Mathematics EducationResearchJournal 2005, Vol. 17, No.

2, 1-8

Editorial

Affect and Mathematics Education

Gilah Leder Peter Grootenboer
La Trobe University Charles Sturt University

Not only has interest in the affective d o m a i n in mathematics education been

long standing, but it is an area to which considerable research attention
continues to be directed. Even a casual perusal of MERGA publications, and
in particular of the Mathematics Education Research Journal [MER]], of
Mathematics Education and Development [MTED], and of the Proceedings of
the Annual MERGA conferences, reveals the sustained interest b y the
mathematics education research c o m m u n i t y - in Australia and elsewhere -
in beliefs, values, attitudes and emotions as they relate to mathematics
education. Indeed, the most recent four-yearly review of Research in
Mathematics Education in Australasia 2000 - 2003 (Perry, Anthony, &
Diezmann, 2004) included, for the first time, an entire chapter on affective
issues in mathematics education (Schuck & Grootenboer, 2004). Given this
prolonged and persistent interest, it is timely to publish a special issue of
MERJ focused specifically on affective issues in mathematics education.

The Affective D o m a i n
The affective d o m a i n has been variously defined in tile literature. In his
influential article in file Handbook of Research in Mathematics Teaching and
Learning, McLeod (1992) suggested that the affective domain, as it related to
matllematics education, could be conceptualised as a continuum:
... we can think of beliefs, attitudes and emotions as representing increased
levels of affective involvement, decreased levels of cognitive involvement,
increasing levels of intensity of response, and decreasing levels of response
stability. (p. 579)
This conceptualisation seems to allow for a closer connection between some
aspects of tile affective d o m a i n (e.g., beliefs and attitudes) than others (e.g.,
beliefs and emotions). Selected facets of the affective domain, but not others,
have also been linked b y otller writers. For example, in the Values and
Mathematics Project (Bishop, FitzSimons, Seah, & Clarkson, 2001), the
authors see values as being closely allied with beliefs, b u t not directly witll
other affective aspects.
Goldin's (2002) description of affective subdomains captures a n u m b e r
of subtle nuances:
2 Leder and Grootenboer

In the individual we can distinguish certain subdomains of affective

representation ... : (1) emotions (rapidly changing states of feeling, mild to
very intense, that are usually local or embedded in context), (2) attitudes
(moderately stable predispositions toward ways of feeling in classes of
situations, involving a balance of affect and cognition), (3) beliefs (internal
representations to which the holder attributes truth, validity, or
applicability, usually stable and highly cognitive, may be highly structured),
and (4) values, ethics, and morals (deeply-held preferences, possibly
characterized as "personal truths", stable, highly affective as well as
cognitive, may also be highly structured). (p. 61)
The various conceptualisations can be summarised as in Figure i below.

Increased cognition and stability, Increased affectivity and intensity,

decreased affectivity and intensity decreased cognition and stability

Figure 1. A model of conceptions of the affective d o m a i n (Grootenboer, 2003)

While this conception of the affective d o m a i n m a y be useful, it is no doubt

open to further debate, and still somewhat simplifies the complex interaction
between affective factors per se and their influences on the learning and
teaching of mathematics. However, difficulties in precisely defining the
affective d o m a i n should n o t d i m i n i s h its relevance to mathematics
education, particularly given the seemingly pervasive impact affecfive
factors have had on mathematics learning and teaching (McLeod & McLeod,
2002).

Research into the Affective Domain in

Mathematics Education
Studies that focus on affective issues in mathematics learning have been
published for at least 40 years although early studies were not numerous and
they were largely quantitative in nature (e.g., Antonnen, 1969). From the mid
1970s there was significant interest in issues of gender and mathematics
education and a n u m b e r of these studies highlighted the influence and role
of affective factors, particularly as it related to girls' learning (e.g., Fennema
& Sherman, 1977; Forgasz, 1995; Leder, 1992). Of late, there appears to be
Affect and Mathematics Education

