An Instrument to Measure Mathematics Attitudes

1. An Instrument to Measure Mathematics Attitudes Presenters: Wei-Chih Hsu Professor : Ming-Puu Chen Date : 09/15/2008 Tapia, M. & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measurement mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2) <http://www.rapidintellect.com/ AEQweb/cho25344l.htm>; 2004 Accessed 15.08.2004.

2. Introduction • This article • A report of the development of a new instrument to measure students’ attitudes toward mathematics. • Determine the underlying dimensions of the instrument by examining the responses of 545 students. • Attitudes Toward Mathematics Inventory (ATMI). • The reliability coefficient alpha was .97 • A maximum likelihood factor analysis with a varimax rotation yielded four factors • self-confidence; • value of mathematics; • enjoyment of mathematics; • motivation.

3. Literature review (1/3) • Conventional wisdom and some research suggest that • students with negative attitudes toward mathematics have performance problems simply because of anxiety. • One of the first instruments developed was the Dutton Scale (Dutton, 1954; Dutton & Blum, 1968), which measured “feelings” toward arithmetic. • Aiken (1974) constructed scales designed to measure enjoyment of mathematics and the value of mathematics. • Some researchers developed scales dealing exclusively with math anxiety. • the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (Richardson & Suinn, 1972), • the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale–Revised (Plake & Parker, 1982), • the Mathematics Anxiety Questionanaire (Wigfield & Meece, 1988).

4. Literature review (2/3) • The Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales (1976) • One of the most popular instruments used in research over the last three decades. • Consist of a group of nine instruments: • (1) Attitude Toward Success in Mathematics Scale, • (2) Mathematics as a Male Domain Scale, • (3) Mathematics as a Mother Scale, • (4) Mathematics as a Father Scale, • (5) Teacher Scale, • (6) Confidence in Learning Mathematics Scale, • (7) Mathematics Anxiety Scale, • (8) Effectance Motivation Scale in Mathematics, • (9) Mathematics Usefulness Scale. • 108 items, and takes 45 minutes to complete. • Subsequent research has questioned the validity, reliability (Suinn and Edwards, 1982), and integrity of its scores (O’Neal, Ernest, McLean, &Templeton, 1988).

5. Literature review (3/3) • Melancon, Thompson, and Becnel (1994) • Isolated eight factors rather than nine, and they were unable to find a perfect fit with the model proposed by Fennema and Sherman. • Mulhern and Rae (1998) • Identified only six factors, • Suggested that the scales might not gauge what they were intended to measure. • Other researchers suggest • Students may find math to be simply unappealing or socially unacceptable, although they may actually have high aptitude. • The Attitudes Toward Mathematics Inventory (ATMI) was developed. • Finding a need for a shorter instrument with a straightforward factor structure.

6. Methodology (1/4) • The Attitudes Toward Mathematics Inventory • The 49-items • Were constructed in the domain of attitudes toward mathematics to address factors reported to be important in research. • Items were constructed to assess • 1.Confidence(Goolsby, 1988; Linn & Hyde, 1989; Randhawa, Beamer, & Lundberg, 1993). • Measure students’ confidence and self-concept of their performance in mathematics. • 2. Anxiety(Hauge, 1991; Terwilliger & Titus, 1995). • Measure feelings of anxiety and consequences of these feelings. • 3. Value(Longitudinal Study of American Youth (1990). • Measure students’ beliefs on the usefulness, relevance and worth of mathematics in their life now and in the future. • 4. Enjoyment(Ma, 1997; Thorndike-Christ, 1991). • Measure the degree to which students enjoy working mathematics and mathematics classes.

7. Methodology (2/4) • 5. Motivation(Singh, Granville, & Dika, 2002; Thorndike-Christ, 1991). • Measure interest in mathematics and desire to pursue studies in mathematics. • 6. Parent/teacher expectations(Kenschaft, 1991; Dossey, 1992). • Measure the beliefs and expectations parents and teachers have of the students’ ability and performance in mathematics • Subjects • 545 high school students, 302 boys and 243 girls, enrolled in mathematics high school classes • 135 freshmen, 153 sophomores, 168 juniors, 84 seniors, and five 8th-grade students. • Procedure • Teachers administered a 49-item inventory to the subjects during their classes. • Four months later, the inventory was re-administered to 64 subjects who had previously taken the survey.

8. Methodology (3/4) • Materials • The ATMI was originally a 49-item scale. • The items were constructed using a Likert-scale format with the following anchors: 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 neutral, 4 agree, and 5 strongly agree. • The score was the sum of the ratings. • Results • For scores on the 49 items alpha was .96, indicating a high degree of internal consistency for group analyses. • Of the 49 items, 40 had item-to-total correlationsabove .50, the highest being .82. • The mean and standard deviation of the total score were 169.74 and 32.06 respectively. • The standard error of measurement was 6.07.

9. Methodology (4/4)

10. Discussion (1/2) • Four subscales were identified as self-confidence, value, enjoyment, and motivation. • Scores on the 40-item scale • developed through factor analysis • showed good internal reliability, and test-retest reliability showed stability over time. • With only 40 items, the estimated time to complete the deletion of the parent/teacher items was surprising. • These items were dropped because of extremely low item-to-total correlations, which requires some consideration. • Attitudinal research should concern more than anxiety and competence. • It is clear that other factors are also important.

11. Discussion (2/2) • Far less attention has been directed to the investigation of student attitudes. • Although there is a body of research about attitudes toward mathematics, most of it is concerned only with anxiety. • Use of the ATMI may be important for teachers and researchers • Success or failure in math performance is greatly determined by personal beliefs. • Regardless of the teaching method used, students are likely to exert effort according to the effects they anticipate, • Personal beliefs about their abilities, • The importance they attach to mathematics, • Enjoyment of the subject matter, • The motivation to succeed.