Marshall Edtp 639 Arp

Running head: MATHEMATICAL VOCABULARY AND SELF-EFFICACY 1
Mathematical Vocabulary and Self-Efficacy Interdependence
Fheoshamin Marshall
University Maryland University College
Reading and Multiple Literacies
EDTP 639
Dr. Pierczynski
April 10, 2017

MATHEMATICAL VOCABULARY AND SELF-EFFICACY 2
Mathematical Vocabulary and Self-Efficacy Interdependence
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................ Page 4
Chapter 2: Literature................................................................................................ Page 6
Self-Efficacy and human behavior... page 6
Perceived Self-Efficacy Page 7
Vocabulary in Mathematics.. Page 11
Vocabulary and Self-Efficacy.. Page 12
Vocabulary Strategies.. Page 14
Chapter 3: Methodology........................................................................................... Page 19
Instruments of Study... Page 19
Conclusion.................................................................................................................Page 24
References................................................................................................................. Page 27
AppendixPage 32
Overview
The purpose of this study will be to discuss the interrelatedness of mathematical vocabulary and
relevant aspects of Banduras theory of self-efficacy. The study will provide reasoning that a
strong foundation of math vocabulary will lead to increased self-efficacy for mathematical
achievement. Additionally, this research will explore the issue of selfefficacy as a predictor of
academic achievement and to make educators aware of its implications and applications in
student motivation and learning. This research will be a qualitative not comparative study and
will not explore similar theories nor shall it explore or include gender-specific dimensions. The
self-efficacy theory will be the primary source of research used to discuss the importance of
mathematical vocabulary as it relates to the dynamics of self-efficacy and its implication on
student performance, academic motivation, and reading comprehension. Additionally, the study
will be conducted at a local school over a three-week period using an Algebra math class where
all students will participate. Qualitative data will be collected using teacher observation,
Mathematics Self-Efficacy survey and a random sample of student interviews to assess these
constructs and to provide more insight into the qualitative findings.
Part I: Introduction
Why are some students more eager to learn and willing to tackle mathematical challenges
while others seem uninterested or unmotivated? Why do some students demonstrate high levels
of confidence in their mathematical abilities, while others seem unsure of themselves? To answer
these questions I will explore Banduras Theory of Self-Efficacy. Mathematics is bed rocked in
education and vital to science, technology, cultural evolution and peoples everyday lives. It is an
old discipline with an exciting, unique and mentally demanding language that is, at times,
difficult to decipher and interpret. For many, math has been misperceived as incomprehensible
and inaccessible and has negatively influenced student behaviors, beliefs and performance in the
subject. As a result of these misperceptions and the need to promote positive mathematical
attitudes, the important role of students mathematics self-efficacy has received increased
attention (Hannula, 2006; Pape & Smith, 2002). Additionally, a number of studies and research
has placed new emphases on mathematical literacy at the state, national, and global levels due to
its implication for academic success. The cyclical nature found between self-efficacy and
academic achievement indicated that strengthening one could strengthen the other: increasing
self-efficacy could lead to an increase in achievement and an increase in achievement could lead
to an increase in self-efficacy (Carpenter & Clayton, 2014; Pinxten et al., 2014).
Banduras Theory of Self-efficacy is grounded in understanding the relationship
between ones beliefs and ones willingness to engage in behaviors necessary to successfully
accomplish a task (Shooter, 2013, p. 1) and argues that by increasing self-efficacy, students
will be more motivated, engaged, and successful. Self-efficacy is at the foundation of Banduras
Social Cognitive theory and As a social learning theory, self-efficacy theory offers a notably
comprehensive understanding of the learning process, but also provides specific insights that
instructors can use to guide students towards specific skills development. As a self-regulation
theory, self-efficacy depends on the assumptions that motivated learners are more likely to
succeed than less motivated learners and that goal setting is of primary importance when
attempting to increase learning (Driscoll, 2005). The theory is comprehensive its use of
cognitive, affective, and behavioral theoretical elements to explain the correlation between self-
efficacy, self-regulation, the decision-making process for taking on challenges and use of
classroom strategies and techniques to strengthen belief and abilities for improved math
performance.
Knowledge and ability are insufficient without belief and students need two resources to
increase self-efficacy for successfully performance of mathematical task the requisite skill (or
knowledge) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1997; Wood and Bandura, 1989).
Therefore anyone concerned with impacting student performance should be involved in
educational strategies targeted at changing students attitudes towards math because educators
have long recognized that students beliefs about their academic capabilities play an essential
role in their motivation to achieve (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 1). Furthermore when faced with
student academic achievement, educators have relied on well-tested theories that research,
explain and predict student behavior and equip teachers with theoretical knowledge of how
success and failures affect behavior and performance and lie at the origin of student perceptions.
Part II: Literature Review
1. Self-efficacy and human behavior
In the late 1970s, Banduras introduced the theory of self-efficacy and defined it as the belief or
perception that one is capable of organizing and executing the actions necessary to succeed at a
given task (Bandura, 1997). Over the last 30 years, research conducted on his theory has
revealed that a positive correlation exists between self-efficacy beliefs and academic
performance and persistence (Martin & Marsh, 2006; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Skaalvik
& Skaalvik, 2004). Accordingly, self-efficacy research has produced evidence-based reasoning
and advanced the popularity and success of the theory as a highly consistent and effective
