This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 18 November 2014, At: 20:55Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Female Preservice Teachers andMathematics: Anxiety, Beliefs, andStereotypesVickie E. Lakea & Loreen Kellya

a Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum,University of Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USAPublished online: 18 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Vickie E. Lake & Loreen Kelly (2014) Female Preservice Teachers andMathematics: Anxiety, Beliefs, and Stereotypes, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:3,262-275, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2014.936071

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.936071

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:262–275, 2014Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2014.936071

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics:Anxiety, Beliefs, and Stereotypes

VICKIE E. LAKE AND LOREEN KELLY

Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum, University ofOklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

The purpose of the current study was to examine if preservice teachers’ (PSTs) math-ematics anxiety decreased and if their beliefs and stereotypes changed after theycompleted their early childhood mathematics methods course. It was hypothesizedthat by using and modeling concrete materials or manipulatives (Thompson, 1992;Vinson, 2001) and placing a greater emphasis on conceptual understanding (Bursal& Paznokas, 2006), two strategies identified as reducing PSTs’ mathematics anxiety,negative beliefs, and stereotypes that are associated with math anxiety, would diminish.Thirty preservice teachers, all female, participated in this study. Using a qualitativeresearch approach, measures included midcourse evaluations, a draw-a-mathemati-cian task (Mewborn & Cross 2007), the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (Hopko,Mahadevan, Bare, & Hunt, 2003), and anecdotal notes. Although we were encour-aged that the math anxiety experienced by our preservice teachers slightly decreasedby the end of the semester, it was discouraging to find minimal change of beliefsand stereotypes of mathematicians. This confirms that many preservice teachers enterteacher education programs with well-established images of how to do school, alongwith entrenched beliefs about mathematics and their ability to do math (Vacc & Bright1999) and these beliefs are very difficult to change.

Many preservice teachers (PSTs) enter teacher education programs with well-establishedimages of how to do school along with entrenched beliefs about mathematics and theirability to do math (Vacc & Bright, 1999). Early childhood PSTs routinely state that theychoose to teach young children (birth–age 8) because they do not like mathematics, are notgood at mathematics, or will not have to know or teach a lot of math. In the U.S., this hasbeen a tolerable attitude because not liking math and having a lack of mathematical abilityremains socially acceptable (Isiksal, Curran, Koc, & Askun, 2009).

These negative mathematics beliefs are compounded given the historical misconcep-tion that early childhood education focuses only on social, emotional, and physical devel-opment, but not on academics—especially mathematics (Lee & Ginsburg, 2009). In fact,Elkind (1981, 1998) documents that early childhood teachers were traditionally taught thatpurposefully teaching mathematics to young children was unnecessary, inappropriate, andeven harmful. Currently, early childhood and elementary teacher education programs in the

Received 11 September 2013; accepted 9 March 2014.Address correspondence to Vickie E. Lake, Department of Instructional Leadership and

Academic Curriculum, University of Oklahoma, 4502 E. 41st St., Schusterman Center, Tulsa, OK74135-2553, USA. E-mail: vlake@ou.edu

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujec.

262

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics 263

U.S. heavily emphasize reading and literacy development to the detriment of other aca-demic subjects (National Research Council, 2009). As such, the PSTs in this study grewup in an education system focused heavily on reading and their teacher education program,because of legislative mandates, has continued to model this same emphasis.

Early childhood and elementary teacher education programs have minimal mathe-matics requirements for students (Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, & Smith, 2010).Furthermore, few early childhood teacher education programs offer a specific course inearly childhood mathematics (Lee & Ginsburg, 2009). Those that do spend much of theirtime trying to convince students that they are capable of doing mathematics, should con-sider themselves mathematicians (Burroughs, 2007), and alleviating PSTs’ math anxiety(Lake, Jones, & Degli, 2004; Mewborn & Cross, 2007).

Research indicates that teachers’ beliefs about mathematics affect how they see them-selves, their instructional practices, and the level of appropriate mathematics activities, aswell as the role of the students (Hadley & Dorward, 2011; Mewborn & Cross, 2007).Positive beliefs about mathematics equals increased student involvement and opportuni-ties to learn, while teachers’ “negative attitudes toward mathematics can produce negativeresults in mathematics” (Vinson, 2001, p. 90).

