Mathematics Education Research Journal

1999, Vol. 11, No. 1,39-53

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs About the

Learning and Teaching of Mathematics
Bob Perry

Peter Howard

University of Western Sydney Macarthur

Australian Catholic University

Danielle Tracey
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
,This ,paper reports on an investigation,.of.J.eaclrerhelies OIlcerningthe nature of
mathematics and the learning and teaching of mathematics. The focus is on the
espoused beliefs of 40 Head Mathematics Teachers in Australian secondary schools.
These beliefs are compared with the espoused beliefs of classroom mathematics
teachers in the same schools and with recent mathematics education reform
documents from Australia and USA. A confirmatory factor analysis of responses
from a specifically constructed survey identified two factors (child-centredness and
transmission) which form the basis for the comparative analysis. Interviews with
eight of the Head Mathematics Teachers who responded to the survey provide
further detail for these comparisons. The ramifications of the similarities and
differences in espoused beliefs of the different groups of teachers and the reform
documents are discussed.

Though the investigation of teachers' beliefs is a relative recent area of

research (McLeod, 1992; Thompson, 1992), it is generally agreed that such beliefs
playa critical role in determining how teachers teach (Barnett & Sather, 1992;
Pajares, 1992; van Zoest, Jones, & Thornton, 1994)-even if the precise link
between what teachers say (espoused beliefs) and what they do (enacted beliefs) is
not nearly so clear (Bishop & Clarkson, 1998; Sosniak, Ethington, & Varelas, 1991;
Thompson, 1992). Even further, teachers' espoused beliefs can often seem to be in
internal conflict. Sosniak et a1. (1991), in their study of teachers' beliefs arising
from the Second International Mathematics Study, found that teachers can "hold
positions about the aims of instruction in mathematics, the role of the teacher, the
nature of learning, and the nature of the subject matter itself which would seem to
be logically incompatible" (p. 127). In spite of these apparent difficulties, it is clear
that the espoused beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and
mathematics teaching are important and studies should be continued. This paper
continues the authors' research agenda commenced in 1994 (Perry & Howard,
1994) which has investigated primary and secondary teachers' espoused beliefs
about the learning and teaching of mathematics (Howard, Perry, & Lindsay, 1997;
Perry, Howard, & Conroy, 1996; Perry, Tracey, & Howard, 1998), and comparison
between the beliefs of these two groups of teachers (Tracey, Perry, & Howard,
1998), by considering the espoused beliefs of the curriculum leaders in secondary
school mathematics and those teachers whom they lead.
Beliefs' about the nature of mathematics and how mathematics is done "are
important not only because they influence how one thinks about, approaches, and
follows through on mathematical tasks but also because they influence how one

40

Perry, Howard, & Tracey

studies mathematics and how and when one attends to mathematics instruction"
(Garofalo 1989, p. 502). It is recognised that a student's prime, but by no means
only, source of mathematical experiences is the classroom (Franke, 1988; National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1998) and that what occurs in the
mathematics classroom influences student beliefs (Relich, 1995). Critical to the
classroom implementation of the learning and teaching of mathematics is the
teacher and, in particular, the beliefs of the teacher. All teachers hold beliefs
towards the learning and teaching of mathematics. These beliefs influence and
guide teachers in their decision making and in their implementation of teaching
strategies (Baroody, 1987). Indeed, it has been suggested that the investigation of
beliefs about learning and teaching may well be the most critical factor in
educational research (Pajares, 1992).
One model for categorising beliefs about the teaching of mathematics (Kuhs &
Ball, 1986) suggested that teachers hold views falling into four broad categories:
learner focused; content focused with an emphasis on conceptual knowledge;
content focused with an emphasis on performance; and classroom focused.
Another perspective is offered by Thompson (1992) who reported that teachers'
conceptions of mathematics appear to be related to their views about teaching
mathematics. In particular, their beliefs seem to evolve from their teaching
experience rather than formal study and there appears to be a strong relationship
between teachers' conceptions of teaching and their conceptions of students'
mathematical knowledge (Sosniak et al., 1991).
We have derived a further model of teacher beliefs from our current research
and from various mathematics education reform statements (Australian
Education Council, 1991, 1994; Cobb & Bauersfeld, 1995; National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 1995). This model is based on two factors which
describe what teachers believe about mathematics, mathematics teaching, and
mathematics learning (Perry et al., 1996; Howard et al., 1997). These two factors,
which we call transmission and child-centredness, are defined in the following ways:

Transmission: the traditional view of mathematics as a static discipline

which is taught and learned through the transmission of mathematical
skills and knowledge from the teacher to the learner and where
"mathematics [is seen] as a rigid system of externally dictated rules
governed by standards of accuracy, speed and memory" (National
Research Council, 1989, p. 44);
Child-centredness: students are actively involved with mathematics
through "constructing their own meaning as they are confronted with
learning experiences which build on and challenge existing knowledge"
(Anderson, 1996, p. 31).

This duality of factors is not new and has been described by many authors in
various ways. Sosniak et al. (1991) comment as follows:
Jackson (1986) labels these orientations "the mimetic and the transformative,"
terms which he says encompass the differences expressed in long-standing
debates between "traditional" and "progressive" educators, over "subjectcentred" and "child-centred" practices .... One of the traditions is concerned

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs

41

primarily with the transmission of factual and procedural knowledge while the
other emphasises qualitative transformations in the character and outlook of the
learner. (p. 121)

Stipek & Byler (1997), in their study of early childhood teachers' ''beliefs about
appropriate education for young children" (p. 312), designated two similar factors
as "child-centred beliefs" and "basic skills beliefs," while Lubinski, Thornton,
Heyl, & Klass' (1994) described factors which can be compared with those
introduced above as the ends of a continuum of teachers' beliefs. The analysis
reported in this paper considers the two factors as being separate rather than two
extremes of one beliefs factor.

Head Mathematics Teachers

Head Mathematics Teachers1 (HMTs) are the leaders of school mathematics
faculties, both in terms of curriculum and personnel. The HMT is responsible for
the implementation of the mandatory mathematics syllabuses and for the
standards of teaching and professional development of all the mathematics
teachers in the school. The HMT is also a member of the school executive,
responsible for the running of the school, but usually has no role in the selection of
teachers to work in the school.
The role of curriculum leaders such as HMTs in influencing their faculty's
approaches to teaching or their beliefs about that teaching does not seem to have
excited a great deal of research activity. However, Weissglass (1991) and Milford
(1998) have noted that HMTs do play significant roles in facilitating change in
their teachers, particularly in terms of their classroom behaviours. Milford (1998)
suggests that these roles involve modelling, affirmation and support of the faculty
members.

Research questions
This paper considers the following research questions dealing with the beliefs
of HMTs and their faculty about mathematics, mathematics learning, and
mathematics teaching.
1.

2.
3.

Can the beliefs of secondary mathematics teachers be characterised in

terms of the belief factors transmission and child-centredness?
How do the beliefs of Head Mathematics Teachers (HMTs) and other
classroom mathematics teachers (OMTs) compare on these two factors?
What consequences for mathematics learning and teaching arise from this
comparison?

Method
The study reported in this paper forms a subset of a larger study"in which a
This is the term used in New South Wales public secondary schools. In some systems,
they are known as Mathematics Coordinators.

