The association between mathematics pedagogy and learners' dispositions for university study

British Educational Research Journal

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 473-496

  Pampaka, Maria ^a   Williams, Julian ^a   Hutcheson, Graeme ^a   Wake, Geoff ^a   Black, Laura ^a   Davis, Pauline ^a   Hernandez Martinez, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861211658     PISSN: 01411926     EISSN: 14693518     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2011.555518     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. ACME. 2009. The mathematics education landscape in 2009 A report of the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME) for the DCSF/DIUS STEM High Level Strategy Group Meeting (12 June 2009). Available online at: http://www.acme-uk.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=139 (acessed March 2010)
2. ACME. 2010. Post-16 in 2016. Proposals for 16-19 mathematics in anticipation of the review of qualifications scheduled for 2013 with resulting changes to be implemented from 2016 Available online at: http://www.acme-uk.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=228 (accessed October 2010)
3. Agresti, A. 1996. An introduction to categorical data analysis, London: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Andrich, D. 1999. "Rating scale model". In Advances in measurement in educational research and assessment, Edited by: Masters, G. N. and Keeves, J. P. 110-121. Oxford: Pergamon.
5. Argyris, C. and Schon, D. 1978. Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
6. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D. and Wiliam, D. 1997. Effective teachers of numeracy (final report), London: King's College.
7. Bell, A. 1993. Principles for the design of teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(1): 5-34.
8. Boaler, J. 2008. When politics took the place of inquiry: A response to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel's review of instructional practices. Educational Researcher, 37(9): 588-594.
9. Bohlig, M., Fisher, W. P. J., Masters, G. N. and Bond, T. 1998. Content validity and misfitting items. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12(1): 607
10. Bond, T. and Fox, C. M. 2001. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Bryce, T. G. K. 1981. Rasch-fitting. British Educational Research Journal, 7(2): 137-153.
12. CBI & EDI. 2010. Ready to grow: Business priorities for education and skills Available online at: http://www.cbi.org.uk/pdf/20100501-cbi-education-and-skills-survey-2010.pdf (accessed October 2010)
13. Cuban, L. 1983. How did teachers teach, 1890-1980. Theory into Practice, 22(3): 160-165.
14. Ernest, P. 1991. The philosophy of mathematics education, Basingstoke: Falmer.
15. Fraser, B. J. 1998. Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1: 7-33.
16. Goldstein, H. 1979. Consequences of using the Rasch model for educational assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 5(2): 211-220.
17. Goldstein, H. and Blinkhorn, S. 1982. The Rasch model still does not fit. British Educational Research Journal, 8(2): 167-170.
18. Hoffman, J. P. 2004. Generalized linear models: An applied approach, London: Pearson Education.
19. Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. 1999. The multivariate social scientist. Introductory statistics using generalized linear models, London: Sage.
20. Hutcheson, G., Pampaka, M. and Williams, J. 2011. A comparison of students on 'traditional AS mathematics' and 'uses of mathematics' courses: Enrolment and achievement. Research in Mathematics Education,
21. Kember, D. and Gow, L. 1994. Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1): 58-74.
22. Linacre, J. M. 2002. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1): 85-106.
23. Marton, F. and Booth, S. 1997. Learning and awareness, New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
24. McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., Bugliari, D. and Robyn, A. 2001. Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5): 493-517.
25. Messick, S. 1988. "The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement". In Test validity, Edited by: Wainer, H. and Braun, H. I. 33-45. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Messick, S. 1989. "Validity". In Educational measurement, Edited by: Linn, R. L. 13-103. USA: American Council of Education and the Oryx Press.
27. Meyer, D., Zeileis, A. and Hornik, K. Visualizing independence using extended association plots. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing. Edited by: Hornik, K., Leisch, F. and Zeileis, A. Available online at: http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/Conferences/DSC-2003/Proceedings/
28. National Audit Office (NAO). 2010. Educating the next generation of scientists Available online at: http://www.nao.org.uk/young-scientists-2010 (accessed November 2010)