This article presents one aspect of the continued efforts to reconceptualize the earlychildhood mathematics and science methods courses at a major research university inthe southeastern United States. Previous articles have documented how the two methodscourses were integrated (Jones, Lake, & Degli, 2003), were infused with caring con-tent (Lake, Jones, et al., 2004), increased constructivist practices (Jones, Lake, & Degli,2005) and the use of metacognition (Lake, Vives, & Jones, 2004), and identified PSTs’perceptions towards mathematics and science (Degli, Lake, & Jones, 2011). The purposeof the current study was to examine if PSTs’ mathematics anxiety decreased and if theirbeliefs and stereotypes changed after they completed their early childhood mathematicsmethods course. It was hypothesized that by using and modeling concrete materials ormanipulatives (Thompson, 1992; Vinson, 2001) and placing a greater emphasis on concep-tual understanding (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006), two strategies identified as reducing PSTs’mathematics anxiety, negative beliefs, and stereotypes that are associated with math anxietywould diminish.

Negative Stereotypes and Math Anxiety

Math anxiety has been described as the feeling of anxiety or uneasiness that happens whensomeone is put into a situation that requires mathematical tasks (Ball, 1990; Trujillo &Hadfield, 1999; Vinson, 2001); or avoiding math classes; experiencing physical symptoms(i.e., illness, faintness, dread, panic; Vinson, 2001). Even something as simple as readinga cash register receipt can cause a negative emotional response in those with math anxiety(Maloney & Beilock, 2012).

Math anxiety impedes math achievement (Beilock et al., 2010) and affects teacherbehavior (Jackson & Leffingwell, 1999). An extremely high percentage of elementaryteachers experience substantial levels of math anxiety (Hadley & Dorward, 2011; Malinsky,Ross, Pannells, & McJunkin, 2006). Early childhood teachers’ math anxiety levels arecomparable to those of community college remedial math students (Reichwein Zientek,Yetkiner, & Thompson, 2010). Math anxiety, negative beliefs, stereotypes, and lack of con-fidence often lead PSTs to enroll in the minimum number of math courses required for theirprograms, which compounds the issue because the lack of knowledge in mathematics canalso lead to math anxiety.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

264 V. E. Lake and L. Kelly

Most early childhood and elementary teachers are female, and females are much morelikely to experience high levels of math anxiety and negative math stereotypes (Kelly &Tomhave, 1985; Maloney & Beilock, 2012). Additionally, Beilock et al.’s (2010) studyfound that female teachers with high math anxiety negatively affected their female students’math achievement and reinforced stereotypes about which gender was good at math and hadnatural math ability.

Teachers’ negative math beliefs or stereotypes can be detrimental to how they teachmath (Mewborn & Cross, 2007), and may also increase their math anxiety, which furtherundermines their confidence in teaching math. Because beliefs tend to be stable acrosstime and are considered a better predictor of behavior than knowledge (Nespor, 1987;Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004), they have the possibility to be harmful to teachersand their students as they can lead to incorrect ideas about mathematics and how to teachmathematics (Frank, 1990).

Several studies have linked math anxiety to a student’s elementary and secondaryschool experience, specifically formal mathematics instruction (Harper & Daane, 1998;Jackson & Leffingwell, 1999; Mewborn & Cross, 2007). The main determinant of studentmath anxiety is teacher behavior (Jackson & Leffingwell, 1999).

Teacher Education

Geist (2010) states that in order to overcome math anxiety, how mathematics is taught needsto be examined. For example, when teachers use methods that expect “correct answers overconcept development, competition and speed over understanding, and role repetition overcritical thinking” (Geist, 2010, p. 28) math anxiety increases. This information is partic-ularly important for the U.S. When comparing the U.S. to top-performing countries inmathematics and science, we gain insight into the differences in teacher preparedness andcurrent curriculum. According to Cohen and Spillane (1992), the U.S. tends to have a lessfocused, specific, and consistent math curriculum that is also more repetitive. For example,in the early elementary years, the constructive process of learning math shifts to textbooksand the importance of getting the correct answer. In order to prepare for high stakes testing,teachers use repetition and timed tests as the tools to learn mathematical concepts. The useof these tools contributes to math anxiety (Geist, 2010).

In contrast, teachers from top-performing countries demonstrate a better understandingof mathematics content and can translate this understanding in their classroom prac-tices (Ma, 1999). Specifically noticeable is the difference between how Chinese and U.S.elementary teachers view math concepts. Chinese teachers see math concepts as beinginterrelated and include reasoning, justification, and multiple approaches when teachingproblem solving. U.S. teachers view mathematics concepts as facts and rules that arefollowed by step-by-step procedures in order to arrive at a solution (Ma, 1999).