42

Perry, Howard, & Tracey

total of 939 primary and secondary mathematics teachers responded to a survey

dealing with their use of manipulatives in mathematics learning and teaching and
their beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and mathematics teaching.
The subset of this sample on whose responses this paper is based consists of 233
mathematics teachers in secondary schools in the South Western suburbs of
Sydney. Only data concerning the espoused beliefs of these teachers are reported
here.
The region in which the study was conducted is recognised as one of low
socioeconomic status, in which there are pockets of high unemployment and a
large number of students of non-English speaking background. Employing
authorities describe. it as a relatively 'hard-to-staff' region for teachers and as a
consequence it has a disproportionately high number of young, inexperienced
teachers in its schools.
Two data collection methods were used in the study reported in this paper.
The first was a researcher-designed questionnaire containing 20 items dealing
with the teachers' beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and
mathematics teaching. Responses were given to each item on a three pOint Likert
scale: disagree, undecided, agree. Data gathered from these items relied on the
self-reporting of teachers, parallelling the approach of Hatfield (1994). The items
were constructed from sources including Australian Education Council (1991),
Barnett & Sather (1992), Mumme & Weissglass (1991), and Wood, Cobb, & Yackel
(1992) and were trialed extensively with both primary teachers and secondary
mathematics teachers, as well as being further moderated by experienced
mathematics educators from Sydney universities. Each item was constructed to
reflect either the transmission and or the child-centredness factors defined above.
The items and their predicted factors are given below in Table 3.
In September 1996, the questionnaires were posted, with reply-paid
envelopes, to 52 secondary schools (15 Catholic and 37 government schools) in the
South Western suburbs of Sydney. This was all the secondary schools from these
two groups in this region of Sydney. Schools were contacted by telephone to gain
the Principals' initial approval to undertake the survey in the schools and to
ascertain the number of mathematics teachers in each school. Sufficient numbers
of the questionnaire were posted to cover all mathematics teachers at each school.
A total of 249 survey responses was received. However, 16 have been
excluded from the analysis in this paper because the respondents did not
designate themselves as either an HMT or an OMT. The remaining responses
came from 40 HMTs and 193 OMTs. The maximum number of HMTs who could
have responded to the survey was 52-the number of schools surveyed-so the 40
completed HMT surveys represents a response rate of 77%. The total number of
OMTs in the 52 schools was 323, so the 193 completed OMT surveys represents a
response rate of 51% for this group of teachers.
The second data collection method involved interviews with eight HMTs
selected randomly from the 40 who responded to the survey. These teachers were
interviewed by the first author for approximately 30 minutes each. Questions
were posed, inter alia, on their beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning,
and mathematics teaching. Each interview was audiotaped and transcribed.

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs

43

Results

Demographic data
The sample of 233 teachers consisted of the 40 HMTs and 193 OMTs. The
teaching experience of each of the groups is shown in Table 1, while their
educational qualifications are described in Table 2.

Table 1

Percentage Distribution of Teaching Experience of HMTs and OMTs

Years of teaching

OMTs (n = 193)

HMTs (n = 40)

Less than 1

1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 20
More than 20

o
o

22

25

33

34

65

16

Table 2

Percentage Distribution of Educational Qualifications of HMTs and OMTs

Highest teacher education qualification

HMTs (n = 40)

OMTs (n

Two year trained

Three year trained with Diploma

Four year trained with BEd

18

24

Four year trained with degree/

DipEd/DipTeach
Postgraduate qualification

63

62

15

= 193)

Beliefs
Table 3 shows how the HMTs and OMTs responded to the 20 beliefs
statements on the survey questionnaire. The table also shows the factors
(transmission or child-centredness) which the various statements were intended
to measure. All the items are positive with respect to the intended factor, so that
agreement with each item should indicate belief in the corresponding factor.

