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

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 75, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-21

  Charalambous, Charalambos Y ^a   Philippou, George N ^b  

^a HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NICOSIA   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Mathematics curriculum reform; Problem solving; Teacher concerns; Teacher efficacy beliefs

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950943851     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-010-9238-5     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331-367.
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.
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
4. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS-Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
5. Brown, M. W., & Mels, G. (1990). RAMONA PC: User manual. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
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.
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.
8. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
9. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge.
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.
11. Duke, D. (2004). The challenges of educational change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
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.
13. Fuller, F. (1969). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
19. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany: State University of New York.
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).
21. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
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.
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.
24. Lin, H. L., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 623-635.
25. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 471-485.
27. Ministry of Education and Culture. (1996). Curriculum for the elementary school grades. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.
28. Ministry of Education and Culture. (1998). Mathematics for fourth grade (teacher manual). Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.
29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
30. Polettini, A. F. (2000). Mathematics teaching life histories in the study of teachers' perceptions of change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 765-783.
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.
32. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211-246.
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.
34. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 95, 534-562.
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.
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.
37. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.
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.
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.
40. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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.
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.
43. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
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.
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.
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.
47. Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5-22.
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.
49. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.