5th and 8th grade pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of the relationships between teaching methods, classroom ethos, and positive affective attitudes towards learning mathematics in Japan



231

Competencies indicated pupils’ high competencies in mathematics, such as
comprehensive ability or high skills in computation. This contrasted with
Ability which
indicated natural innate capabilities, for instance, ‘Individuals have different innate
capacities such as ‘DNA’. On the other hand,
competencies indicated nurture, e.g.
‘Accumulated competencies from their early years’.

The majority of teachers of both age groups (58.5% at 5th grade, 66.7% at 8th grade)
attributed their pupils’ being good at mathematics to effort, competencies or a
combination of these elements. Teachers thought competencies in mathematics were
learned based on accumulated effort as explained above. Slightly less than one tenth of
teachers from both age groups gave ability-based attributions. Approximately one eighth
of 5th grade teachers attributed their pupils’ being good at mathematics to Interest, while
only one 8th grade teacher gave this attribution (see Table 7.2.4).

Table 7.2.5: Teachers’ attributions of their pupils’ success in mathematics

5trι grade teachers (N=41)

8tn grade teachers (N=36)   ~~

N__________

%_______

N__________

%_______

Ability_______________________________

4__________

9.8___________

3___________

8.3__________

Effort______________________________

3

7.3___________

12____________

33.3

Competencies________________

13___________

31.7

11_____________

30.6__________

Interest___________________________

6____________

14.6

1___________________

2.8__________

Effort and Ability________________

4   _______

9.8__________

5____________

13.9__________

Effort and Competencies______

8____________

19.5__________

1___________________

2.8__________

Interest and Competencies

2____________

4.9__________

3___________

8.3

Competencies and Ability

1_____________________

2.4__________

0

0____________

Summary of 7.2

There were differences in pupils’ attribution style according to their age and perceived
mathematics performance. Many pupils attributed their success in mathematics learning
to effort, support from the teacher and support at home, irrespective of their age. For
pupils with these attributional styles,
Teacher explanation and Reading a textbook were
favoured teaching methods, atlhough preference for
Reading a textbook enhanced from
support from home to support from the teacher as pupils proceeded through the grades.
5th graders with these attributional styles favoured
Whole-class discussion and Group
discussion
as well. In contrast, pupils attributing success to support from the teacher
disliked
Individual work at both grades, although where 8th graders believed that one’s
own effort was important
Individual work was valued.

231



More intriguing information

1. Centre for Longitudinal Studies
2. European Integration: Some stylised facts
3. The name is absent
4. Informal Labour and Credit Markets: A Survey.
5. THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK FOR U.S. TOBACCO
6. Towards Learning Affective Body Gesture
7. The name is absent
8. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
9. WP 92 - An overview of women's work and employment in Azerbaijan
10. The use of formal education in Denmark 1980-1992
11. Assessing Economic Complexity with Input-Output Based Measures
12. Behaviour-based Knowledge Systems: An Epigenetic Path from Behaviour to Knowledge
13. The Challenge of Urban Regeneration in Deprived European Neighbourhoods - a Partnership Approach
14. The name is absent
15. Spousal Labor Market Effects from Government Health Insurance: Evidence from a Veterans Affairs Expansion
16. Who’s afraid of critical race theory in education? a reply to Mike Cole’s ‘The color-line and the class struggle’
17. The name is absent
18. Cryothermal Energy Ablation Of Cardiac Arrhythmias 2005: State Of The Art
19. TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?
20. A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON UNDERINVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL R&D