predictor of students motivation and learning for academic achievement and as the dominant
predictor of ones ability, motivation, persistence and competency in performing a task. The
bases of his theory is that, those with high self-efficacy are not only more likely to attempt new
tasks, they also work harder and persist longer in the face of difficulties (Bandura, 1986;
Lyman, Prentice-Dunn, Wilson, & Bonfilio, 1984; Multon et al., 1991; Schunk, 1981) while
those with low self-efficacy shy away from difficult and challenging tasks, slacken their efforts
and give up readily in the face of difficulties, dwell on their personal deficiencies, lower their
aspirations, and suffer much anxiety and stress (Ochieng, 2015). Self-efficacy can be attributed
to positive or negative self-fulfilling prophesies and readily explain students successful or poor
performances in math and why some are more capable of or reluctant to taking the subject than
others. Consequently, to be successful in math students must believe they have the knowledge
and skills and capable in effectively applying that knowledge and skill to accomplish a task.
Therefore it is important that high self-efficacy be internalized into students to alter their
behaviors and outcomes because high self-efficacy Influence the courses of action people
choose to pursue, how much effort they put forth in given endeavors, how long they will
persevere in the face of obstacles and failures, their resilience to adversity, whether their thought
patterns are self- hindering or self-aiding, how much stress and depression they experience in
coping with environmental demands, and the level of accomplishments they realize (Bandura,
1997, p.3). The basic idea behind the Self-Efficacy Theory is that performance and motivation
are in part determined by how effective people believe they can be (Bandura, 1982; as cited in
Redmond, 2010) and the premise of the theory is that if students believe they can do it then they
will do it even if they have to learn how to do it.
Perceived self-efficacy
According to Bandura, Students academic efficacy beliefs influence such critical achievement
behaviors as their persistence, the amount of effort they spend on learning, their efforts to
organize academic learning tasks, whether they ask for help when they need it and whether or
not they act in ways necessary to be successful (Ryan, Patrick &Skim, 2005; Schunk & Pajares,
2005). At the core of self-efficacy, Bandura identified the four main sources of an individuals
judgments and beliefs: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal-social persuasion, and
physiological states. Although the latter three positively contribute to student performance,
mastery experience is viewed to be the most powerful source in determining if one believes they
have the capability to accomplish specific tasks. The application of these theoretical elements of
self-efficacy exists out of opportunities in the classroom where it can be used for students to
improve their problem solving skills and for teaches to improve their pedagogical knowledge.
Mastery Experience:
Mastery experiences is the most powerful and "most influential source of efficacy information
because they provide the most authentic evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes to
succeed. Success builds a robust belief in one's personal efficacy and failures undermine it,
especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly established" Albert Bandura
(1997). For example, having success in an area will build self-belief in that area whereas failure
will conflict with that self-belief. Furthermore, in a study on designing a scale to explore the
sources of Mathematics Self-Efficacy, Usher and Pajares (2008) found that perceived mastery
experience is a powerful source of students Mathematics Self-Efficacy. Students who feel they
have mastered skills and succeeded at challenging assignments experience a boost in their
efficacy beliefs. Establishing a steadfast and resilient sense of self-efficacy will help students to
learn from their failures and overcome obstacles through effort and perseverance.
Vicarious Experience:
Vicarious Experience is considered the second most important source of self-efficacy because it
involves observing and comparing ones self with others of similar abilities and intelligence. If
one observes others being successful mastering a task as a result of hard work then it will raise
their beliefs that they too are capable of achieving the same success. Watching peers succeed
raises observers Self-Efficacy and seeing them fail lowers it (Bandura, 1986). Additionally,
teachers are of great importance because they are successful role models and exposure to
multiple successful role models helps increase Self-Efficacy in observers.
Verbal-social Persuasion
Verbal-social persuasion involves encouragement or discouragement from people that influence
our lives, such as parents, teachers and mentors, which can strengthen or weaken our beliefs. It is
limited in its impact for self-efficacy because outcomes are theoretical, not directly tangible and
based on the credibility of the persuader. Despite its limited impact it is still beneficial because it
provides one with encouragement, in times of doubt, that one possesses the skills needed to
successfully accomplish a given task. In the classroom verbal persuasion comes in the form of
verbal feedback, evaluation, and encouragement from the teachers. It does not imply lying or
telling students great job or way to go. It is specific feedback such as telling someone you
answered the question correctly and your factoring of polynomials shows me that you clearly
understand polynomial functions in standard form. Additionally social persuasion must be
realistic, sincere, and from a credible source; otherwise it can negatively affect student Self-
Efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986)
Physiological States
The fourth source of self-efficacy is physiological states. It is the least influential of the four but
is important in making sure one is comfortable during stressful situations. It addresses the
influence of affective or emotional states that can either positively or negatively affect
interpretation of an events outcome or on how one assesses their self-efficacy. It is based on
ones discomfort, frustration or dejection that can lead to distraction and stress. Educators can
help students with stress by continually ensuring them of their abilities, humor, remaining upbeat
and reminding them of their past successes. All four sources of self-efficacy positively contribute
in the generation of self-beliefs but equally important are their dimensions.
Bandura (1997) conceptualized Self-Efficacy as varying along three dimensions: level,
strength, and generality. Level refers to the degree of difficult of the behaviors or tasks