Perry, Howard, & Tracey

44

Table 3

Percentage Distribution ofHMT and GMT Responsesa to Survey Belief Statements

Belief statementb

HMTs

OMTs

T 1. Mathematics is computation
T 2. Mathematics problems given to students
should be quickly solvable in a few steps

61
70

8
18

32
13

31
60

18
21

51
19

C 3. Mathematics isthedynamicsearclUngfQI

10

13

77

18

73

77

15

69

15

17

13

82

13

83

90

10

87

15

83

13

82

28

45

28

40

37

23

73

20

84

10

88

10

83

20

43

38

22

43

35

30

20

50

27

15

58

92

15

84

100

93

Mathematics

order and pattern in the learner's environment

C 4. Mathematics is no more sequential a subject
than any oth~r
C S. Mathematics is a beautiful, creative and
useful human endeavour that is both a way of
knowing and a way of thinking
T 6. Right answers are much more important in
mathematics than the ways in which you get
them

Mathematics learning
C 7. Mathematics knowledge is the result of the

T
C

T
C

learner interpreting and organising the

information gained from experiences
8. Students are rational decision makers capable
of determining for themselves what is right and
wrong
9. Mathematics learning is being able to get the
right answers quickly
10. Periods of uncertainty, conflict, confusion,
surprise are a significant part of the
mathematics learning process
11. Young students are capable of much higher
levels of mathematical thought than has been
suggested traditionally
12. Being able to memorise facts is critical in
mathematics learning
13. Mathematics learning is enhanced by
activities which build upon and respect
students' experiences
14. Mathematics learning is enhanced by
challenge within a supportive environment

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs

45

Table 3 (continued)
HMTs

Belief statement

OMTs

93

17

81

58

29

13

63

18

20

33

20

48

21

18

61

15

83

23

72

23

69

13

24

63

75

20

85

14

Mathematics teaching
C 15. Teachers should provide instructional

activities which result in problematic situations

for learners
T 16. Teachers or the textbook - not the student are the authorities for what is right or wrong
T 17. The role of the mathematics teacher is to
transmit mathematical knowledge and to
verify that learners have received this
knowledge
C 18. Teachers should recognise that what seem
like errors and confusions from an adult point
of view are students' expressions of their
current understanding
C 19. Teachers should negotiate social norms
with the students in order to develop a
cooperative learning environment in which
students can construct their knowledge
C 20. It is unnecessary, even damaging, for
teachers to tell students if their answers are

correct or incorrect
aResponses: D (disagree), U (undecided), A (agree).
bpredicted factors: T (transmission), C (child-centredness).

Beliefs about mathematics. Very few of the respondents agreed that "right
answers are much more important in mathematics than the ways in which you get
them." As well, nearly three-quarters of all the teachers believed that
"mathematics is the dynamic searching for order and pattern in the leamer's
environment," while 80% or more of HMT and OMT groups believed that
"mathematics is a beautiful, creative and useful human endeavour," perhaps
reflecting the fact that most of the respondents were university-trained
mathematicians who should know the value of mathematics. This belief was
reflected in comments made by some of the interviewed Head Mathematics
Teachers:
I see mathematics as creative but the kids haven't got this idea at all.
I suppose I sit close to the process line - the fact that maths is creative and looks at
patterns and is a problem solving tool. I think maths is a process. It's a way of
thinking.

An interesting difference between the groups of teachers occurred with the

statement "mathematics is computation." Half of the OMTs agreed with the

Perry, Howard, & Tracey

46

statement compared to onl)'! 32% of HMTs, while 61% of HMTs disagreed

compared with only 31% of OMTs. When a chi-squared analysis was completed
on the separate beliefs statements across the two groups of teachers, this item was
the only one of the 20 statements which yielded any statistically significant
difference (X2 = 12.17, P < 0.01). Backing for the HMT position is evident from the
following comments by interviewees:
They [the students] are not interested. They just want to know how to do
something. It's very frustrating. They don't think beyond that. It's disappointing.
I'm very much against just rote learning and memory. I'm no big deal about just
getting answers right.