renewed interest in the affective domain (Anthony, 2004), although it seems

that in file last ten years, particularly in Australia, much of tile research
reported has been undertaken with preservice and inservice teachers, and
beliefs have frequently been the central affective quality of interest (e.g.,
Schuck, 1996).
Before writing this editorial, we trawled through the MERGA
publications over file last ten years (file journals: MERJ and MTED, and the
annual MERGA conference Proceediny~s) to identify and survey articles and
papers that focused on affective factors in mathematics education. The
starting date for our review was influenced by the timing of another special
issue of MERJ on "attitudes to mathematics", volume 4, number 3, published
in 1992.
Since 1995, MERGA publications have invariably included a significant
number (between 10 and 20) of articles and papers related to aspects of affect
in mathematics teaching and learning. As foreshadowed above, over the ten
years beliefs have been a popular concern and file focus of between half to
two-thirds of the papers within this subgroup in any given year. Attitudes
were also well represented initially, although in the last few years this aspect
of the affective domain has attracted less research attention. Each year there
has been a small number of reports of studies into emotions, feelings,
attributions and motivation. More recently tile Values and Mathematics
Education Project team in Melbourne has promoted interest in values in
mathematics education.
The participants in the studies reported in the MERGA publications over
the past decade have comprised both students and teachers: about one-third
involved students (primary, secondary and tertiary) and two-thirds focused
on teachers. Interestingly, the studies with secondary school students
outnumbered the ones with primary school students almost two to one, and
yet with teachers the ratio was reversed. In the last five years there has been
an increase in the number of studies in which the affective responses of
preservice teachers undertaking their initial teacher education programs
have been explored. In general, it seemed that the studies with samples of
teachers (preservice and inservice) typically focused on their beliefs about
mathematics a n d / o r mathematics teaching and learning, whereas the
studies wifll student samples were more often concerned with attitudes,
motivation, or affective factors in general. Of course there were articles and
papers that were outside these generalisations, like McDonough's (2002)
exploration of the mathematical beliefs of primary children, but certainly the
MERGA publications seem to have reflected the recent international trend of
exploring, in particular, teachers' mathematical beliefs (Leder, Pehkonen, &
T6mer, 2002).
The MERGA publications reviewed revealed that studies into aspects of
the affective domain in mathematics education have employed qualitative
and quantitative methodologies in about equal numbers, with a smaller but
significant number using "mixed methods". Both within and beyond the
4 Leder and Grootenboer

MERGA publications, qualitative studies have become more prevalent over

recent years. Our review indicated that quantitative studies (and
quantitative aspects of mixed method studies) almost always relied on
questionnaires, and generally these seemed to be in a Likert scale format.
Qualitative and mixed studies regularly employed interview's for their data
collection, but methods such as participant journals, concept maps, and
drawings also featured. One clear characteristic of the data collection
modes described was the overwhelming predominance of self-reporting
methods with few studies employing in-class or observational type data
gathering approaches.
Finally, we explored the findings of the various studies reported to see if
any clear trends or common outcomes could be identified. Given the
complex and multi-dimensional nature of file affective domain it should
come as no surprise that no particularly outstanding or prominent findings
stood out across the articles and papers. In quite a few studies the authors
reported that preservice and inservice teacher education courses and
programs can facilitate belief or attitude change. This seemed a promising
finding given the generally negative or poor affective views the participants
held initially: However, fllere were no reports on the resilience and long
lasting impact of these changes once the course or program was finished.
Indeed, in a number of articles and papers (and again in several of the papers
included in this issue) it was firmly pointed out that beliefs are contextual,
implying that the changes reported may be diminished by subsequent
experiences. The contextual nature of beliefs may also go some way to
explaining the findings of some researchers that teachers' espoused beliefs
do not always match up with their enacted beliefs.

Themes
Although our overview of the studies published by MERGA in the last ten
years has not been a comprehensive analysis or meta-stud}; some clear
themes emerged regarding research in this area.
One striking aspect of the papers on affective issues in mathematics
education published in the MERGA proceedings over the period surveyed
was the large number described as "part of a larger study" (often doctoral
students' dissertations) or "a pilot study". This meant that in some cases an
understanding of the larger study could be reached by reading presentations
by the same author in successive years. In other cases the scope of the larger
study remained elusive. The MERGA conference was established to
(amongst other things) promote research in mathematics education grad
provide an avenue for the refereed publication of research reports and we
believe it has been successful to this end. How'ever, perhaps the draw-back
of publishing within the limited page allowance of conference proceedings,
and the academic pressure to "publish or perish", has resulted in reports of
larger studies being "salami-sliced" into bite-sized morsels for easy
consumption and continuous production. Publishing in such a limited way,
Affect and Mathematics Education

