of the Flemish Community, Department of Education (2004). Eerste peiling wiskunde en lezen in het basisonderwijs [First sample survey of mathematics and reading in primary education]. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Onderwijs. Mullis, I.V.S, Martin, M.O., & Foy, P. (2005). TIMSS 2003 International report. Lynch school of education, Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS study center. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006. Science competences for tomorrow’s world. Volume 1: Analysis. Paris: OECD Publications Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. Perkkilä, P. (2003). Primary school teachers’ mathematics beliefs and teaching practices. In M.A. Mariotti (Ed.), Proceedings of CERME 3: third conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education 28 February–3 March 2003 in Bellaria, Italy. Retrieved 15th February, 2008 from http://www.ermeweb.free.fr/CERME3/Groups/TG2/TG2_perkkila_cerme3.pdf. Phillipp, 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, N.C.: Information Age Pub Inc Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L.S. (1987).Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-22. Sood, S., & Jitendra, A.K. (2007). A comparative analysis of number sense instruction in reform-based and traditional mathematics textbooks. The journal of special education, 41, 145-157. Spencer, D.A. (2001). Teachers’ work in historical and social context. (pp. 803-825). In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Fourth edition. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Thompson, A. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In A. D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan.

Author Information

Hendrik Van Steenbrugge

Ghent University

Educational Studies

Gent

Annemie Desoete

Ghent University, Belgium

Martin Valcke

Ghent University, Belgium

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.