Beliefs about mathematics learning. There were high levels of agreement from
both groups of teachers on the statements "mathematics knowledge is the result
of the learner interpreting and organising the information gained from
experiences," "periods of uncertainty, conflict, confusion, surprise are a significant
part of the mathematics learning process," "mathematics learning is enhanced by
activities which build upon and respect students' experiences," and "mathematics
learning is enhanced by challenge within a supportive environment." This
suggests that these teachers were, at least, in sympathy with much of the current
reform agenda in mathematics education (Australian Education Council, 1991,
1994; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 1995). Comments from
interviewed Head Mathematics Teachers support this position:
Maths learning is helped if you can provide some sort of challenge ... That is
basically my approach - try to challenge the kids.
Maths should be at least a challenge and enjoyable.
I love to get them messing about with numbers.

Further support is provided by the large proportions of both groups of

teachers who disagreed that "mathematics learning is being able to get the right
answers quickly." However, memorisation was still seen to be important with
50% of HMTs and 58% of OMTs agreeing with the statement that "being able to
memorise facts is critical in mathematics learning."

Beliefs about mathematics teaching. There were high levels of agreement from
both groups of teachers on the statements "teachers should provide instructional
activities which result in problematic situations for learners," "teachers should
recognise that what seem like errors and confusions from an adult point of view
are students' expressions of their current understanding," "teachers should
negotiate social norms with the students in order to develop a cooperative
learning environment in which students can construct their knowledge," while the
majority of both groups disagreed with "teachers or the textbook - not the student
- are the authorities for what is right or wrong." Again, there is a suggestion that
the reform agenda, or, at least its rhetoric, may have gained some strength in the
field.

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs

47

On the other hand, 48% of HMTs and 61% of OMTs agreed with the
statement "'the role of the mathematics teacher is to transmit mathematical
knowledge and to verify that learners have received this knowledge" and threequarters or more of both groups disagreed with "it is unnecessary, even
damaging, for teachers to tell students if their answers are correct or incorrect." It
would seem that, at least with some teachers, there may be a continuation of the
common (but stereotypical) view that secondary mathematics teachers are content
oriented, transmission teachers who reluctantly accept that there are ways to
teach mathematics beyond those which they may have experienced as students in
secondary school and university. Certainly some of the comments from the
interviewed Head Mathematics Teachers would support this position:
I believe that I have some knowledge and I have got to transmit it to the kids.
Mathematics is a perfect science. It is right and right for all time. It is absolute. It
is a means of describing the world.... Persistence is important.
Enjoyment is not a critical aspect.

Table 4

Factor Loadings of Beliefs Statements

Statement number

Intended factor a

1
2
3
4
5

Factor I

Factor II

T
T
C
C
C

0.26
0.30
0.10
-0.14
0.01

-0.05
0.01
0.43
-0.15
0.41

6
7
8
9
10

T
C
C
T
C

0.20
0.10
-0.13
0.36
-0.05

-0.05
0.38
0.30
0.00
0.21

11
12
13
14
15

C
T
C
C
C

-0.23
0.37
-0.17
0.13
0.02

0.15
0.04
0.41
0.56
0.44

16
17
28
19
20

T
T
C
C
C

0.23
0.51
-0.16
-0.12
-0.29

-0.32
-0.10
0.32
0.53
-0.05

aT: transmission, C: child-centredness.

Perry, Howard, & Tracey

48

Confirmation and Comparison of Beliefs Factors

A confirmatory factor analysis, using principal axis factoring and oblique
rotation, was conducted on the combined responses of the 233 HMTs and OMTs
to the questionnaire survey. The two-factor solution led to the loadings shown in
Table 4. The solution accounted for 15% of the variance.
Except for Items 4, 11, and 16, all items showed a substantial loading on one
factor and a much smaller loading on the other. Also, with the exception of Items
4, 11, 16, and 20, all the items written to measure transmission loaded more
strongly positive on Factor I and all the items written to measure childcentredness loaded more strongly positive on Factor TI. The factor analysis thus
generally supports the authors' model of teachers' beliefs and provides construct
validation for the measurement of the two factors using the survey questionnaire.
The factor analysis was used to calculate z-scores (Le., scores with a mean of 0
and a standard deviqtion of 1) for transmission (Factor I) and child-centredness
(Factor TI), using all the items on the questionnaire. The two scores were
essentially independent (r = -0.12). Table 5 shows that the Head Mathematics
Teachers were less transmission-focussed and more child-centred than the other
mathematics teachers. The differences between the two groups were not only
statistically significant, but the effect sizes of about 0.4 show that the differences
were also substantial.
Table 5
Mean factor scores of HMTs and OMTs
Factor