McLeod (1987) has argued, "may constitute a form of projective test; readers
are likely to see in tile paper reflections of their own interests" (p. 170).
The affective domain is multi-faceted. We have already referred to the
preponderance in MERGA publications of papers concerned with beliefs,
and to a lesser extent attitudes, and aspects of mathematics education. To
date, the emotional dimension of learning mathematics has attracted little
research attention. Ginsburg and Asmussen (1988) have argued that,
"mathematical experience involves feelings", and to capture this emotive
dimension of learning they described it as "hot mathematics" (p. 89). There
seems to be scope for further research into the emotional aspect of learning
mathematics and how it is co~mected to the development of mathematical
understanding. Of course this is no simple matter, and it seems that it might
require more than self-reporting data collection methods alone. Studies
worldwide (e.g., Carroll, 1994; Nardi & Steward, 2002), along with generally
accepted public opinion, suggest that mathematics is faced with a major
problem in that many students - and adults - are constrained by negative
attitudes and feelings about the subject. Therefore, it seems important to
explore these emotional dilemmas with children and teenagers as they
appear to begin experiencing hot mathematics when they are at school.
In a MERJ editorial, Bill Barton (2003) raised a different concern. He
argued that research in the area of affect is often "based on unproven
assumptions" (p. 85) and continued: "there is not a lot of point in researching
how to change teacher attitudes unless we know that teacher attitudes are a
significant factor in student learning" (p. 85). Our survey identified quite a
few studies in which the (often poor) mathematical beliefs and attitudes of
people are described, but few studies in which the difficult task was
attempted of exploring the relationship between affect and a range of other
important factors including cognition, learning and achievement. Yet there
are opportunities to investigate these issues within classrooms and school
communities, for example by considering the interactions between leaming
outcomes and - simultaneously - the affective views of students, teachers,
school leaders, and parents. Looking for ways to improve student learning
and their use and appreciation of mathematics remains a challenge.

In this issue
Three of the four papers in this issue deal with teachers' beliefs; the fourth
with students' attitudes. The samples comprised primary school teachers (in
the article by Judy Anderson, Paul White, and Peter Sullivan), secondary
school teachers and students (in Kim Beswick's article), secondary students
(in the work reported by Anastasios Barkatsas and John Malone), and first
year university students (in Kristina Juter's article). The settings were,
respectively, New' South Wales, Tasmania, Greece, and Sweden. Survey
questionnaires, supplemented with other data gathering techniques, were
used in three of the studies reported. Much, though certainly not all the work
reported, formed part of doctoral thesis projects. When combined, the four
6 Leder and Grootenboer

reference lists illustrate core sources as well as the diversity of work relevant
in this area.
Identifying and refining a model to illustrate and ultimately test the links
between teachers' beliefs and practices for problem solving were important
aims of the Anderson et al. study. Their preferred model was clearly built on
a range of earlier works - all described in some detail. Experimental data,
gathered in a variety of ways, confirmed tile relevance of many of the
elements in their model but failed to capture adequately "the important
influence of the social context of teaching on knowledge (both objective and
subjective) as well as on practices". Specific classroom conditions, and
student needs, influenced teacher practices in ways not fully explained by
the model. Nevertheless, the authors argued, schematic models are "useful
for guiding individual teacher reflection, and group discussions, especially
as part of the planned sustained teacher professional development
programs."
Beswick, too, focused on the connection between the beliefs and
classroom practices of teachers - this time specifically secondary teachers of
mathematics. Teachers and their students completed parallel instruments -
fully described in the paper. In this study the data gathered via
questionnaires were not supplemented with other sources. Although the
teacher and student data are of interest in their own right, the opportunity to
compare the beliefs of teachers about aspects of mathematics and
mathematics teaching with those of students in their own classes adds an
important dimension to this paper.
The study described by Barkatsas and Malone also focuses on the links
between beliefs about mathematics and instructional practices, but this time
the focus is on Greek rather than Australian classrooms. As in the other two
papers already mentioned, a solid theoretical section preceded the
description of the experimental study. Administration of the survey
questionnaire revealed Va,o orientations that characterised the sample's
beliefs about the nature of mathematics teaching and learning: a
contemporary - constructivist orientation and a traditional - transmission -
information processing orientation. A case study of "the work of a veteran
Greek mathematics teacher, Ann" confirmed the complexity between
espoused beliefs and practices in the classroom. Again instructional practices
were heavily influenced not only by beliefs but also by the specific classroom
context and perceived social norms.
In the final paper in this issue, Juter examined the attitudes of university
students to mathematics and searched for a possible link between these and
their performance on limits of functions tasks. Data were gathered via
questionnaires, interviews, observations and test results. Limits were
perceived as important by the students and as more difficult to understand
than algebra. Few students indicated that they learnt by rote but rather that
they could synthesize file mathematics they had learnt. Though the relatively
small sample size precluded firm inferences to be drawn, there was a
Affect and Mathematics Education

