Mathematical competence is often treated as the main outcome of early mathematics education, but several authors (e.g., Gutstein, 2007; Nieminen et al., 2022; Norén, 2015) have pointed out that from the long term perspective, student agency related to mathematics is equally, if not more, important. When students develop agency related to mathematics, they are better prepared for life-long learning, and they will continue to improve their competences long after completing formal education.

In a broad understanding, agency refers to individuals’ active participation in, and shaping of, realities and is generally recognized as an important condition for learning and participation in different spheres of life (Billett, 2008; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). Several scholars have theorized how agency emerges and is influenced by environmental conditions (see e.g., Archer, 2000; Vaughn, 2020). Consequently, it has been shown how, in educational context, student agency is influenced both by students’ personal characteristics and by environmental conditions which are significantly influenced by teachers’ beliefs and actions in relation to students (see Jääskelä et al., 2021; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011). More specifically, recent research indicates that student agency in secondary and tertiary educational settings is affected by relational, individual, and participatory resources, such as interest, capacity beliefs, self-efficacy, experiences of trust, support from teacher and peers, and opportunities to influence, make choices, and actively participate (see e.g., Hansen, 2022; Nieminen, et al., 2022; Jääskelä et al., 2021).

Teachers play an important role in the development of children's competence in mathematics (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). Effective teaching practices can help to increase student agency and to improve their learning (Niemi et al., 2015; Ruohotie-Lyhty & Moate, 2015). Previous research has also demonstrated that teachers’ beliefs, and certain teaching practices can contribute to students' attitudes towards and competences in mathematics (see, e.g., Muis & Foy, 2010; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). Teachers’ beliefs could be subdivided into beliefs about the nature of mathematics (e.g. static and dynamic), beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning (e.g. transmissive and constructivist) (Ernest, 1989; Op’t Eynde et al., 2002) and self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

 Taking into consideration that teacher beliefs and related practices could enable or inhibit students to develop their agency, the main aim of the current study is to explore the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and student agency. In this paper, we focus on teacher beliefs that are, based on the overview of existing literature, identified as relevant for student agency either as enablers or inhibiters. More specifically, we seek to answer the following research question:

How do different teacher beliefs (concerning static and dynamic views on the nature of mathematics, constructivist beliefs, and self-efficacy) relate to different dimensions of student agency in primary math education?

Sample Data were collected in 45 primary schools from different parts of Estonia (total number of schools proving primary education in Estonia is 468). In total, 121 teachers and their students were included in the analysis (N=1557, 809 attending Grade 3, and 748 attending Grade 4). Measures Students’ agency in learning mathematics was measured with a questionnaire developed based on Authors (2020) and Authors (2021). The questionnaire is based on the ecological model of agency and measures, three dimensions of student agency: iterational (students’ competency beliefs), projective (students short- and long term goals related to learning mathematics), and practical-evaluative dimension (environmental conditions in the school supporting agency). Mathematical competence was measured with a Math Test developed for each grade (i.e., 3 to 4). The test consisted of released items administered in the grade 4 TIMSS 2011 cycle (Mullis et al., 2012). Teacher beliefs were investigated with the following scales: Teachers’ beliefs on the nature of mathematics, the confidence in teaching, and the constructivism scale. All scales were adapted or developed based on the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) (Laschke & Blömeke, 2013) for the purposes of the MATHMot project. Control variables Several background variables that were known to be related to students’ mathematics outcomes and student agency (see e.g., Gustafsson et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2002) were included in the questionnaire. At the student level, we included students age, gender, general cognitive ability, home language, and the number of books at home as a proxy indicator of socio-economic background. At the teacher level, we included the number of students in a class and teachers’ years of experience. Data collection and analysis Ethics committee approval was obtained for the study. Data was collected in spring 2022. The Mplus 8.8 was used for the data analysis and it was realized in two phases. First, descriptive analysis of all variables resulted in basic statistics of all variables at the student and teacher level (M, SD, and variance) as well as intercorrelations between these variables. Second, a two-level multilevel model was analysed to find out to what extent selected teacher beliefs are associated with student math competence and agency dimensions.

Several of the teacher beliefs were related to students’ agency dimensions in the current study. First, teachers’ confidence related to goal setting was positively related to the first dimension of agency: students’ competency beliefs. Both of these measures are related to competence beliefs and previous research has also shown that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are positively related to their students’ self-efficacy beliefs in math education context (see e.g., Chang, 2015). Secondly, as expected based on previous studies (Nieminen, et al. 2022; Priestley et al., 2015; Zee & Koomen, 2016), teachers’ confidence in two areas: goal-setting and motivating students was positively related to the second dimension of agency: students’ evaluation of the learning environment as being agency supportive. Thirdly, as expected, teachers’ beliefs related to constructivism were positively related to the third dimension of student agency: students' purposes related to mathematics. While teacher’s views on mathematics as static were negatively related to the student agency dimension, as also predicted by Voss et al. (2013). These results show that teacher confidence, which illuminates their self-efficacy in teaching, seems to be mostly related to the past and present on student learning while views related to constructivism and nature of learning seem to relate more to the future of learning. Teacher beliefs are indirectly related to students’ outcomes because teachers’ beliefs need to be enacted in practice, this practice needs to be communicated to students and students need to translate these influences to their competence or agency, so we have a chain effect between the teacher beliefs and student outcomes. Further studies are needed to investigate more closely how these beliefs, which we identified in the current study as relevant for developing student agency, are translated to teacher practices and how these practices influence positively or negatively student outcomes such as mathematical competence and agency.

Gutstein, E. (2007). “And that's just how it starts”: Teaching mathematics and developing student agency. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 420-448. Hansen, E. K. S. (2022). Students’ agency, creative reasoning, and collaboration in mathematical problem solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 34(4), 813-834. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 371-404. Jääskelä, P., Heilala, V., Kärkkäinen, T., & Häkkinen, P. (2021). Student agency analytics: learning analytics as a tool for analysing student agency in higher education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(8), 790-808. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self‐competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child development, 73(2), 509-527. Laschke, C. & Blömeke, S (2013). Teacher Education and Development Study: Learning to Teach Mathematics (TEDS–M) - Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente. Waxmann. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as Accountable Authors: Creating Interactional Spaces for Agency Work in Teacher Education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands. Nieminen, J. H., Chan, M. C. E., & Clarke, D. (2022). What affordances do open-ended real-life tasks offer for sharing student agency in collaborative problem-solving?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109(1), 115-136. Norén, E. (2015). Agency and positioning in a multilingual mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89, 167-184. Op’t Eynde, P., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Framing students’ mathematics-related beliefs: A quest for conceptual clarity and a comprehensive categorization. Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?, 13-37. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching Effectiveness Research in the Past Decade: The Role of Theory and Research Design in Disentangling Meta-Analysis Results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499. Vaughn, M. (2020). What is student agency and why is it needed now more than ever?. Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 109-118. Voss, T., Kleickmann, T., Kunter, M., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs. In Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers (pp. 249-271). Springer, Boston, MA.