BM Tosra

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon th e quality of the

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct p rin t, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and im proper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In th e unlikely event th at the author did n o t send U M I a com plete

m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
O versize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning th e original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
o rig in al is also p h otographed in one ex p o su re an d is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. H igher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
University M icrofilm s International

A Bell & Howell Inform ation C o m p a n y
300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 3 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ATTITUDES TOWARD MATHEMATICS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
IN MALAYSIA: CURRENT STATUS, DEVELOPMENT, AND
SOME RELATIONSHIPS TO ACHIEVEMENT
Bin Hassan Mohamad-Ali
Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction
(Mathematics Education)
Indiana University
January, 1995
UMI Number: 9531482
Copyright 1995 by
Mohamad-Ali, Bin Hassan
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9531482

Copyright 1995, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 No r t h Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.
a ,
Peter W. Kloosterman, Ph.D.
Dissertation Chair and Director
Frank K. Lester, Jr., Ph.D.
Doctoral
Committee
Harbans Bhola, Ph.D.
.4 c
Frances Stage, Ph.D.
December 5, 1994
ii
1995
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii
DEDICATION
In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful.
All praise is due to God, we praise God, we seek Gods help and forgiveness,
and we seek refuge with God from the evils o f ourselves and our bad deeds.
Whosoever God guides, no one can lead astray, and whosoever God allows to go
astray, no one can guide. I bear witness that there is no God but the one God. God
is unique and does not have any partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is Gods
servant and messenger. O my Lord! Advance me in knowledge.
This dissertation is dedicated to God the almighty. Without Gods will and
guidance, it would be impossible for me to complete the degree. I pray that God will
continue giving me guidance for the rest of my life.
This dissertation is also dedicated to all members of my family. Each has
been a source of inspiration that has enabled me to strive through the rigorous effort
necessary leading to this degree.
To my wife, Fadilah, I have much to thank for her continuous encouragement
and support, also, for looking after the children while I was struggling with courses,
examinations and research. She has also been a constant advisor through difficult
times and provided me with continuous reminders to work conscientiously throughout.
To my children, Fazaly, Fazalena, Farah, and Faeez, thank you for being
patient with a dad who had to forsake some fatherly duties in order to work for this
degree. I hope they have enjoyed the opportunity to travel and be in the United
States while all this was going on.
iv
Lastly, to my parents who have been my main source of inspiration in
completing this Ph.D. program, thank you for bringing me into this world anu giving
me the opportunity to work for this degree. I pray that God will give mercy and
blessings to both of you.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my thanks to the MARA Institute
of Technology, my employer and sponsor, for giving me the opportunity to work for
this Ph.D. degree through the institutes staff training program. I am deeply indebted
to all the officers of the Institute who made the decision to award me the scholarship
that eventually made all this possible.
My thanks also goes to the faculty at Indiana University, Bloomington who
were so helpful to me as I muddled through the graduate program in education.
Special thanks go to the following people who are members of my program committee
and dissertation committee. I had the opportunity to work with Professor Jerry
McIntosh in many capacities and have benefitted from my interactions with him.
Professor Harbans Bhola has been instrumental in giving me suggestions in the
structure of my course of study and my research topic. Professor Frank Lester has
provided me with a lot of advice concerning the issues and fundamentals of
mathematics education as well as suggestions for improving the writing of the
dissertation. I am also indebted to Professor Frances Stage for her many suggestions
for improving the writing o f this dissertation. Finally, my utmost thanks to Professor
Peter Kloosterman, chair of my program and dissertation committees, who has been
very patient and helpful throughout the program of study and has helped made this
endeavor more bearable through his generosity. He has been very supportive of all
my efforts, and tirelessly and carefully revised the many drafts of my dissertation.
vi
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT
Attitudes toward Mathematics of