Mean z-score
HMTs
OMTs

t value

Significance

Transmission
Child-centredness

-0.36
0.32

2.35
-2.05

p < 0.05

0.07
-0.06

P < 0.05

Discussion
The survey used in this study has been shown, through confirmatory factor
analysis, to be suitable for the categorisation of practising teachers' espoused
beliefs about mathematics, mathematics learning, and mathematics teaching.
Further, it has provided evidence for the existence of two factors-transmission
and child-centredness-which can be used in the analysis of these beliefs. While
there is no doubt that individual teachers responded to the belief statements in
ways which would seem to be contradictory, reinforcing the findings of Bishop
and Clarkson (1998) and Sosniak et al. (1991), the factor structure appears to allow
the meaningful analysis of these beliefs. The survey results show that many
secondary mathematics teachers espouse sets of beliefs which can be described as
transmission beliefs, and many espouse sets of beliefs which could be described as
child-centred.

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs

49

The finding that HMTs scored significantly higher than the OMTs on the
child-centredness factor and significantly lower on the transmission factor
requires some explanation. Firstly, we note that the HMTs in the present sample
were significantly more experienced (X2 = 51.60, P < 0.0001) than the OMTs (see
Table 1). In a system where, until recently, promotion was almost entirely based
on seniority, this was to be expected. On the other hand, there was no significant
difference found between HMTs and OMTs in terms of their educational
qualifications (see Table 2). Hence, the differences in HMTs' and OMTs' beliefs
would seem to be the result of HMTs' greater teaching experience. This inference
is supported by Thompson's (1992) finding that teachers' beliefs about
mathematics and mathematics teaching seem to evolve from their teaching
experience rather than from their formal study in teacher preparation.
Specifically, the HMTs may feel more comfortable than their less experienced
staff with the task of teaching mathematics in the sometimes difficult classes that
typify the South Western suburbs of Sydney. Haberman (1994, p. 17) suggests that
in many urban schools in low socioeconomic areas, there exists a "pedagogy of
poverty" which has been described as "a highly directive style of teaching based
on rote learning of the basics, formulated without reference to adequate
pedagogic or social theory" (see also Hatton, 1994, p. 15). Haberman (1994, p. 19)
continues by suggesting that "the pedagogy of poverty requires that teachers who
begin their careers intending to be helpers, models, guides, stimulators, and
caring sources of encouragement transform themselves into directive
authoritarians in order to function in urban schools". Could it be that many of theJ
less experienced OMTs are still working through the "survival" stage of their
beginning teaching and are reflecting the realities of their difficult classes where
authority is seen to be paramount-while the HMTs have sufficient experience
and position power to enable them to look beyond basic survival in the classroom
and at least contemplate that there might be other ways of learning and teaching
mathematics?
Comments in the interviews with HMTs weighed much more heavily on
child-centredness than on transmission, suggesting that they had begun to
synthesise the reform agenda in mathematics into their own thinking, or, at least;'l
into their rhetoric. They seemed to be well aware of the need for professional
development within their mathematics faculties, but they also expressed other
frustrations:
I don't know whether we are churning out any better mathematicians [among our
students] but I think the potential is there. However, a lot of the teachers shy
away from it.
We try to make the work relevant but we are constrained by the syllabus.
Sometimes, I feel, the pressure of the syllabus tends to force us to cut corners with
the kids.... If I sound cheesed off, it's just that I may be a disillusioned maths
teacher.