Changes in preservice teacher education in the U.S. may be forthcoming with theimplementation of Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association, 2010).The CCSS require that teachers develop a deeper understanding of mathematics contentand methodology. Therefore, teacher education programs bear the responsibility for suc-cessfully preparing preservice teachers to implement the new standards. Ewing (2010)believes that the CCSS will benefit elementary certified teachers and preservice teachersthe most since elementary math standards vary more by state than secondary math stan-dards. Furthermore, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)endorses the CCSS because they address educating the whole child through a broad andcomprehensive curriculum (Carter, 2010). For example, the CCSS (National Governors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics 265

Association, 2010) expect students to be able to understand concepts by justifying andexplaining them; not just work the problems. The CCSS are designed to make changes inteacher education programs, as well as in schools, to better prepare U.S. students to succeedin a global economy and society.

Subsequently, early childhood education’s approach to learning already focuses on theconcepts of curricular integration and experiential learning (Lake & Jones, 2008) throughthematic teaching (Caine & Caine, 1997), the Project Approach (Katz & Chard, 1989), andother constructivist practices (e.g., Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009;DeVries & Zan, 1994). Given that constructivist, experiential, and integrated instructionalpractices are the hallmark of early childhood education, implementing the CCSS in earlychildhood mathematics methods courses should be seamless. It is inherent upon teachereducation programs to model effective implementation of the new standards.

The teacher education program in this study strived to change and reduce PSTs’negative mathematics beliefs, stereotypes, and anxieties by using concrete manipulatives(Thompson, 1992; Vinson, 2001), focusing on conceptual understanding and problem solv-ing (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006), and fostering classroom discussion (Mewborn & Cross,2007). We wanted the PSTs to understand and recognize that their beliefs and stereotypesabout math, along with their level of math anxiety, have a direct correlation to how theyteach math, both positively and negatively (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006).

Methodology

Description of Mathematics Methods Course and Program

The structure of the early childhood program allows for sequential coursework increasingin level of difficulty and a maximum number of hours in local early childhood set-tings. In March of their sophomore year, students apply to the early childhood program.Approximately 30 applicants are selected and admitted to the program for the followingfall semester. Once admitted, the students’ classes are blocked and they travel together asa cohort for the next four semesters, or blocks, until graduation. Block I of the programis devoted to preschool settings (ages 2–5). In Block II each preservice teacher is placedwith a mentor teacher for 2 days per week (over 180 hours). The PSTs spend Blocks II, III,and IV with the same mentor teacher. In this way, the program strives to provide a teachingapprenticeship for our students. The mathematics methods course is part of Block III; fallsemester of the students’ senior year. The placement of the course was purposeful as PSTsin their senior year have documented lower math anxiety scores compared to PSTs in theirjunior year (Isiksal et al., 2009).

The early childhood mathematics methods course was designed to reflect the joint posi-tion statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)and the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (NCTM) (2010). Specifically, thecourse included:

• PSTs’ mathematics knowledge of effective strategies for teaching mathematics toyoung children;

• an integrated curriculum approach that was differentiated to meet the diversity inPSTs’ and children’s development and abilities;

• concepts developed during the early childhood years that undergird a young child’sunderstanding of mathematics;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

266 V. E. Lake and L. Kelly

• PSTs actively constructing knowledge through interacting with materials, peers, andadults;

• PSTs engaging in math activities that reinforce the concept that math is everywhereand that they successfully engage in mathematics problems daily;

• discussions and activities to make learning meaningful for the PSTs and youngchildren using practices which reflect both age and individual need;

• thinking critically, working cooperatively, and solving problems;• process integration which encourages PSTs and young children to structure knowl-

edge by developing strategies such as classifying, analyzing, characterizing, explain-ing, implicating, and abstracting; and

• activities and discussions confronting PSTs’ mathematics beliefs, anxieties, andstereotypes and their impact on young children.

Participants and Data Procedures

Thirty preservice teachers, all women, were enrolled in the early childhood mathemat-ics methods course and consented to participate in this study. Several types of data wereused for this study: midcourse evaluations, draw-a-mathematician task (Mewborn & Cross,2007), the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Rating Scale (AMAS) (Hopko et al., 2003), andanecdotal notes written during or after class.

Midcourse evaluation. Halfway through the class, the PSTs were provided the oppor-tunity to complete a midcourse evaluation that asked them to tell What I like about theclass and What I would like to see added to the class or changed. Completing this evalu-ation was voluntary and anonymous. The evaluations were read by one of the researchersand recurring themes were noted.