Secondary School Students in Malaysia:
Current Status. Development, and
Some Relationships to Achievement
Attitudes are often measured in educational research because of their possible
predictive value with respect to achievement and because a positive attitude toward
mathematics is a desirable outcome in itself. It has also been argued that certain
attitudes in mathematics affect how students go about studying it. Differences in the
education and examination system, and culture between Malaysia and the United
States could result in a different set of attitudes toward mathematics in Malaysia from
those found among students in the United States.
This study investigated the attitudes that Malaysian students had toward
mathematics and whether there was any relationship between the attitudes of these
students toward mathematics and their achievement. In June 1994, 528 students in
their fourth year of secondary education from four schools in a district in Malaysia
were administered attitude measures. Data were analyzed by gender, school,
achievement scores, and socioeconomic status. It was found that the students had
positive attitudes in the attitude scales designed to measure confidence, usefulness,
attitude toward success and failure, and gender stereotyping, the highest score being
on the scale regarding usefulness of mathematics. It was also found that students
vii
attributed their success more to effort than to ability, while failure was attributed
more to lack of effort than to lack of ability.
Female students had significantly higher scores than male students (p< .01) on
all the scales except confidence and attribution of failure to the environment. Female
students also attributed their success to effort and failure to lack of effort, more
strongly than did male students. There were no significant differences in attitudes
between urban and rural students although the difference in achievement was
significant.
Achievement was found to be significantly correlated (p < .01) with all the
attitude scales except attitude toward success. The strongest correlate of achievement
was confidence, while gender stereotyping correlated negatively with achievement.
For male students, the strongest predictor of achievement was confidence, followed
by gender stereotyping (negative), and perception of fathers support. For female
students, confidence was also the strongest predictor of achievement.
vm
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
Overview and Rationale ................................................................................ 1
Malaysian Schooling and Mathematics ........................................... 4
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 7
Research Questions ........................................................................................ 9
Overview of the Chapters ............................................................................. 11
Significance of this Study ............................................................................. 12
2. REVIEW O F RELATED L IT E R A T U R E ......................................................... 14

Overview .......................................................................................................... 14
Attitudes ....................................................................................................... 15
Definition ........................................................................................... 15
Acquisition ' 17
Measurement ..................................................................................... 18
Students Attitudes toward Mathematics ....................................................... 19
Confidence ........................................................................................ 22
Perceived Usefulness of Mathematics ........................................... 23
Gender Stereotyping ....................................................................... 25
Attribution o f Success and Failure in Mathematics .................... 26
Factors that Correlate with Attitudes ........................................... 29
Gender and Socioeconomic Status ................................................. 30
Relationship between Attitudes and Achievement ....................... 32
Malaysian Background - Possible Effects on Attitudes .......................... 34
Summary ......................................................................................................... 38
3. METHOD ............................................................................................................ 40
Overview ......................................................................................................... 40
Variables ........................................................................................... 40
Instruments ....................................................................................................... 42
Attitudes toward Mathematics ......................................................... 43
Attributions ..................................................................................... 46
Related Factors .................................................................................. 47
Achievement ..................................................................................... 49
Gender and Socioeconomic Status ................................................. 50
Pilot Testing ..................................................................................... 52
Sample ............................................................................................................ 52
Procedure ...................................................................................................... 58
Analysis of Data ........................................................................................... 60
ix
Chapter Page
4. ANALYSIS O F DATA ..................................................................................... 61

Overview ......................................................................................................... 61
Reliability and Attitudes ............................................................................... 62
Main Attitude Category .................................................................... 65
Attributions of Success and Failure ............................................. 67
Other Related Factors .................................................................... 68
Analysis by Urban-Rural, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores . . . 70
Achievement ..................................................................................... 71
Confidence in Learning Mathematics .......................................... 71
Attitude toward Success in Mathematics ..................................... 74
Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics .................................... 74
Usefulness of Mathematics in Everyday Life ............................ 77
Usefulness of Mathematics for Entry into a
College or Entry into a Job ................................................ 77
Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics ............................................. 80
Success-Task ..................................................................................... 82
Success-Ability .................................................................................. 82
Success-Effort .................................................................................. 82
Success-Environment ....................................................................... 86
Failure-Task ..................................................................................... 86
Failure-Ability .................................................................................. 86
Failure-Effort ..................................................................................... 90
Failure-Environment ....................................................................... 90
Time Spent on Mathematics at Home .......................................... 93
Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics .................................. 93
Mothers Support in Learning Mathematics ............................... 96
Teachers Role in Attitude toward Mathematics ....................... 96
Correlation Analysis ..................................................................................... 99
Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis ......................................................... 106
Socioeconomic Factors .................................................................................. 108
5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSION ..................................... 112