that an individual feels capable of performing. Strength is measured by the amount of
ones certainty about performing a given task. Generality pertains to the transferability of
self-efficacy beliefs across activities, such as from algebra to statistics.
Understanding the psychological aspects of student motives can help educators further
understand how perceived self-efficacy influences the amount of effort and perseverance
students put into a task. For example,
In two studies conducted (Miller et al., 1996) perceived ability was the best predictor of
achievement for high school math students. Cognitive skills, modeling, feedback and goal
setting together affected Self-Efficacy beliefs that, in turn, affected performance. Student-
held beliefs affect the amount of effort and perseverance they engage which subsequently
influence achievement (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nicholus, 1996).
It is important to note that Self-Efficacy may go up or down depending on success or failure,
but once Self-Efficacy is developed in an individual, failure may not have much of an impact
(Schunk, 1991). Therefore it is imperative that teachers provide students with the requisite skill
and knowledge to build-up their self-efficacy. Although mathematics is often associated with
numbers and arithmetic symbols instead of vocabulary and language, an understanding of
various symbolic representationsincluding verbal representationsis an integral part of
mathematical knowledge (Skemp, 1987).
2. Vocabulary in Mathematics
In mathematics, every word matters and vocabulary provides the framework for the big
picture of math which is overarching concepts that connect multiple concepts, procedures, or
problems within or even across domains or topics, and are integral to achieving a deep
understanding of both concepts and procedures (Baroody, Feil & Johnson, 2007, p.125). Over
the years, much emphasis has been placed on mathematics due to its pivotal role in both
enabling and sustaining cultural, social, economic and technological advances and empowering
individuals to become critical citizens, (NCTM, 1970). Many students begin school with positive
attitude towards math but those attitudes tend to diminish as they progress through Elementary,
Middle, High school and progressively more difficult math classes. Mathematics is a complex
and unique language filled with symbols and specialized vocabulary that is similar to English but
different in meaning. This becomes especially problematic for English Language Learners,
[who] need much more exposure to new vocabulary than their native-English-speaking
classmates (August & Shanahan, 2006) and low socioeconomic status learners who rarely use
the language in their everyday lives. Additionally, it has been posited that the oversimplification
of maths vocabulary and its lack of use in the classroom could be one underlying factor in
students inability to transfer its vocabulary across other content areas. For example, in one
study, Rudd, Lambert, Satterwhite and Zaier (2008) examined the way in which teachers talk
about math with very young students. They found that over 70% of the mathematical language
used with young children was either number or spatial, or words involving labeling numbers or
location. The mathematical language was kept simple and used lower level thinking skills. Few
of the teachers used any complex language, such as that used for operations, patterns, or data
(Whitin & Whitin, 2003). Furthermore, Though there has been progress in mathematics
education over the last twenty years, even now low level skills are taught as the predominate way
of doing mathematics in most classrooms (Ball, 2001). Subsequently, in the absence of
effective, evidenced-based instruction [students] who come to school with low mathematics and
reading skills may never catch up to their normally achieving peers (Anderson & Nagy, 1992;
Hart & Risley, 1995). Therefore, it is important that teachers understand contributing factors to
student behaviors and their attitudes towards math because they are in the best position to change
those attitudes and primarily responsible for ensuring students have the skill and will for
academic achievement.
Vocabulary and self-efficacy
Dudley and Lucas (2009) found a strong relationship between the early language
proficiency of children and later academic success and Several researchers have found a similar
relationship in mathematics between vocabulary and comprehension, identifying vocabulary
understanding as a key component in understanding mathematics (Miller, 1993), which
supports the ideology that All new experiences are recognized, added, and assimilated to past
experiences or let go unnoticed or unnamed because there are no words and no past experiences
with which to link them (Hart & Risley, 1995). Therefore, a strong knowledge of math
vocabulary is required when entering into successive math classes because new knowledge
builds on existing knowledge or what Piaget called schema, which is the knowledge a person
uses as a foundation for new learning. Mathematics provides students with access to important
mathematical ideas, knowledge and skills that they will draw on in their personal and work lives
and when [students] previous ideas about mathematical concepts are connected with new
information, they are more likely to retain and transfer the information (Van De Walle, 2007).
Accordingly, understanding mathematical language can increase students confidence and
participation in the mathematics classroom (Pierce & Fontaine, 2009; Topping, Campbell,
Douglas, & Smith, 2003; Bradley, 19880. Confidence and participation are elements of high self-
efficacy and, as stated earlier, increased self-efficacy can increase mathematic achievement
(Ben- Yeheda, Lavy, Linchevski & Sfard, 2005; Metallidou & Vlachou, 2007; Zimmerman, et
al. 1992). Therefore, success in math depends upon the students proficiency in its language and
vocabulary and when the written and spoken language is mastered, the other subjects and content
areas become more accessible. Therefore understanding and fluency in the language of
instruction is imperative to academic success (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992)
and research shows that in order for students to succeed in academics, they must understand the
language of instruction (Scarcella, 2011; Zimmerman et al. 1992). According to Miriam A.
Leiva, President of TODOS: Mathematics for All, there are four categories of mathematics
vocabulary: (a) Technical, (b) Sub technical, (c) General, and (d) Symbolic
The Four Categories of Mathematical Vocabulary
________________________________________________________________________
Category Definition
________________________________________________________________________
Technical Terms specific to mathematics and difficult to express in everyday

