Curriculum School Students' Attitudes Toward Mathematics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Longitudinal data from four high schools over two school years indicate that students did not want a job using mathematics, even when they viewed mathematics as important. About half were willing to work a long time to understand new ideas or obtain a solution to a problem; slightly more than 50 percent viewed mathematics as mostly memorizing. Teachers must help students develop perseverance and broaden their view of mathematics. Introduction In its 1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) established two goals related to affective issues: learning to value mathematics and developing confidence in one's own mathematical ability. Other documents from the same era, such as Everybody Counts, also focused on the need to change the public's attitudes and beliefs about mathematics, recognizing that too many people do not believe they can be successful at mathematics (National Research Council, 1989). In the revised Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000), NCTM again discussed mathematical disposition, highlighting the importance of students' confidence, interest, perseverance, and curiosity in learning mathematics. The recommendations encourage teachers to replace classrooms emphasizing low-level computation with active classrooms focusing on higher-level thinking. Indeed, how students view mathematics as well as their attitudes toward mathematics can impact their success. Several researchers over the last two decades have found that positive attitudes can increase the tendency of individuals to select mathematics courses and consider careers in mathematics related fields (Haladyna, Shaughnessy, and Shaughnessy, 1983; Maple and Stage, 1991; Trusty, 2002). In analysis of data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for students from Canada, Norway, and the United States, Ercikan, McCreith, and Lapointe (2005) found that the strongest predictor of participation in advanced mathematics courses was students' attitudes toward mathematics. Thus, mathematics educators need to consider these results as they try to encourage more students to consider further study in mathematics related fields. Schoenfeld (1992) compiled a list of beliefs that many students hold, such as there is only one way to solve a mathematical problem, most students can simply memorize mathematics rather than be expected to understand it, and if a problem cannot be solved quickly then it cannot be solved. These views run counter to those that NCTM is trying to encourage. Yet, the beliefs Schoenfeld identified seem to be reinforced in studies conducted more recently. Signer, Beasley, and Bauer (1996) conducted in-depth interviews with 100 high school students about their beliefs of themselves as mathematics learners. They found that low-achieving students often believe their ability level is fixed and is the cause of their failures; hence, they avoid challenges and do not believe they can solve difficult problems. Higgins (1997) studied middle school students' mathematical beliefs; even among students who had completed a yearlong course utilizing problem-solving instruction, many still equated mathematical problem solving with learning problem-solving skills or rules. Likewise, Olson (1998) surveyed high school geometry students and found that one-third did not enjoy mathematics and close to 40 percent found their experiences with word problems to be frustrating. Perhaps this is not unexpected because word problems are not typically solved quickly. More recently, Schommer-Aikens, Duell, and Hutter (2005) studied middle school students' epistemological and mathematical problem-solving beliefs. They found that many students viewed learning as fast and instinctual. The authors pointed out that such beliefs are likely to influence students' problem-solving strategies and amount of time spent on solving problems. …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it