Overview ........................................................................................................... 112
Summaries .........................................................................................................112
Summary of the Research Design ................................................ 112
Summary of Data Analysis ...............................................................114
Findings ........................................................................................................... 115
Reliability ............................................................................................. 116
Attitudes ................................................................................................117
Attributions of Success and Failure .................................................122
Other Related Factors .......................................................................... 123
Chapter Page
Analysis by Gender, Urban-Rural, and

Achievement Scores ...............................................................127
Correlation Analysis ..........................................................................136
Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis ....................................... 140
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................141
Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 144
Implications of the Study ................................................................................151
For Practice ........................................................................................151
For Future Research .......................................................................... 153
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... 155
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................157
APPENDIX A: Application Form to do Research in the Schools in

Malaysia with English Translation ..................................... 165
APPENDIX B: Permission to do Research from Ministry of

Education with English Translation ........................................ 171
APPENDIX C: Permission to do Research by State Director

of Education with English Translation ............................... 175
APPENDIX D: IUB Information Sheet with Malay T ra n s la tio n ......................... 178
APPENDIX E: Research Questionnaire ....................................................................182
APPENDIX F: English Translation o f Research Questionnaire........................... 196
APPENDIX G: Number of Cases, Means, and Percentage Agreed,

Undecided, and Disagreed for Each Statement
in the Questionnaire, Arranged by Scales .......................... 207
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 3.1 Sample by School ind Gender .............................................................. 56
Table 3.2 Sample by School and Urban-Rural Status .......................................... 56
Table 3.3 Sample by School and Achievement (PMRGrades) ............................ 57
Table 4.1 Reliability Coefficients (Cronbachs a), Means,

Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Means Per
Item ........................................................................................ 63
Table 4.2 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for

Mathematics Achievement Scores (PMR) by
Urban-Rural Status, Gender,and School ............................... 72

"Confidence in Learning Mathematics" Scale
(CONF) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School,
and Achievement Scores (PMR) ........................................... 73

"Attitudes Toward Success in Mathematics"
Scale (SUCC) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender,
School, and Achievement Scores (PMR) ............................. 75

"Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics" Scale (FAIL)
by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement
Scores (PMR) .......................................................................... 76
Table 4.6 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Usefulness of

Mathematics in Everyday Life" Scale (USEL) by
Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement
Scores (PMR) .......................................................................... 78
Table 4.7 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Usefulness of

Mathematics for Entry into a College or Entry into a Job"
Scale (USECJ) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School,
Table Page
Table 4.8 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Gender Stereotyping
in Mathematics" Scale (GEND) by Urban-Rural Status,
Gender, School, and Achievement Scores ( P M R )............... 81
Table 4.9 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Success-Task"

Scale (ST) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Achievement Scores ( P M R ) ................................................... 83
Table 4.10 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Success-Ability"

Scale (SA) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Achievement Scores ( P M R ) .................................................... 84
Table 4.11 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Success-Effort"

Scale (SEF) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Table 4.12 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Success-Environment"

Scale (SEN) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Table 4.13 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Failurc-Task"

Scale (FT) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender,
Table 4.14 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Failure-Ability"

Scale (FA) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Achievement Scores ( P M R ) .................................................... 89
Table 4.15 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Failure-Effort"

Scale (FEF) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Table 4.16 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Failure-Environment"

Scale (FEN) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School,

"Time Spent on Mathematics at Home" Scale
(TIME) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School,
Table Page

"Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics"
Scale (FATH) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender,

"Mothers Support in Learning Mathematics"
Scale (MOTH) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender,

"Teachers Roie in Attitude toward Mathematics"
Scale (TEACHA) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender,
Table 4.21 Bivariate Correlations Among Achievement Scores