words, for example, integer
Subtechnical Terms that may have a meaning outside of mathematics but that have
a meaning specific to mathematics, for example, plane
General Terms not specific to mathematics but that have vague, general
meanings and are not considered specific enough to define, for
example, greater than
Symbolic The many symbols used in mathematical expressions; for example, =,
< and >.
___________________________________________________________________
Monroe and Panchyshyn (1995)
Vocabulary strategies
Once the focus of vocabulary has become established, the next challenge becomes
implementing effective teaching strategies that accurately measure and produce the desired
outcomes. There are no short cutseven when children develop the necessary mathematical
knowledge to conceptualize various additive structures, they still need to develop their English
language skills before they can understand and solve problems in English. If one takes
understanding to mean the construction of an appropriate situation model, then understanding
involves not only linguistic but also mathematical knowledge that involves more than just
computational skill. Hence, a knower of mathematics is a doer of mathematics and a doer of

mathematics is a reader of mathematics (Adams, 2003, p. 794). Measuring tasks must encompass
execution of both lower-level motor skills such as solving numerical problem and higher
cognitive controls such as interpreting math text and theorems for critical analysis and reasoning.
Additionally, academic learning should be structured in a manner that enhances students sense
of academic efficacy and encourages intrinsic motivation to succeed. Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation are concepts that differ from each other in that extrinsic motivation arises from
outside the individual through rewards whereas intrinsic motivation is a concept that arises from
within the individual through self-gratification. Although extrinsic motivation has its uses,
intrinsic motivation is the better in creating and independent learners because [it] allows students
to gain self-efficacy, enjoy mathematics more and be more successful in mathematics (Meuller,
Yankelewitz & Maher, 2011). In teaching vocabulary, Hogue (2003) stressed that vocabulary
must be learned to mastery, due to its critical role in students mathematical success. Therefore,
teachers should be intentional in teaching math vocabulary, explicit in explaining its meaning,
deliberate in linking words to an appropriate strategy, effective in modeling vocabulary for
effective classroom discourse and flexible in their use of instructional practices to ensure
vocabulary is the primary directive. For the purpose of this study, the strategies used are listed
below.
A. Deliberate Vocabulary
Direct vocabulary learning refers to students learning vocabulary through explicit instruction in
both individual words and word-learning strategies. It involves students learn difficult words,
such as words that represent complex concepts that are not part of the students' everyday
experiences an will lead to a better reading comprehension. Direct instruction includes providing
students with specific word instruction and teaching students word-learning strategies.
Teaching specific words before reading helps both vocabulary learning and reading
comprehension.
Before students read a text, it is helpful to teach them specific words they will see in the text.
Teaching important vocabulary before reading can help students both learn new words and
comprehend the text.
Providing instruction over an extended period of time encourages students to use
vocabulary in different contexts both in spoken and written communication.
Children learn words best when they are provided with instruction over an extended period of
time and when that instruction has them work actively with the words. The more students use
new words and the more they use them in different contexts, the more likely they are to learn the
words.
Repeated exposure to vocabulary in many contexts aids word learning.
Students learn new words better when they encounter them often and in various contexts. The
more children see, hear, and work with specific words, the better they seem to learn them. When
teachers provide extended instruction that promotes active engagement, they give students
repeated exposure to new words. When the students read those same words in their texts, they
increase their exposure to the new words.
B. Mathematical Discourse
Classroom discourse is an effective way for teachers to assess student understanding (Walshaw
& Anthony, 2008) and an effective way for students to articulate their own mathematical in such
a way that they reveal their understanding of concepts and engage in mathematical reasoning and
debates. Mathematical discourse within a student-centered classroom can be anything from
group discussions to individual work and, accompanied with High-Press strategic questioning,
will elicit answers to both how a problem was solved and why a particular method was
chosen. Additionally it will help students to can deepen their critical thinking, validate their
analytical reasoning, promote confidence, increase participation and generate self-regulation of
activities, all of which lead to high self-efficacy. Furthermore, the Professional Standards for
Teaching Mathematics (NCTM 1991) identifies Communication, with discourse as a key
component, as one of the six Standards for teaching mathematics.
Sociomathematical culuture:
Expecting students to explain and justify their answers, whether they are correct or not
Emphasising the importance of contributing to the discussion by explaining their strategy
rather than producing correct answers;
Expecting students to listen to and attempt to understand others' explanations;
Commenting on or redescribing students' contributions while notating the reasoning for
the class on the board;
Having other students pose clarifying questions to the student explaining the problem;
Expecting students to explain why they did not accept explanations that they considered
invalid;
Using students' names to label agreed-upon conjectures, e.g., "Natasha's rule"

Paul Cobb (2006) states that there are two parts to a mathematical explanation:
The calculational explanation involves explaining how an answer or result was arrived at
the process that was used.
A conceptual explanation involves explaining why that process was selected what are
the reasons for choosing a particular way. In this way students have to be able to not only
perform a mathematical procedure but justify why they have used that particular
procedure for a given problem.
C. High-Press
Using high-press questioning during instruction is an effective teaching strategy in mathematics
classrooms (Henningson & Stein, 1997; Mewborn & Huberty, 1999; Kazemi & Stipek, 2001).
For this strategy to be effective, teachers should ask thought-provoking questions and not open-
ended questions that require yes or not answers. Additionally, it creates confidence in students
and how to communicate in the language of mathematics. Teachers who listen carefully and ask
questions designed to press students to respond thoughtfully, are able to clarify
misunderstandings as well as model correct wording.
D. Frayer-Model
The Frayer-model is a graphic organizer that allows the student to think about, describe and
understand the word within a larger context. Students must first analyze the items (definition and
characteristics) and then synthesize/apply this information by thinking of examples and non-
examples. The Frayer Model reveals relationships of similarity and difference between concepts,
which has been shown to create deep connections and understandings that would be retained by
students and retrieved for future learning experiences (Barton, 1997; Brunn, 2002; Gillis &
MacDougall, 2007; Monroe, 1997). However, the Frayer-Model is time consuming and Teachers
must be purposeful when selecting the vocabulary that would be developed using this model; the
Frayer Model should be reserved for only the most challenging and conceptually hard to
understand vocabulary (Greenwood, 2002). Therefore, in order to be an effective vocabulary
instructional tool, completing the Frayer Model with students should include both oral discussion
[mathematical discourse] and written information components (Monroe & Pendergrass, 1997).
Methodology
Tentative Schedule of events
Week 1
Monday Practice/Pretest Week writing response (on Vertical)

(3-5minutes)
Conduct Self-efficacy Questionnaire
Tuesday Pretest Vocabulary Quiz (Read aloud)