Draw-a-mathematician task. The first day of class (pre-) and the last day of class(post-) the PSTs were given the draw-a-mathematician task (see Figure 1) that asked themto visualize a mathematician at work (Mewborn & Cross, 2007). Guiding questions fol-lowed each time the task was administered and included: Where is the mathematician,what is the mathematician doing, and what kind of tools or materials is the mathematicianusing?

The draw-a-mathematician task is adopted from Chambers’s (1983) draw-a-scientisttest, which was used to determine at what age children first develop distinctive andstereotypic images of a scientist. His study identified seven indicators used to be the stan-dard image of a scientist: (a) lab coat, (b) eyeglasses, (c) facial growth of hair, (d) symbolsof research, (e) symbols of knowledge, (f) technology, and (g) relevant captions. Mewbornand Cross’s (2007) research was with preservice and in-service teachers. They adminis-tered the draw-a-mathematician task using the following indicators: (a) gender, (b) race,(c) mathematician alone or with others, and (d) location of mathematician. A fifth indica-tor was used during discussion after the task; it asked the teachers if they would associatewith the person they drew socially. Based on these previous studies and the research spe-cially targeting early childhood and elementary preservice teachers, we chose the followingindicators to analyze for the draw-a-mathematician task for this study: (a) gender, (b) math-ematician alone or with others, and (c) location or context of mathematician—classroom,shopping, lab/office, outside, or other.

Both researchers analyzed each pre- and postdrawing and indicators were markedin the appropriate column on a spreadsheet. Analysis and comparisons were then madebased on total column or indicator scores and are described in the findings and conclusionsections.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics 267

Figure 1. Draw-a-mathematician task.

AMAS. Also on the first and last day of class, PSTs took the AMAS (Hopko et al.,2003), an adapted version of the Math Anxiety Rating Scale (MARS) (Richardson & Suinn,1972), which is a 98-item self-rating test to measure mathematics anxiety of college stu-dents. The AMAS has only nine items and requires students to rate their responses using a5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (low anxiety) to 5 (high anxiety). The total score repre-sents the level of math anxiety; the higher the score, the more math anxious that student is.Total scores were calculated for each student and the results are shared in the findings andconclusion sections.

Additionally, since early childhood teachers are predominately female and overwhelm-ingly identify themselves as having mathematics anxiety and not being very knowledgeableor good at math, activities and/or discussions were implemented each week in themath methods class in order to address the “bad math baggage” (term adopted by theclass). Specifically, activities included discussions of negative math language, negative and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

268 V. E. Lake and L. Kelly

positive teacher behaviors and their effect on students, realia mathematics problems, cre-ative problem solving, and lots of hands-on learning using concrete manipulatives. Thepurpose of these activities was to help PSTs become cognizant of their beliefs and practicesso they could consider how they positively or negatively influenced classroom practices andstudent mathematics achievement.

Findings and Discussion

Midcourse Evaluations

Of the 30 PSTs enrolled in the course, 18 PSTs provided feedback. Comments for whatthey liked about the class included that it was active, fun, had hands-on activities, includedthe use of math manipulatives, and that the professor was energetic and enthusiastic. Themain comment about what they wanted to see added to the class focused on their jour-nals; they wanted more class time devoted to discussing them. However, there were notany suggestions for how to improve the class, which led us to believe the strategies that wehad implemented to specifically address math anxiety and stereotypes were working. Datafrom the midcourse evaluations corroborated the weekly anecdotal notes indicating thatthroughout the semester PSTs: were increasingly using more problem solving strategies;moved from explaining one way of understanding a problem to multiple ways of under-standing problems; freely asked other students how they solved problems and comparedanswers; and demonstrated with manipulatives children’s understanding of a concept, thenwere able to show how to increase or decrease the level of difficulty. Anecdotal notes alsoindicated a shift in types of questions asked.

Since math anxiety is considered the anxious feeling someone has when required todo mathematical tasks (Ball, 1990; Trujillo & Hadfield, 1999; Vinson, 2001), the PSTs’positive comments regarding the class led us to believe that their math anxiety wasdecreasing.

Draw-a-Mathematician Task

Mewborn and Cross (2007) state that most teachers in the draw-a-mathematician task drawpictures of older, White, balding men with pocket protectors and/or glasses; mathemati-cians who are usually working alone on a chalkboard or with a protractor or computer; ormathematicians working stereotypical mathematics problems. While the predrawings byour PSTs demonstrated similar findings, the final drawings showed some change in PSTs’beliefs.