That teachers with such a wide variety of espoused beliefs as has been
reported here can come to grips successfully with the current mandatory
syllabuses and examination systems in New South Wales secondary schools is

Perry, Howard, & Tracey

50

amazing. Many of the HMTs interviewed suggested that one way of doing this is
to disregard as much of the change as possible:
In our school, the Year 7 and 8 syllabus has not made much difference at all to
tell you the truth.
From my experience, algebra is still taught in the same sort of way as it always
has been.
I think people are still doing what they used to do in the old days.

These comments suggest that, for many Head Mathematics Teachers, the road to
survival for their teachers (and, perhaps, themselves) is to resist much of what
they see as fashion in mathematics pedagogy. They seem to be saying that if they
adhere to the "tried and true" they will not go far wrong.
In this respect, Australian mathematics teachers seem to be no different from
others elsewhere in the world. Sosniak et al. (1991) argue that the very structure of
the settings in which secondary mathematics learning and teaching is undertaken
demands a traditional approach by teachers. "Structurally and functionally ...
schools and classrooms are designed to support and promote the continued
transmission of traditional views and practices" (p. 129). Reinforcing this view,
Battista (1994) notes, with reference to US schools:
Like most adults, almost all current teachers were educated at the elementary,
secondary and university levels in curricula that promoted the conception of
mathematics as procedures rather than sense-making. Moreover, the school
environments in which teachers now teach demand this rule-based view of
mathematics. Their mathematics textbooks support it. State ... testing programs
assess adherence to it. (p.466)

The results of the survey on which this report is based suggest that regular
classroom mathematics teachers feel this pressure to conform to tradition even
more than their curriculum leaders in the school.

Conclusion
This study has shown that espoused beliefs about mathematics, mathematics
learning, and mathematics teaching can be measured and compared across groups
of teachers. Moreover, it has shown that there can be some differences in these
beliefs between classroom mathematics teachers and their curriculum leaders in
secondary schools. In the context of reform currently occurring in mathematics
education, the impact of these differences in beliefs might be critical. However, it
may also be that traditional approaches to mathematics education are so
entrenched among many of the teachers that the impact of a reform agenda will
be minimal.
The results of this study cannot be generalised to other states of Australia or
beyond because of the differences in the structure of the education systems
involved. However, it would be surprising if similar results were not found. This
broadening of the sample is one way in which this study will be extended in the
future. Another is to pursue the challenge to compare espoused and enacted

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs

51

beliefs of secondary mathematics teachers. In both cases, the aim will be to

improve the mathematics education of students in our schools.

Acknowledgements
The research reported in this paper was made possible through an Internal
Research Grant from the University of Western Sydney Macarthur and another
from the Australian Catholic University. The authors also gratefully
acknowledge the assistance of Dr Sue Dockett.

.References
Anderson, J. (1996). Some beliefs and perceptions of problem solving. In P. C. Clarkson
(Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of
the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 30-37). Melbourne:
MERGA.
Australian Education Council (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian
schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Australian Education Council (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian schools.
Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Barnett, c., & Sather, S. (1992, May). Using case discussions to promote changes in beliefs
among mathematics teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco.
Baroody, A. (1987). Children's mathematical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
Battista, M. T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 462-470.
Bishop, A., & Clarkson, P. (1998). What values do you think you are teaching when you
teach mathematics? In J. Gough & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics: Exploring all angles
(Proceeedings of the 35th annual conference of the Mathematical Association of
Victoria, pp. 30-38). Melbourne: MAV.
Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in
classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Franke, M. (1988). Problem solving and mathematical beliefs. Arithmetic Teacher, 35(5),
32-34.
Garofalo, J. (1989). Beliefs and their influence on mathematical performance. Mathematics
Teacher, 82, 502-505.
Haberman, M. (1994). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. In E. Hatton (Ed.),
. Understanding teaching: Curriculum and the social context of schooling (pp. 17-25).
Sydney: Harcourt Brace.
Hatfield, M. (1994). Use of manipulative devices: Elementary school cooperating teachers
self-report. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 303-309.
Hatton, E. (1994). Social and cultural influences on teaching. In E. Hatton (Ed.),
Understanding teaching: Curriculum and the social context of schooling (pp. 3-16). Sydney:
Harcourt Brace.
Howard, P., Perry, B., & Lindsay, M. (1997). Secondary mathematics teacher beliefs about
the learning and teaching of mathematics. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr (Eds.), People in
mathematics education (Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 231-238). Rotorua, NZ: MERGA.
Kuhs, T. M., & Ball, D. L. (1986). Approaches to teaching mathematics: Mapping the domains of
knowledge, skills, and dispositions. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Center on