Introduce Frayer model exercise
Wednesday Introduce Ratio

Conduct Random Student Interview
Thursday Introduce Rate

Review Ratio
Frayer Model Exercise and mathematical discourse
Friday Introduce Unit Price

Review Rate
Week 2
Monday Conduct Pretest

Introduce Polygon
Review Unit Price
Make up any missed probes and writings from Friday
Tuesday Introduce Proportions

Review Polygon
Wednesday Introduce Scale
Review Proportions
Thursday Introduce Cross-Product

Review Scale, Proportions, Unit Price, Rate and Ratio
Posttest
Frayer Model Exercise and mathematical discourse
Friday Introduce Factors

Conduct Student interview and self-efficacy survey
Review Posttest
Week 3
Monday Pretest
Introduce Integers
Review posttest
Tuesday Introduce Multiples

Review Integers
Wednesday Review all vocabulary

Frayer model Exercise for posttest
Thursday Conduct Posttest

Conduct Student interview and self-efficacy questionnaire
Friday Review Postest

Wrap-up
Instruments of Study
In carrying out this qualitative study I utilized the instruments of a self-efficacy survey,
interview questionnaire, personal observation, video recordings and informal field notes.
Participants of this study are eighth grade middle-school students in the lower South Eastern
region. In the class will be 28 students and heterogeneously mixed with 20 percent on free or
reduced lunch. This category of students were selected on the assumption that they were matured
enough to form independent opinion about mathematics in relation to their self-efficacy, their
personal approach and confidence towards the subject and their achievement in it. The study
attempted to answer two questions:

1. What will happen to students mathematical understanding after they receive instruction in
vocabulary?
2. What will happen to students self-efficacy after they receive instruction in vocabulary?
3. How will my teaching strategies challenge and support students in vocabulary instruction?
I. Data Collection
The study will use qualitative evidence whole group instruction teaching strategies, group-work,
individual work blocks and pre and posttest. Data will be collected and analyze through the use
of audio recordings, self-efficacy survey, student interviews and field notes. Data should
encompass whole group and group/partner work, content discourse, depth of mathematical
vocabulary and content understanding. The self-efficacy survey will be used at the beginning and
end of the study. The informal field notes will be used to capture personal thoughts, student
comments, impressions, attitudes and behaviors. Pre and posttest will include defining words
from the vocabulary list using the Frayer model (Appendix A & B).
II. Video recording.
Groups will be selected at random during weeks one, two and three. Audio recordings will allow
the ability to analyze and assess exact use of mathematical vocabulary and dialogue during
classroom discourse to examine self-efficacy growth, comprehension and mathematical ability.
Due to time constraints of this project, all lessons will not be recorded.
III. Field notes.
A daily journal will be maintained outlining the activities, conversations, reflections, and ideas of
my students and my own. It will allow me to keep a record of my daily interaction with my
students and reflect on their conversations and how to adjust my instruction. It will not be use to
make claims of growth due to its subjectivity.
IV. Survey.
A questionnaire will be administered once per week over the three-week project before and after
a learning period to demonstrate a trend analysis of students mathematical ability to assess the
components of self-efficacy. The self-efficacy questionnaire (Appendix B) consists of ten
questions and four statements using a 5-point Likert scale (a scale in which students rate
agreement or disagreement on a 1-5 scale). The survey asked students to rate themselves on their
attitude toward mathematics, mathematical ability, their knowledge of mathematical procedures,
knowledge of mathematical language, past experience in mathematics, and probable achievement
in mathematics. This questionnaire will focus on perceived rather than actual self-efficacy.
Self-Efficacy survey guidelines
- Use self-efficacy questionnaire (Appendix C).
- Inform students that there is no right or wrong answer and that it will be used as a self-reporting
tool that will not affect their grades in the course.
- Read instructions aloud to students before they begin the questionnaire and allow time for
clarifying questions from students (Carpenter & Clayton, 2014).
- Allow students enough time to finish at their own pace; have a quiet, simple activity for
students to work on when completed.
- Compare individual student reports over time (beginning, middle, and end).
- Look at overall class trends (number of similarities and differences)