Women mathematicians. Initially, 22 PSTs drew male mathematicians, six drewfemales, and two drew mathematicians in which the gender was not specified. At the end ofthe methods course, there were 12 male mathematicians and 18 females drawn. However,within those changes, 10 PSTs who originally drew males changed their mathematicians tofemales and two changed from female to male giving us a final representation of 18 femaleand 12 male mathematicians. Given that all PSTs in this study were female, the increasednumber of the final female mathematicians demonstrates a shift in beliefs. Chambers’s(1983) study found that only girls drew women scientists, which undergirds Enemaker’s(1996) position that only when teachers rethink their beliefs or gain a new perspective onmathematics can they begin to help their students become successful in math. Since 98%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics 269

of early childhood and elementary teachers are female, it is crucial that they believe andimpart to their students that women can be mathematicians.

The in-class discussions and concrete based activities designed to confront the PSTs’biased beliefs and subsequent practices, along with integrating the curriculum and coteach-ing 12 hours of content with science, language arts, and expressive arts, helped some PSTsshift their beliefs as evidence of the postdrawings showing 18 female and 12 male mathe-maticians. One of the first steps in changing beliefs is changing how teachers see themselves(Mewborn & Cross, 2007). Therefore, we were very encouraged to find more early child-hood PSTs drawing female mathematicians by the end of the semester (see Table 1). Thedrawings of female mathematicians illustrate women who are good at math and also providepositive role models in math. Additionally, these drawings communicate positive beliefsabout mathematics, which can increase student involvement and opportunities to learn inclassroom settings (Vinson, 2001).

Jackson and Leffingwell (1999) found that 16% of children in their study rememberedtheir first negative math experience taking place in 3rd or 4th grade. One of the goals in thisclass was to help PSTs see themselves as capable and knowledgeable women in the areaof math. This was important in order for them to translate those positive images into theirclassrooms as teachers who can create a firm foundation for ALL young children—age 3 tograde 3—but especially for young girls. We strived to change the PSTs’ negative attitudestowards mathematics or at least make them cognizant of how their attitudes could impactthe children they teach (Battista, 1986). We know that early school achievement is stronglyand positively related to later school achievement and increases over time (Alexander,Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Anuola, Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2004; Brophy, 1982);therefore, it was important for us to interrupt the PSTs’ cycle of thinking that women werenot as capable as men in math.

Mathematicians’ environment. We found very little change in the drawings pertain-ing to where and with whom the mathematicians worked (see Table 2). Most PSTs(21) originally drew mathematicians working alone in a lab or classroom setting. Theother nine drawings represented mathematicians using math in their daily lives (e.g., driv-ing, shopping, building, banking, waitressing), or in recreational activities outdoors. Of the30 predrawings, only one displayed a mathematician as a teacher working with students;the postdrawings showed two mathematicians as teachers working with students. One PSTwrote on the bottom of her postdrawing of a mathematician who was working alone at his

Table 1Pre- to Postgender Drawings

Pre- to post- # of students

Male to female 10Female to male 2Undetermined to female 2Male to undetermined 1Male to male 11Female to female 4Total 30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

270 V. E. Lake and L. Kelly

Table 2Mathematicians’ Environment

Environment Pre- Post-

Classroom 10 9Lab/office 11 9Daily activities (shopping, banking, eating at restaurants, etc.) 6 6Outdoors 3 4Anywhere and everywhere 0 2Total 30 30

desk, “I know mathematicians can be other things but this is still the first thing that comesto mind.” The new category created for the postdrawings was Anywhere and Everywhere.Two PSTs drew mathematicians and labeled their pictures as “A mathematician can beanywhere,” and “Everywhere in the world.”

Our findings corroborate Mewborn and Cross’s (2007) results. Both studies predom-inately had drawings showing mathematicians working alone with a chalkboard or in alab. Mewborn and Cross (2007) were alarmed with the images of mathematicians thatwere “nerdy, socially inept, middle-aged men working with equations in a lonely room”(p. 263). These images suggest that teachers see mathematics as boring, difficult, and onlydone by smart people, which translates into classroom practices devoid of appropriate mathactivities that increase mathematical knowledge and problem-solving skills and decreaseanxiety.

