Measuring mathematics self-efficacy as a learning outcome

Abstract

We report the construction and validation of a self-report ‘Mathematics self-efficacy (MSE)’ instrument, designed to measure this construct as a learning outcome of students following post-compulsory mathematics programmes. The sample ranged across two programmes: a traditional preparation for university study in mathematical subjects (Advanced level) and an innovative ‘modelling’-based programme intended to widen participation in mathematics through use of technology and coursework. We report Rasch measurement and Generalised Linear modelling analyses of large scale survey data, and occasionally we draw on learners' interviews for triangulation. We found that MSE is related to students' mathematical attainment and gender, as well as their dispositions to further study mathematics. We also show significant differences between students' development of MSE in the two programmes. In conclusion, we propose that MSE deserves further attention as a measure of valued learning outcomes.

Keywords:

• mathematics self-efficacy
• post-compulsory
• Rasch analysis

Acknowledgements

As authors of this paper we wish to recognise the contribution made by the wider Manchester ESRC TLRP team's involvement in collection of data, design of instruments and discussions involving analyses and interpretations of the results. We also acknowledge the support of the ESRC-TLRP award RES-139-25-0241, and continuing support from ESRC in supporting our continuing research in the project Mathematics learning, identity and educational practice: the transition into Higher Education (award RES-062-23-1213).

Notes

1. Throughout, the research reported here is in the context of England, although policy, as we report below, may be in the context of the UK as a whole. There are a number of important differences across UK constituent nations. Wales and Northern Ireland use the same qualifications systems, although there are many structural differences in their education systems. Scotland, on the other hand, has both its own independent system and qualifications.

2. The Educational and Social Economic Research Council (ESRC) is the UK's social research council, funding academic research in the social sciences, including Education. The ESRC, using university sponsorship, funded the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) to conduct educational research in teaching and learning for over ten years in multiple phases, including one on Widening Participation in 2005–2008. See www.tlrp.org.

3. General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) qualifications are usually taken at the end of compulsory education in a range of subjects. Students typically take about 8–10 of these in a range of subjects that must include English and mathematics.

4. In England it is compulsory to study mathematics up until the age of 16. Post-16, students can opt to take four advanced-subsidiary subjects (AS levels) of their choice, which are then typically refined to Advanced-level (A-level) subjects at the age of 17.

5. The items as given to the students can be seen at: http://www.education.manchester.ac.uk/research/centres/lta/LTAResearch/transmaths/tlrp/about/pilot/

6. A larger sample of DP3 is reported elsewhere, due to a follow-up telephone survey of 604 missing in this sample. The telephone survey did not include MSE, however, due to the complexity of items.

7. C9 and C22 were not included in subsequent versions of the questionnaire (only in DP1).

8. It should be noted that this analysis was limited to students who completed both DP1 and DP2.

9. The nuisance variable ‘PersonID’, and hence the coefficients for all the dummy coded students, are omitted, from Tables 6 to 8.

10. [T.] coming next to each categorical variable stands for ‘treatment’, denoting the dummy coding scheme employed. In particular, UoM and DP2 are considered as the treatment groups, whereas ASTrad and DP1 are considered the reference categories.