- Teachers should modify strategies based on data received from questionnaire to meet the needs
of current students and improve their self-efficacy.
- Teachers could analyze the answers on a scale ranging from really disagree to strongly agree.
- Teachers should compare each weeks survey to determine growth over the three week span of
the project.
Using the surveys allowed me to get student responses about their feelings of self-efficacy and
about how confident they felt with the vocabulary and language of mathematics
V. Student interview
Randomly select ten students to interview and ask questions from Student Interview
questionnaire (Appendix D) that focus on the students attitudes towards math such as previous
knowledge, experiences, feelings and vocabulary. Limit interviews ten minutes or less to keep
students engaged and responsive. Conduct interviews during week one, two and three and
observe for any changes in students attitudes toward math in comparison to the relevant
components of self-efficacy. Adjust teaching strategies accordingly to support learning and
growth in their perceived self- efficacy.
VI. Assessment:
Qualitative assessments can be either exploratory or explanatory. Vocabulary development will
be assessed through student participation in classroom discourse and the collaborative Four-
Square Frayer Model. This should assist in deepening the understanding of mathematical words
and increasing student self-efficacy. Teachers should assess if the use of the strategies is working
or not through both formal and informal pre and posttest assessments. The pretest and posttest
will not be used to affect their grades in the course. Students will be given a summative
assessment at the end of the three-week lesson that includes the vocabulary and content
discussed over the lesson plan. Students will be taking part in lecture and completing lesson
assignments to continue meeting curriculum timelines
Informal Assessments.
Informal assessments will include observation of students during work blocks, four-square
Frayer Model creation, and classroom instruction. Teachers should constantly monitor
vocabulary use and development during classroom discourse to help students with any struggles
or successes they may have. Observing and listening to student conversations and disccussions
during classroom group work will provide teachers with evidence of vocabulary development,
proper and correct use of terminology and speaking mathematically. These observations can be
used to validate vocabulary instruction as effective or ineffective.
Formal Assessments.
Formal assessments can be conducted using both Technology Enhanced Items that incorporates
programs such as PowerSchool or the Assessment Library and in class activities using the
vocabulary matching exercises. The Frayer model and vocabulary matching exercises would
encompass a list of vocabulary definitions, terms, and examples that students would explain.
This can be used to identify which vocabulary words students were struggling with at the end of
a learning period. In either of these formal assessment approaches, teachers should set
parameters of specific criteria they will be observing such as incorrect vs correct word usage,
comprehension vs application and mathematical vs. non-mathematical vocabulary used, etc.
VII. Vocabulary Selection.
Students and teachers should work together to accurately identify new vocabulary words for
completing the Four-Square Frayer Model. It is recommended that you use the classroom
textbooks when first introducing the vocabulary that will be used in the Frayer-Model since the
material provided in textbook are at grade level and have been filtered to by the author to include
only relevant information to the concept being studied. The first step is for the teacher to conduct
Pre-assessment on vocabulary to assess students current knowledge and retention of past words
and then generate a list. Next teachers should thoroughly observe students and any struggles they
may be having with vocabulary words because Teachers focused on the vocabulary
development of their students should watch for problem terminology and be willing to address
concerns promptly (Devries, 2012. After the pre-assessment, teachers should analyze the
results by categorizing each vocabulary term as unknown, acquainted, or established words
(Beck et al., 1967). For any words that were indicated as unknown, teachers should utilize the
Collaborative Four-Square Frayer Model to develop that vocabulary. It is important that students
struggling with vocabulary words in the pre-assessment are identified and helped, as new
knowledge of vocabulary words will be built on past knowledge. Finally, teachers should be
knowledgeable of the vocabulary words that students will be encountering at successive topics.
Vocabulary important for student conceptual understandings of new mathematical outcomes
should be selected prior to instruction (Monroe & Pendergrass, 1997; Smith & Angotti, 2012)
and A limited amount of vocabulary should be selected for focused instruction to allow for time
for a deeper understanding of the words (Blachowicz et al., 2006; Smith & Angotti, 2012). For
a list of vocabulary words see Appendix A.
VIII. Assessing Vocabulary Development
Vocabulary development and understanding will be assessed through student participation during
classroom discourse, survey, interviews, pre and posttest and the Four-Square Frayer Model.
Teachers should continue assessing student comprehension through formal and informal
assessments throughout the school year.
Conclusion
My position is that if students do not understand and possess a strong mathematical vocabulary
background then the challenges they face in performing well in the subject will persist and
continue to lead to their negative perception of math. Strengthening math vocabulary will lead to
better performance in math, increased ability to interpret its language and understand its concepts
for real-world application and stronger self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. I believe that
after students have a strong vocabulary background in math, they will begin to enjoy the subject
more because homework, solving problems and class discussion will become more fun and
accessible to them. Additionally, effective teaching and classroom strategies should be flexible in
addressing the needs of students and enjoyable to ensure maximum participation. Teachers must
be willing to change if the present way they are instructing students is becoming monotonous
and ineffective. The new direction is self-efficacy and strengthening students beliefs in them
selves will help them to preserver in the face of success and failure. In theory and for the purpose
of this project, my findings unveiled that students did improve on their homework and in
solving problems. Additionally, students exhibited increased confidence over the three-week
period, which means they acquired a stronger sense of self-efficacy and was the outcome I was
expecting. Furthermore, using a variety of techniques such as the Frayer-model, mathematical
discourse and direct instruction increased students mathematical communication, which are very
important skills in todays society. Overall, my research and study was successful in improving
my students vocabulary and increasing their performance and self-efficacy.
IMPLICATIONS
As a teacher, my goal is to strengthen my students mathematical ability and self-efficacy. I will
continue to self-evaluate and research better and more improved methods that will work in the
classroom. The traditional way of teaching math through calculations is important but equally
important is the understanding of its associated vocabulary. I believe mathematical vocabulary is
the first step in being successful in math.

References
1. Adams, T.L. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading
Teacher, 45(8), 786-795.
2. Anderson RC, Nagy WE. The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator. 1992
Winter;1418:4446.
3. Ball, D. L. (2001). Teaching, with respect to mathematics students. In T. Wood, B.
Nelson & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy (pp. 11-22). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
4. Barton, M. L. (1997). Addressing the literacy crisis: Teaching reading in the content
areas. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), 22-30. doi:10.1177/01963659708158705
5. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
pg 37, 122-147.
6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognition theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The execise of control. W. H. Freeman & Company:
New York
8. Baroody AJ, Feil Y, Johnson AR. An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and
conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2007;38:115
131.
9. Beck, I. L, McKeown, M. G., McCaslin, E. C., & Burkes, A. M. (1979). Instructional