AMAS

Given the positive midcourse evaluations, we believed that the anxiety levels of our PSTswould have decreased. However, postscores of the AMAS revealed a decrease in anxietyfor only 13 PSTs, increased anxiety for 14, and three PSTs stayed the same. We won-dered if more AMAS scores would decrease if we took out the two questions focusedon pop quizzes and tests. Beilock et al. (2010) recognize that math tests are times whenstudents feel the most anxious. Therefore, by removing those two questions we hoped toreveal that our PSTs were less anxious at the end of the semester. However, the findingswere very similar with 10 PSTs decreasing in anxiety, 15 increasing, and five staying thesame.

It was puzzling, and frustrating, to us that just over half of the math anxiety scoresdecreased or stayed the same and that the postdrawings showed only two teachers workingwith others given all the cooperative math learning, discussions, and group activities thatwere implemented every week in the math methods class. Many of the PSTs commentedthat the activities and manipulatives used in the methods class were nothing like what theyhad experienced growing up, that they enjoyed attending the math methods class, theyreceived positive peer and instructor feedback during class, and that they might have “likedmath more” if it had been taught like we were teaching them. Furthermore, all the stu-dents made an A or B in the class. Yet, their postdrawings illustrated the more traditionalmath approach and the AMAS scores were almost evenly divided. Geist (2010) states thatmathematics attitudes are set beginning from the first few months of life, and that girls

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics 271

experience and acquire more negative attitudes towards math. Given the lifelong aversionto math that many of our PSTs entered the program with, unfortunately one methods classwas not enough to make a major shift in this particular belief.

Conclusions

Mathematics educators, especially those working with early childhood and elementarypreservice teachers, face a cyclical phenomenon. Negative math experiences lead PSTs tothink they are not good at math, therefore they do not like math, nor do they take advancedmath courses, which leads to the belief that they do not know enough math in order tobe good math teachers or to teach math with confidence (Geist, 2010). This lack of mathknowledge and confidence then impacts the type of math teacher they become. Many PSTsuse traditional math methods of instruction where teachers tell the children what they needto know and provide them with answers to the problems (Brady & Bowd, 2005; Hadley &Dorward, 2011). In order to provide our PSTs alternative ways to teach math, this studyimplemented research-based practices aimed to math anxiety and change their negativebeliefs and stereotypes.

Based on the midcourse evaluations, we felt we were doing a great job of making themath content and methods of teaching math to young children more accessible to our PSTs.They cited that the class was active and fun, they loved all the hands-on activities and thevariety of ways math manipulatives were taught and used, and they appreciated that the pro-fessor was energetic and enthusiastic. This evidence suggested that the specific strategiesutilized by the professor would have a positive impact on the PSTs’ beliefs and stereotypesabout math, along with decreasing their level of math anxiety (Bursal & Paznokas, 2006).

Although the midcourse evaluations were very positive and confirmed that ourclassroom-based strategies appeared to be working, the postdrawings still showed 28 math-ematicians working alone with seven illustrating classroom teachers putting problems onthe board and almost half the them finishing the class with higher math anxiety, andapproximately half of the PSTs finishing the semester with higher math anxiety. Cliftand Brady (2005, p. 319) state that changing PSTs’ views “from teacher as authorityand provider of knowledge to teacher as facilitator and co-investigator with students” isa very difficult task. As Geist (2010) stated, it is very difficult to break the cycle of negativemathematics beliefs in PSTs because they are so ingrained.

Given that number of female mathematicians drawn increased from 6 to 12 weexpected to find that the level of math anxiety experienced by our PSTs had decreased bythe end of the semester. However, the post-AMAS scores proved us wrong; basically halfthe PSTs experienced a decrease in anxiety while the other half felt more math anxious.Unfortunately, with only one mathematics class in the early childhood program, we werenot able to continue challenging our PSTs’ beliefs and stereotypes of mathematicians as anavenue to decrease math anxiety. While the postdrawings of the draw-a-mathematician taskdid not demonstrate the change of PSTs’ beliefs and stereotypes that we had hoped, we willcontinue to implement appropriate strategies in the math methods course. We know thesepractices align with the image of teacher as coinvestigator that is emphasized in the newCommon Core State Standards and we hope that the community of early childhood teachereducators will continue to research and share strategies that work with their PSTs.