29. NCES. 2000. Mathematics and science in the eighth grade: Findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, (US Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
30. NCTM. 2000. Principles and standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
31. Ofsted. 2008. "Mathematics-understanding the score". London: Ofsted.
32. Ofsted. 2009. The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills 2008/09, London: Ofsted.
33. Panayides, P., Robinson, C. and Tymms, P. 2009. The assessment revolution that has passed England by: Rasch measurement. British Educational Research Journal,
34. Preece, P. F. W. 1980. On rashly rejecting Rasch: A response to Goldstein (with a rejoinder from Goldstein). British Educational Research Journal, 6(2): 209-212.
35. Roberts, G. 2002. SET for success. The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills, London: HM Stationery Office.
36. Roelofs, E., Visser, J. and Terwel, J. 2003. Preferences for various learning environments: teachers' and parents' perceptions. Learning Environments Research, 6(1): 77-110.
37. Ruthven, K. Using longitudinal, cross-system and between-subject analysis of the TIMSS study series to calibrate the performance of lower-secondary mathematics education in England. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the British Congress for Mathematics Education (BCME). pp.183-190.
38. Ryan, J. T. and Williams, J. S. 2007. Children's mathematics, 4-15. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
39. Sainsbury, L. 2007. The race to the top: A review of government's science and innovation policies, London: HM Stationery Office.
40. Schon, D. 1990. Educating the reflective practitioner, Oxford: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
41. Schuh, K. L. 2004. Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8): 833-846.
42. Shuell, T. J. 1993. Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Educational Psychologist, 28(4): 291-311.
43. Smith, R. M., Schumacker, R. E. and Busch, M. J. 1998. Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2(1): 66-78.
44. Swan, M. 2000. The purpose of mathematical activities and pupils' perceptions of them. Research in Education, 63: 199-223.
45. Swan, M. 2005. Improving learning in mathematics: challenges and strategies, London: Department for Education and Skills.
46. Swan, M. 2006. Designing and using research instruments to describe the beliefs and practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75: 58-70.
47. Swanson, C. B. and Stevenson, D. L. 2002. Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1): 1-27.
48. Vermunt, J. D. and Verloop, N. 1999. Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3): 257-280.
49. Wake, G. and Pampaka, M. The central role of the teacher: Even in student centred pedagogies. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the 32nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the XX North American Chapter. Morelia, Michoacán, México.
50. Watson, A. and De Geest, E. 2005. Principled teaching for deep progress: improving mathematical learning beyond methods and materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58: 209-234.
51. Webster, B. J. and Fisher, D. L. 2003. School-level environment and student outcomes in mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 6(3): 309-326.
52. Weisberg, S. 1985. Applied linear regression, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
53. Westerhof, K. J. 1992. On the effectiveness of teaching: direct versus indirect instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 3(3): 204-215.
54. Williams, J. 2011. Teachers telling tales. Research in Mathematics Education,
55. Williams, J.S., Black, L., Davis, P., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Hutcheson, G., Nicholson, S., Pampaka, M. and Wake, G. 2008. "Keeping open the door to mathematically demanding programmes in further and higher education". University of Manchester. TLRP Research Briefing No 38, School of Education
56. Williams, J. S., Black, L., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Davis, P., Pampaka, M. and Wake, G. 2009. "Repertoires of aspiration, narratives of identity, and cultural models of mathematics in practice". In Social interactions in multicultural settings, Edited by: César, M. and Kumpulainen, K. 39-69. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
57. Wolfe, E. W. and Smith, E. V. Jr. 2007. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part I-instrument development tools. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(1): 97-123.
58. Wright, B. D. 1994. Data analysis and fit. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4): 324
59. Wright, B. D. and Mok, M. 2000. Rasch models overview. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(1): 83-106.