dimensions that may affect reading comprehension: Examples from two commercial
reading programs. University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center,
Pittsburgh, PA.
10. Ben-Yeheda, M., Lavy, I., Linchevski, L., Sfard, A., (2005). Doing wrong with words:
what bars students access to arithmetical discourses. Journal for research in
mathematical education, 36(3), 176-247
11. Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., Ogle, D., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2006). Vocabulary:
Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 524-539.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.4.5
12. Brunn, M. (2002). The four-square strategy. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 522-525.
13. Carpenter II, D. M., & Clayton, G. (2014). Measuring the relationship between self
efficacy and math performance among first-generation college-bound middle school
students. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(2), 109-126
14. DeVries, B. A. (2012). Vocabulary assessment as predictor of literacy skills. New
England Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 4-9.
15. Driscoll, M. P., (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd Ed.). Boston. MA:
Pearson Education.
16. Gillis, V. R., & MacDougall, G. (2007). Reading to learn science as an active process.
The Science Teacher, 74(5), 45-50.
17. Greenwood, S. C. (2002). Making words matter: Vocabulary study in the content areas.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 75(5), 258-
263. doi:10.1080/00098650209603951
18. Hannula, M. (2006). Motivation in mathematics: Goals reflected in emotions.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 165178.
19. Hart B, Risley RT. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 1995.
20. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition:
Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and
reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549.
21. Hogue, M. Measuring up to the PSSA; Enriching Mathematical Vocabulary. Retrieved on
December 15, 2006 from http:///www.tec.iup.edu/mhogue/literary_review.html.
22. Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of math self-efficacy in high school
students. Career Development Quarterly, 41, 312. Lyman, R. D., Prentice-Dunn, S.,
Wilson, D. R., & Bonfilio, S. A. (1984). The effect of success or failure on self-efficacy
and task persistence of conduct-disordered children. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 516
519.
23. Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and
educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43,
267281.
24. Monroe, E. E., & Pendergrass, M. R. (1997). Effects on mathematical vocabulary
instruction on fourth grade students. Reading Improvement, 34(3), 120-143.
25. Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C., (2011) Sense making as motivation in doing
mathematics: results from two studies. The mathematics educator, 2011. 20(2), 33-43
26. Miller, R. B., Green, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindian, B.,& Nicholus
27. J.D.(1996).Engagement in academic work: role of learning goals, future consequences,
pleasing others and perceived ability. Contemporary

28. Educational psychology, 21, 388-422.
29. Monroe, E. E., & Pendergrass, M. R. (1997). Effects on mathematical vocabulary
instruction on fourth grade students. Reading Improvement, 34(3), 120-143.
30. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of selfefficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
38, 3038.
31. Ochieng, W. (2015). SELF-EFFICACY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
AMONGSECONDARY SCHOOLS IN KENYA: MATHEMATICS PERSPECTIVE.
University of Nairobi, 27. Retrieved from
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11295/93754/Ochieng%60_S
elfefficacy%20and%20academic%20achievement%20among%20secondary%20schools
%20in%20Kenya:%20mathematics%20perspective.pdf;sequence=1
32. Rudd, L., Lambert, M., Satterwhite, M., Zaier, A. (2008) Mathematical language in early
childhood settings, what really counts; Early childhood education journal, 36(1), 75-80,
DOI 10.1007/s1o643008-0246-3
33. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on childrens achievement: A
self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93105
34. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
35. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2004). Self-concept and self-efficacy: A test of the
internal/external frame of reference model and predictions of subsequent motivation and
achievement. Psychological Reports, 95, 11871202
36. Scarcella & Pompa 2011. What is academic language (PPT) Accessed 7/12/2011
www.readingrockets.org/content/.../Academic_Language.ppt
37. Skemp RR. The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc; 1987.
38. Shooter, W. (2013, September 26). Using Self-Efficacy Theory as a guide for
instructional practice . Journal of Paddlesport Education, 1. Retrieved from
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aca.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/sei-
focus/wynnwhooter_selfefficacy_the.pdf
39. Topping, K., Campbell, J., Douglas, W., Smith, A., (2003) Cross age peer tutoring in
mathematics with seven and 11 year olds: influence on mathematical vocabulary,
strategic dialogue and self-concept
40. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation
study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 89101.
41. Van De Walle JA. Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching
developmentally. 6. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc; 2007.
42. Walshaw, M., Anthony, G., (2008) A teachers role in classroom discourse: a review of
recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of educational research. September
2008, 78(3), 516-551DOI 10.3102/0034654308320292 2008 AERA.
http://rer.aera.net
43. Whitin, D. J., & Whitin, P. (2003). Talk counts. Discussing graphs with young children.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 10, 142149
44. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000, January). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1.
http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
45. Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., Martinez-Pons, M. (1992) Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
educational research journal, (Autumn, 1992), 29(3) 663-676
Appendix A: Vocabulary
This is an example of a 4-square Frayer-model vocabulary chart that students use as a format for
new vocabulary in their math notebooks. Using the attached sheets, have students fill in the four
boxes for each of the following words.
1. RATIO
2. RATE
3. UNIT PRICE
4. POLYGON
5. PROPORTION
6. SCALE
7. CROSS PRODUCTS
8. FACTORS
9. INTEGERS
10. MULTIPLES
Appendix B: Four-Square Frayer Model
DEFINITION IN MY WORDS
WORD
VISUAL DIAGRAM
DICTIONARY DEFINITION
Appendix C: Self-Efficacy Survey
Self-Efficacy Survey
Name_____________________________________________________
Strongly Mostly Really

Agree Disagree
Agree Agree Disagree
I am good at math facts
I am good at solving math problems
I am good at solving word problems
I am good at remembering vocabulary
I am good at following directions
I am good at explaining my thinking

I am good at drawing pictures
I am good at finding patterns
I am good at finding my mistakes
I am good at asking questions
APPENDIX D: Student Interview Questionnaire
Student Interview Questions
1. How do you feel about math? Do you feel like you are good at math? Are any of your family
members good at math?
2. What is most easy/difficult for you in mathematics? Why?
3. How often do you ask questions because you don't understand the vocabulary in an assignment
and the directions?
4. Have you ever had an experience when you didnt understand what the teacher was saying or
what a question was asking?
a. Was the mathematics vocabulary too difficult?