Additionally, given the high levels of negative math beliefs stated by our PSTs wealso analyzed the drawings to see if the mathematicians were smiling or appeared to behappy. We expected to find that more than half of the predrawings would feature frown-ing or unhappy mathematicians but that this number would decrease in the postdrawings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

272 V. E. Lake and L. Kelly

We were wrong again! The predrawings showed 22 smiling mathematicians, three frown-ing, and five unknown (mathematician was drawn from the back) and the postdrawingsyielded 27 smiling, one frowning, and two unknown. This interesting finding led us towonder if there was a difference between math anxiety and anxiety about teaching mathe-matics. Hadley and Dorward (2011) found that when elementary teachers exhibited highermathematics anxiety, it did not necessarily mean that they felt anxiety about teaching math-ematics. As math anxiety increased, some teachers did show an increase in anxiety aboutteaching mathematics, but others did not. Therefore, we plan to include the mathemati-cian’s demeanor in future courses via small-group discussions to extrapolate the differencebetween negative math beliefs and negative beliefs about teaching math.

Hadley and Dorward’s (2011) findings might also explain why the PSTs’ positive com-ments on the midcourse evaluations and anecdotal notes taken throughout the semester didnot match the results from the draw-a-mathematician task and the AMAS. It could be pos-sible that many did feel less anxious about teaching mathematics to young children, butcontinued to experience math anxiety.

Implication for Future Studies

There is a need for additional studies focusing on mathematics anxiety and early childhoodpreservice teacher education (Geist, 2010). Math anxiety and its causes need to be mini-mized in PSTs in order for more children to succeed and to break the cycle of negative mathbeliefs. The next time we teach the early childhood mathematics methods course, we willuse the same draw-a-mathematician task. However, we plan to follow up on the predraw-ings by having the PSTs work in small groups to discuss the gender of their mathematician,his or her facial expressions, and location. Following the small-group sessions, each PSTwill write a reflection and attach it to their drawing. At the end of the semester, after ourPSTs have completed the task again, we plan to return their predrawings and reflection andput them in small discussion groups. Each PST will then complete a final reflection askingthem to comment on their change of beliefs, what activities/experiences from the classhelped with these changes, and their knowledge and ability in mathematics and teachingmathematics.

We also plan to create a survey or scale that addresses anxiety related to teachingmathematics. This scale would be structured similarly to the AMAS and the PSTs wouldcomplete both of them in the same pre- and posttest format. Our goal would be to try toseparate math anxiety from teaching math anxiety.

In conclusion, we also believe that future studies should gather more information onfield placement classrooms. Do PSTs’ negative math beliefs change more and do theyexperience less mathematics anxiety when placed in classrooms that utilize the teacheras coinvestigator model of mathematics instruction?

References

Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Horsey, C. (1997). From first grade forward: Early foundation highschool dropout. Sociology of Education, 70, 87–107.

Anuola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of mathperformance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 699–713.

Ball, D. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teachereducation. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449–466.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics 273

Battista, M. T. (1986). The relationship of mathematics anxiety and mathematics knowledge tothe learning of mathematics pedagogy by preservice elementary teachers. School Science andMathematics, 86(1), 10–19.

Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Smith, E. E. (2010). Female teachers’math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America 107(5), 1860–1863. doi:10.2307/40536499

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to earlychildhoodeducation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice-Hall.

Brady, P., & Bowd, A. (2005). Mathematics anxiety, prior experience and confidence to teach mathe-matics among pre-service education students. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1),37–46. doi:10.1080/1354060042000337084

Brophy, J. E. (1982). Fostering students’ learning and motivation in the elementary school classroom(Occasional paper no. 51). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research onTeaching.

Burroughs, E. A. (2007). Encouraging preservice mathematics teachers as mathematicians.Mathematics Teacher, 100(7), 464–469.

Bursal, M., & Paznokas, L. (2006). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary teachers’confidence to teach mathematics and science. School, Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 173–180.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA: Associationof Curriculum and Curriculum Development.

Carter, G. R. (2010, May). ASCD works with CCSSO and NGA on Common Core State StandardsInitiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/ccsi_statements/ StatementASCD.pdf

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. ScienceEducation, 67, 255–265.

Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M.Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel onresearch and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Washington, DC: American Education ResearchAssociation.

Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance andinstruction. Review of Research in Education, 18, 3–49.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhoodprogram (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Degli, U., Lake, V. E., & Jones, I. (2011). Perceptions of preservice teachers’ towards mathematicsand science teaching and content. Journal of Research in Education, 21(2), 32–48.

DeVries, R., & Zan, B. S. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivistclassroom in early childhood education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Elkind, D. (1981). The hurried child. Newton, MA: Addison-Wesley.Elkind, D. (1998). Educating young children in math, science, and technology. Paper presented at the

Forum on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Washington, DC.Enenaker, C. (1996). A problem-solving based mathematics course and elementary teahers’ beliefs.