(PMR) and Attitude Scales (470< n < 522) 100
Table 4.22 Bivariate Correlations Among Achievement Scores

(PMR) and Attitude Scales for Males
(2 3 5 < n <268) and Females (217< n < 2 5 4 ) 101
Table 4.23 Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Achievement

on All the Scales for All Students,
Male Students, and Female Students .................................. 107
Table 5.1 Mean Per Item o f the Attribution Scales for All Students,
Female Students, and Male Students .................................. 133
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 2.1 Categories of Attributions.......................................................................... 28
xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW AND RATIONALE
Why do researchers study attitudes? Rajecki (1990) says that "it is because so
much of our personal and social lives are touched by psychological attitudes" (p. 3).
Moreover, Rajecki adds "there is a pervasive impression in the lay person and the
scientist alike that our behavior is influenced by our attitude, whereby attitude is seen
as the cause and behavior is seen as the effect" (p. 4). Thus, according to Rajecki,
"knowing a persons attitudes gives us confidence that we can predict or anticipate his
or her actions in general" (p. 6).
Attitudes are often measured in educational research, particularly mathematics
education research, because of their possible predictive value with respect to
achievement and because of the argument that students with positive attitudes toward
mathematics tend to be more willing to use mathematics both in and out of school.
Mathematics educators have been interested in studying attitudes of students toward
mathematics in the hope of finding some clear, simple relationships between students
attitude toward mathematics and their achievements in mathematics. Attitudes toward
mathematics among students have also been known to vary across gender and are
affected by significant others such as father, mother and teacher (Fennema &
Sherman, 1978). These attitudes are also known to be unstable in the early grades
and may change significantly as the students move from elementary to secondary
schools (Aiken, 1970).
Research on the influence of attitudes toward mathematics on mathematics
achievement has produced mixed and inconclusive results. Many studies have found
significant, but low positive correlations between attitude scores and mathematics
achievement scores (Aiken, 1976). This low relationship may be the result o f the
many other factors such as difficulty of subject, teachers and parents influence,
expectation of the society, and the examination system, which influence attitudes and
achievement in the school systems in which this relationship has been studied. These
factors may operate quite differently in school systems in other societies, especially
those in cultures different from those in Northern America and Western Europe. For
example, the results of the Second International Mathematics Study show that students
in Japan had a greater dislike of mathematics activities than did students in other
countries including the United States although they had higher achievement in the
subject than students in these other countries (McKnight et al., 1987). Holloway
(1988) says that "Japanese technological advances and the scholastic achievement of
Japanese children are frequently attributed to cultural emphasis on commitment and
perseverance" (p. 327). Several studies have indicated that Japanese mothers and
their children place more emphasis than U.S. respondents do on effort, and less on
ability, as primaiy factors determining academic performance (Holloway, Kashiwagi,
Hess, & Azuma, 1986; Lee, Ichikawa, & Stevenson, 1989).
The majority of high school students in the United States are also said to be
less hardworking than European and Japanese students because their performance at
high school is less crucial to their opportunity to go to college than those for their
counterparts in Europe and Japan (Hum, 1993). This might partly explain the lower
achievement scores of American students at the high school level when compared to
European and Japanese students. The competitiveness, or lack of it, of college entry
in the different countries may also affect students attitudes toward mathematics and
their relationship to achievement in mathematics in the different school systems.
Thus, students who have positive attitudes toward mathematics in the United States
may not work hard enough to achieve high scores in the subject because of the
comparative ease with which these students can get into college even without getting
high scores in mathematics.
Regardless of the relationship or lack of relationship between attitude toward
mathematics and achievement in mathematics, researchers have also suggested that a
positive attitude toward mathematics is a desirable educational outcome in itself so
that students will continue to learn mathematics and apply it in everyday life after the
formal process of schooling is over (Kulm, 1980; Reyes, 1984). It has also been
argued that certain attitudes affect how one goes about studying mathematics, for
example, a student who hates mathematics is not going to spend much time studying it
(Kloosterman, in press). Also, students who attribute success in mathematics to
inborn ability, and who feel that they do not have that inborn ability, will not have
much confidence in succeeding in mathematics, however much effort they put in
