This content will become publicly available on October 1, 2024
- Award ID(s):
- NSF-PAR ID:
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 45nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
Sacristán, A.I. ; Cortés-Zavala, J.C. ; Ruiz-Arias, P.M. (Ed.)Teachers in the elementary grades often teach all subjects and are expected to have appropriate content knowledge of a wide range of disciplines. Current recommendations suggest teachers should integrate multiple disciplines into the same lesson, for instance, when teaching integrated STEM lessons. Although there are many similarities between STEM fields, there are also epistemological differences to be understood by students and teachers. This study investigated teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics and science using argumentation and the epistemological and contextual factors that may have influenced these beliefs. Teachers’ beliefs about different epistemological underpinnings of mathematics and science, along with contextual constraints, led to different beliefs and intentions for practice with respect to argumentation in these disciplines. The contextual constraint of testing and the amount of curriculum the teachers perceived as essential focused more attention on the teaching of mathematics, which could be seen as benefiting student learning of mathematics. On the other hand, the perception of science as involving wonder, curiosity, and inherently positive and interesting ideas may lead to the creation of a more positive learning environment for the teaching of science. These questions remain open and need to be studied further: What are the consequences of perceiving argumentation in mathematics as limited to concepts already well-understood? Can integrating the teaching of mathematics and science lead to more exploratory and inquiry-based teaching of mathematical ideas alongside scientific ones?more » « less
Dalby, Andrew R. (Ed.)Traditional teaching practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses have failed to support student success, causing many students to leave STEM fields and disproportionately affecting women and students of color. Although much is known about effective STEM teaching practices, many faculty continue to adhere to traditional methods, such as lecture. In this study, we investigated the factors that affect STEM faculty members’ instructional decisions about evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs). We performed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with faculty members from the Colleges of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering who took part in a professional development program to support the use of EBIPs by STEM faculty at the university. We used an ecological model to guide our investigation and frame the results. Faculty identified a variety of personal, social, and contextual factors that influenced their instructional decision-making. Personal factors included attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy. Social factors included the influence of students, colleagues, and administration. Contextual factors included resources, time, and student characteristics. These factors interact with each other in meaningful ways that highlight the hyper-local social contexts that exist within departments and sub-department cultures, the importance of positive feedback from students and colleagues when implementing EBIPs, and the need for support from the administration for faculty who are in the process of changing their teaching.more » « less
We report on the differences in mathematics learning environments in classes taught by certified Elementary Math Specialists (EMSs) (
n= 28) and their peers ( n= 33) as determined by observations of instruction. We used path analysis to examine how variables such as mathematical knowledge for teaching, beliefs, and background characteristics were related to the learning environment. We used the Classroom Learning Environment Measure (CLEM) observation protocol, which attends to aspects of mathematics lessons such as opportunities for students to justify their reasoning and attend to mathematical concepts. Our analysis revealed that learning environments incorporating such elements were significantly more prevalent in classes taught by EMSs, and that there were two paths indicating mediation effects on the relationship between EMS status and learning environment. One path was related to teachers’ beliefs about the primacy of computation in learning mathematics; the other path was related to teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and their beliefs about the extent to which mathematical knowledge is constructed by the learner. We share implications for EMS programs and recommendations for future research on the impact of EMSs in elementary schools.
Women and people of color continue to be underrepresented in many STEM fields and careers. Many studies have linked societal biases against the mathematical abilities of women and people of color to this underrepresentation, as well as to earlier measures of mathematical confidence and performance. Recent studies have shown that teachers may unintentionally have biases that reflect those in broader society. Yet, many studies on teachers’ reports of students’ abilities use data in the field—not experimental data—and thus often cannot say if the findings reflect bias or actual differences. The few experimental studies conducted suggest bias against the abilities of girls and students of color, but the prior work has limitations, which we seek to address (e.g., local samples, no exploration of moderators, no preregistration).
In this preregistered experiment of 458 teachers across the U.S., we randomly assigned gender- and race-specific names to solutions to math problems, then asked teachers to rate the correctness of the solution, as well as the student’s math ability and effort. Teachers also completed scales reflecting their own beliefs and dispositions, which we then assessed how those beliefs/dispositions moderated their biases. We used multilevel modeling to account for the nested data structure.
Consistent with our preregistered hypotheses, when the solution was not fully correct, findings suggest teachers thought boys had higher ability, even though the same teachers did not report differences in the correctness of the solution or perceived effort. Moreover, teachers who reported that gender disparities no longer exist in society were particularly likely to underestimate girls’ abilities. Although findings revealed no evidence of racial bias on average, teachers’ math anxiety moderated their ability judgments of students from different races, albeit with only marginal significance; teachers with high math anxiety tended to assume that White students had higher math ability than students of color.
The present research identifies teachers’ beliefs and dispositions that moderate their gender and racial biases. This experimental evidence sheds new light on why even low-performing boys consistently report higher math confidence and pursue STEM—namely, their teachers believe they have higher mathematical ability.
This research paper focuses on comparing engineering students’ beliefs and behaviors related to making process safety judgements. Despite emphasis on process safety education, serious health and safety accidents in the chemical process industry continue to occur. Investigations of major incidents have reported that, in many cases, tension caused by the need to balance several competing criteria was the culprit. While there have been substantial improvements in process safety education, most efforts have focused on preventing incidents through safer design, while few have focused on making process safety judgements in situations that have competing criteria. This pilot study investigates (1) what are engineering students’ beliefs about how they would approach process safety judgements with competing criteria? and (2) what are students’ responses to differences between their beliefs and behaviors in process safety judgements with competing criteria? We interviewed three chemical engineering students to determine their beliefs about making judgements in process safety contexts with competing criteria. Next, the students played through a digital process safety game, Contents Under Pressure (CUP). In CUP, students make process safety judgements in a digital chemical plant setting, and the judgements they encounter include a variety of criteria juxtapositions. Upon completing CUP, students were asked to reflect on their criteria priorities as they believed they played CUP through an online survey. GAP Profiles were generated as a way to directly compare initial beliefs, gameplay, and reflection criteria priorities. Finally, students reconciled differences between their beliefs and behaviors through a semi-structured interview, prompting students to think about the cause of the observed differences. In the initial beliefs interviews, we identified themes tied to prioritization of competing criteria. Some students rationalized their prioritizations by aligning them with their perceived priorities of the company, while others overcomplicated proposed hypotheticals in an attempt to find an optimized outcome. None of the participants could understand the link between process safety judgements and relationships, so they tended to devalue this criterion in their prioritizations. After playing CUP, the students communicated a better awareness of how relationships influence process safety judgements. Following gameplay, all participants stated that in-game feedback was critical to the ways in which they made judgements during CUP. Some participants indicated that their behaviors in CUP were more representative of the way they would approach process safety judgements in real life than their responses in the initial interview. This result may suggest that students have difficulty accurately predicting how they will apply process safety criteria in judgements without practicing these priorities in context. Results of this pilot study indicate that using a game-based approach to practice judgements with competing criteria gives students an opportunity to gain awareness about their approaches to process safety judgements and any differences that exist with their formulated beliefs.more » « less