School Science and Mathematics, 96(2), 75–84.Ewing, J. (2010). The common core math standards: Implications for teacher prepara-

tion. Retrieved from http://opportunityequation.org/teaching-and-leadership/common-core-math-teacher-preparation

Frank, M. L. (1990). What myths about mathematics are held and conveyed by teachers? ArithmeticTeacher, 37(5), 10–12.

Geist, E. (2010). The anti-anxiety curriculum: Combating math anxiety in the classroom. Journal ofInstructional Psychology, 37(1), 24–31.

Hadley, K., & Dorward, J. (2011). The relationship among elementary teachers’ mathematics anxiety,mathematics instructional practices, and student mathematics achievement. Journal of Curriculumand Instruction, 5(2), 27–44.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

274 V. E. Lake and L. Kelly

Harper, N. W., & Daane, C. J. (1998). Causes and reduction of math anxiety in preservice elementaryteachers. Action I Teacher Education, 19(4), 29–39.

Hopko, D. R, Mahadevan, R., Bare, R. L., & Hunt, M. K. (2003). The abbreviated math anxiety scale(AMAS). Assessment, 10(2), 178–182.

Isiksal, M., Curran, J. M., Koc, Y., & Askun, C. S. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and mathemati-cal self-concept: Considerations in preparing elementary-school teachers. Social Behavior andPersonality, 37(3), 631–644.

Jackson, C. D., & Leffingwell, R. J. (1999). The role of instructors in creating math anxiety in studentsfrom kindergarten through college. Mathematics Teacher, 92(7), 583–586.

Jones, I., Lake, V. E., & Degli, U. (2003). Integrating mathematics and science in undergraduate earlychildhood teacher education programs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24, 3–8.

Jones, I., Lake, V. E., & Degli, U. (2005). Integration of science and mathematics methods andpreservice teachers’ understanding of constructivism. Journal of Research in Early ChildhoodTeacher Education, 25, 165–172.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1989). Engaging children’s minds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Kelly, W. P., & Tomhave, W. K. (1985). A study of math anxiety/math avoidance in preservice

elementary teachers. Arithmetic Teacher, 32(5), 51–53.Lake, V. E., & Jones, I. (2008). Service-learning in early childhood teacher education: Using ser-

vice to put meaning back in to learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2146–2156.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.003

Lake, V. E., Jones, I., & Degli, U. (2004). Handle with care: Integrating caring content in mathematicsand science methods classes. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(1),5–17.

Lake, V. E., Vives, M. E., & Jones, I. (2004). Preservice teachers’ struggle to transfer metacognitiveprocesses from their integrated mathematics and science methods classes to their field classrooms.Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24(3), 181–187.

Lee, J. S., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about mathematicseducation for young children in the United Stated. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4),37–45.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of funda-mental mathematics in China and the United States/Liping Ma. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Malinsky, M., Ross, A., Pannells, T., & McJunkin, M. (2006). Math anxiety in pre-service elementaryschool teachers. Education, 127(2), 274–279.

Maloney, E. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Math anxiety: Who has it, why it develops, and how toguard against it. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 404–406. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.008

Mewborn, D. S., & Cross, D. I. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and linksto students’ learning. In W. G. Martin, M. E. Strutchens, & P. C. Elliot (Eds.), The learning ofmathematics, (pp. 259–269). Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Councilof Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2010). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting goodbeginnings. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/psmath.pdf

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.(2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellentand equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies,19(4), 317–328.

Reichwein Zientek, L., Yetkiner, Z. E., & Thompson, B. (2010). Characterizing the mathematicsanxiety literature using confidence intervals as a literature review mechanism. The Journal ofEducational Research, 103 424–438.

Richardson, F. C., & Suinn, R. M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scales: Psychometric data.Journal of Counselling Psychology, 19(6), 551–554.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Female Preservice Teachers and Mathematics 275

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, atti-tudes toward taching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the “responsiveclassroom approach.” The Elemetary School Journal, 104(4), 321–341.

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. 12–15). New York, NY:Macmillan Pubishing Company.

Trujillo, K. M., & Hadfield, O. D. (1999). Tracing the roots of mathematics anxiety through in-depthinterviews with preservice elementary teachers. College Student Journal, 33(2), 219–232.

Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ changing beliefs and instruc-tional use of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in mathematics Education,30(1), 89–110.

Vinson, B. M. (2001). A comparison of preservice teachers’ mathematics anxiety before and after amethods class emphasizing manipulatives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 89–94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

0:55

18

Nov

embe

r 20

14