Student Teachers’ Beliefs, Feelings and Attitudes toward Mathematics Learning and Teaching at the University of Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The colonial fallacy that only a few persons are endowed with the capabilities to conceptualize mathematics, coupledwith the belief that society equates mathematical ability with intellectual superiority, have contributed to low levelsof mathematical self-concept and achievement among some students of mathematics. Some of these students arerequired to teach the subject as primary and secondary school teachers. This paper examines the influence of studentteachers’ beliefs, feelings and attitudes towards mathematics on their learning and teaching of mathematics. Thesample (N=165) comprises third and fourth year, male and female, full and part time students, who were enrolled inthe 4 year Bachelor of Education Programme at the Centre of Education Programmes, University of Trinidad andTobago. Data collection employed the use of the Fennema - Sherman 1976 Mathematics Attitudes Scale which wasadapted to formulate a 13 item survey instrument – Mathematics Attitude Survey (MAS). Regression analyses usingMANITAB statistical package indicate that beliefs, feelings and attitudes towards mathematics are determined bystudents’ feelings, expectations and perceived usefulness of mathematics. Gender did not emerge as a factor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".