discernable trend for students confident a b o u t their m a t h e m a t i c a l ability to

p e r f o r m better. "Which one d e p e n d s on the other", Juter concludes, "is not
possible to tell f r o m this study".
Collectively, the findings reported in this issue are tantalizing. We are
offered p r o v o c a t i v e glimpses of the interaction b e t w e e n affect, teaching a n d
learning, yet s u p p o r t for a firm directional relationship remains elusive. We
h o p e that innovative a n d o n g o i n g research in this i m p o r t a n t area will be
sufficiently p r o d u c t i v e to w a r r a n t another special issue on this topic in
a n o t h e r decade.

References
Anthony, G. (2004). MERGA: A community of practice. In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M.
McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010
(Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia, Vol. 1, pp. 2-15). Townsville, Australia: MERGA.
Antonnen, R. G. (1969). A longitudinal study in mathematics attitude. Journal of
Educational Research, 62, 467-471.
Barton, B. (2003). Editorial. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 84-86.
Bishop, A. J., FitzSimons, G. E., Seah, W. T., & Clarkson, P. C. (2001). Do teachers
implement their intended values in mathematics classrooms? In M. v. d. Heuvel-
Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 169-176). Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.
Carroll, J. (1994). What makes a person mathsphobic? A case study investigating
affective, cognitive and social aspects of a trainee teacher's mathematical
understanding and thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6(2),
131-143.
Fennelna, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics
achievement, special visualization and sociocultural factors. American
Educational Research journal, 14, 51-71.
Forgasz, H. ]. (1995). Gender and the relationship between affective beliefs and
perceptions of Grade 7 mathematics classroom learning enviromnents.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 219-239.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Asmussen, K. A. (1988). Hot mathematics. In G. B. Saxe &
M. Gearhart (Eds.), Children's mathematics: New directions ~ r child development,
no. 41 (pp. 89-111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. C.
Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. TOrner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics
education ? (pp. 59-72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Grootenboer, P. J. (2003). Preservice primary teachers' affective development in
mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, NZ.
Leder, G. C. (1992). Mathematics and gender: Changing perspectives. In D. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 597-622).
New York: Macmillan.
Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E., & TOrner G. (2002). Setting the scene. In G. C. Leder, E.
Pehkonen, & G. TOrner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?
(pp. 1-10). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
8 Leder and Grootenboer

McDonough, A. (2002). Measurement and its relationship to mathematics:

Complexity within yotulg children's beliefs. In B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M.
Pfannkuch, & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.) Mathematics education in the South Pacific
(Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 2., pp. 449-456). Auckland:
MERGA.
McLeod, D. B. (1987). New approaches to research on attitudes. In T. A. Romberg &
D. M. Stewart (Eds.) The monitoring of school mathematics - Background papers:
Implications from psychology, outcomes of instruction (Vol. 2, pp. 279-290).
Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A
reconceptualization. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook ~" research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 575-596). New York: Macmillan.
McLeod, D. B., & McLeod, S. H. (2002). Synthesis - beliefs and mathematics
education: Implications for learning, teaching, and research. In G. C. Leder, E.
Pehkonen, & G. TOrner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education?
(pp. 115-123). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Nardi, E., & Steward, S. (2002). I could be the best mathematician in the world ... if
I actually enjoyed it. Mathematics Teaching, 179, 41-44.
Schuck, S. (1996). Chains in primary teacher mathematics education courses: An
analysis of powerful constraints. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(2),
119-136.
Schuck, S., & Grootenboer, P. J. (2004). Affective issues in mathematics education. In
B. Perry, C. Diezmann, & G. Anthony (Eds.), Review qf mathematics education in
Australasia 2000-2003 (pp. 53-74). Sydney: Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the
research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.

Special issue editors

Gilah Leder, Institute for Advanced Study, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria
3086. Email: <g.leder@latrobe.edu~au>
Peter Grootenboer, School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga,
NSW 2678. Email: <pgrootenboer@csu.edu~au>