52

Perry, Howard, & Tracey

Teacher Education.
Lubinski, c., Thornton, c., Heyl, S., & Klass, P. (1994). Levels of introspection in
mathematical instruction. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6, 113:"130.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization.
In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
575-596). New York: Macmillan.
Milford, J. (1998). Head teacher influence on classroom teachers" use of student-centred
strategies. Reflections, 23(3), 21-23.
Mumme, J., & Weissglass, J. (1991). Improving mathematics education through schoolbased change. Issues in Mathematics Education Offprint, American Mathematical Society
and Mathematical Association of America.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1995). Assessment standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1998). Principles and standards for school
mathematics: Discussion draft. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of
mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992).. Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-322.
.
Perry, B., & Howard, P. (1994). Manipulatives: Constraints on construction? In G. Bell, B.
Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.), Challenges in mathematics education (Proceedings
of the 17th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia, pp. 487-496). Lismore, NSW: MERGA.
Perry, B., Howard, P., & Conroy, J. (1996). K-6 teacher beliefs about the learning and
teaching of mathematics. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education
(Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia, pp. 453-460). Melbourne: MERGA.
Perry, B., Tracey, D., & Howard, P. (1998). Elementary school teacher beliefs about the
learning and teaching of mathematics. In H. S. Park, Y. H. Choe, H. Shin, & S. H. Kim
(Eds.), Proceedings of the first conference of the ICMf East Asian Regional Committee on
Mathematical Education (Vol. 2, pp. 485-498). Chungbuk, Korea: Korea Society of
Mathematical Education.
Relich, J. (1995). Gender, self-concept and teachers of mathematics: Effects of attitudes to
teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3D, 179-197.
Sosniak, L. A., Ethington, C. A., & Varelas, M. (1991). Teaching mathematics without a
coherent point of view: Findings from the IEA Second International Mathematics
Study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 119-131.
Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what
they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12,305-325.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of the research. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
127-146). New York: Macmillan.
Tracey, D., Perry, B., & Howard, P. (1998). Teacher beliefs about the learning and teaching
of mathematics: Some comparisons. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.),
Teaching mathematics in new times (Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 613-620). Gold Coast,
QLD:MERGA.
Van Zoest, L. R., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A (1994). Beliefs about mathematics teaching
held by pre-service teachers involved in a first grade mentorship program.

Head Mathematics Teachers' Beliefs

53

Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6,37-55.

Weissglass, J. (1991). Teachers have feelings: What can we do about it? Journal of Staff
Development, 12(1), 28-33.
Wood, T., Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1992). Change in learning mathematics: Change in
teaching mathematics. In H. Marshal (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of
educational change (pp. 177-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Authors
Bob Perry, Faculty of Education and Languages, University of Western Sydney Macarthur,
PO Box 555, Campbelltown NSW 2560. E-mail: <b.perry@uws.edu.au>.
Peter Howard, Faculty of Education, Australian Catholic University, Mount St Mary
Campus, 179 Albert Road, Strathfield NSW 2135. E-mail: <p.howard@mary.acu.edu.au>.
Danielle Tracey, Faculty of Education and Languages, University of Western Sydney
Macarthur, PO Box 555, Campbelltown NSW 2560. E-mail: <d.tracey@uws.edu.au>.