b. Did the way the question was worded confuse you?
5. What is your most positive or negative memory of math classes? What made the experience
positive or negative?
6. How do you use math outside of school? OR How useful is math to you outside of school?
7. What do you think helped you feel more or less confident in your math ability?
8. Does knowing the meaning of math vocabulary terms help you know and understand your
math assignments? Why do you think so? Or Why don't you think so?
9. Has working on the vocabulary has helped you understand math better? How?
10. To what extent is it important to know the meaning of vocabulary terms you see in math?
11. Are you able to understand when the teacher, the book, or other students better now that we
have been working on using math words during math? How? Why? Explain
12. How has using the math words like product, sum, expression, or evaluate has helped you
understand the problems better? Explain
13. Is there anything you would like to ask me about vocabulary in math class?
Influence of Vocabulary Instruction 29
APPENDIX C
Weekly Journal Rubric
0 1 2
Shows very Shows
3 4
Shows nearly
Shows no limited understanding of complete Shows complete
understanding understanding some of the understanding understanding
of the of the problems' of the of the
Mathematical problem. problem, mathematical problems' problems'
Knowledge major concepts, mathematical mathematical
computational may concepts and concepts and
errors. contain principles, no principles, no
computational computation computation
errors. errors. errors.
Words don't Has some Makes Gives a fairly Gives a

reflect the satisfactory significant complete complete
problem, may elements, but progress response with response with
include fails to towards reasonably clear and
Communication drawings complete or completion of clear appropriate
which may omit problem, but explanations diagrams.
completely significant ambiguous or Also correct
misrepresent parts of the and unclear. descriptions. use of
the problem. problem. Minor errors Also correct vocabulary
Vocabulary Vocabulary of vocabulary use of terms.
terms are not terms present term usage. vocabulary
used at all. but not used terms.
correctly.
No/little
attempt to Some Complete 3-5 complete More than 3-5
write a complete sentences, sentence complete
paragraph sentences, but not a 3-5 paragraph; sentences
Writing with 3-5 but not a 3-5 sentence minor with accurate
complete sentence paragraph; mechanics mechanics
sentences; paragraph; some and and
excessive many mechanics convention conventions.
mechanics mechanics and errors.
and and convention
convention convention errors.
errors. errors.
Attempts of Solution is Incorrect
No solution a solution stated, and solution is Correct

Solution stated. showed, is incorrect. stated, but solution is
but is stated.
incorrect. reasonable.

Marshall Edtp 639 Arp

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Marshall Edtp 639 Arp

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Running head: MATHEMATICAL VOCABULARY AND SELF-EFFICACY 1

Mathematical Vocabulary and Self-Efficacy Interdependence

University Maryland University College

Reading and Multiple Literacies

April 10, 2017

Mathematical Vocabulary and Self-Efficacy Interdependence

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................ Page 4

Chapter 2: Literature................................................................................................ Page 6

Self-Efficacy and human behavior... page 6

Perceived Self-Efficacy Page 7

Vocabulary in Mathematics.. Page 11

Vocabulary and Self-Efficacy.. Page 12

Vocabulary Strategies.. Page 14

Chapter 3: Methodology........................................................................................... Page 19

Instruments of Study... Page 19

mathematical vocabulary as it relates to the dynamics of self-efficacy and its implication on

constructs and to provide more insight into the qualitative findings.

to an increase in self-efficacy (Carpenter & Clayton, 2014; Pinxten et al., 2014).

Banduras Theory of Self-efficacy is grounded in understanding the relationship

Therefore anyone concerned with impacting student performance should be involved in

Part II: Literature Review

1. Self-efficacy and human behavior

will do it even if they have to learn how to do it.

multiple successful role models helps increase Self-Efficacy in observers.

Verbal-social persuasion involves encouragement or discouragement from people that influence

understand polynomial functions in standard form. Additionally social persuasion must be

Efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986)

interpretation of an events outcome or on how one assesses their self-efficacy. It is based on

in the generation of self-beliefs but equally important are their dimensions.

Bandura (1997) conceptualized Self-Efficacy as varying along three dimensions: level,

that an individual feels capable of performing. Strength is measured by the amount of

self-efficacy beliefs across activities, such as from algebra to statistics.

students put into a task. For example,

influence achievement (Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nicholus, 1996).

It is important to note that Self-Efficacy may go up or down depending on success or failure,

numbers and arithmetic symbols instead of vocabulary and language, an understanding of

various symbolic representationsincluding verbal representationsis an integral part of

mathematical knowledge (Skemp, 1987).

of doing mathematics in most classrooms (Ball, 2001). Subsequently, in the absence of

Vocabulary and self-efficacy

relationship in mathematics between vocabulary and comprehension, identifying vocabulary

understanding as a key component in understanding mathematics (Miller, 1993), which

Accordingly, understanding mathematical language can increase students confidence and

instruction is imperative to academic success (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992)

language of instruction (Scarcella, 2011; Zimmerman et al. 1992). According to Miriam A.

The Four Categories of Mathematical Vocabulary

Technical Terms specific to mathematics and difficult to express in everyday

words, for example, integer

a meaning specific to mathematics, for example, plane

meanings and are not considered specific enough to define, for

example, greater than

Symbolic The many symbols used in mathematical expressions; for example, =,

< and >.

Monroe and Panchyshyn (1995)

understanding to mean the construction of an appropriate situation model, then understanding

computational skill. Hence, a knower of mathematics is a doer of mathematics and a doer of

deliberate in linking words to an appropriate strategy, effective in modeling vocabulary for

comprehend the text.

Providing instruction over an extended period of time encourages students to use

vocabulary in different contexts both in spoken and written communication.

Repeated exposure to vocabulary in many contexts aids word learning.

increase their exposure to the new words.

debates. Mathematical discourse within a student-centered classroom can be anything from