(Kloosterman & Cougan, 1994). The foregoing arguments support that of Fennema
and Sherman (1976) who state that "attitudes affect both electing to study mathematics
and its learning" (p. 1).
Malaysian Schooling and Mathematics
Malaysia, a small country with a population of about eighteen million, is made
up of people from different races, who speak different languages, and practice several
different religious beliefs. The education system is based on the British model due to
its past tie to the colonial master. More details on the culture and education system in
Malaysia are given in the literature review chapter.
In contrast to the United States, students in Malaysia take a national
examination consisting of eight to ten different subjects, at the end of five years of
secondary schooling, to qualify for the Malaysian Certificate of Education (Sijil
Pelajaran Malaysia or SPM), the equivalent of a high school diploma in the United
States. A student is deemed to have passed the examination and is awarded the
certificate if he or she meets the requirements set by the examination board. But a
"pass" in mathematics is not one of the necessary requirements to be awarded the
certificate. Nevertheless, all students are required to take the prescribed mathematics
course (called Secondary School Integrated Curriculum Mathematics or Matematik
Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah) during each year of their secondary-school
career and to sit for the national examination in that subject at the end of five years of
secondary education. Final course grades for individual students are based on this
national examination only, while course work and teacher recommendations are not
considered at all in determining the academic worth o f students at the end o f the
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school program. Thus, many teachers teach to the examination and are not interested
in making the subject meaningful or interesting for the students. Ahmad Zanzali
(1988) observed that most teachers in the Malaysian schools that he studied spent a
substantial amount o f time teaching "test-taking" techniques and that "learning became
no more than preparation for passing the examination" (p. 131). Students
achievement in mathematics in Malaysia is among the worst when compared to
achievements in other subjects. Reports from the Ministry o f Education, State
Departments of Education, and individual schools on performances in the national
examination indicate that many schools, especially those in the rural areas, had
passing rates in mathematics in the national examinations conducted for Form Three
and Form Five students, lower than in all other subjects except in the subject of
English language.
Notwithstanding the above, mathematics is seen by the Malaysian people, in
general, as necessary for success in any future career of the students. This is evident
from advertisements for college admissions and for job applications in the media.
Most universities and colleges in Malaysia require a pass in mathematics at a certain
level for admission into any course at the universities or colleges. Given the small
number of openings in universities and colleges in relation to the number of applicants
who want to and have the necessary minimum qualification to attend, competition to
get admission to colleges and universities is very stiff among secondary-school
graduates. Also, many employers require a pass in high school mathematics at a
certain level as a prerequisite for application for most jobs.
The foregoing factors could result in a different set of attitudes toward
mathematics from those found among students in the United States. For example,
many students in Malaysia may ignore the subject altogether after having several
unsuccessful experiences. Since all students are required to take mathematics in the
national examination but are not required to pass it in order to get a diploma, many
students may be taking the mathematics course without being interested in learning the
subject but only because they have to remain in the mathematics class to satisfy the
rules of schooling. Many others may work hard in the subject purely to get the
required grade for admission into colleges or to obtain suitable employment, and are
not interested in how the subject applies to everyday life. It is hard to believe that
such students will ever learn to take advantage of their full mathematical abilities.
Because we cannot readily generalize the findings obtained in the United States
to the Malaysian situation, it is desirable to investigate the attitudes that Malaysian
students have toward mathematics. This study is an investigation of the attitudes
toward mathematics of secondary school students in Malaysia. The study also
explores whether there is any relationship between the attitudes these students have
toward mathematics and their achievement, to date, in the subject.
As with most other eastern cultures, teachers in Malaysia are very highly
respected and students are expected to follow their teachers instructions. This is
different than some western cultures and could result in a different set of attitudes
toward mathematics than would be found in the United States.
It is also possible that students in Malaysia acquire their attitudes differently
from students in the United States because of the cultural differences and the
variations in the environmental factors. Differences due to socioeconomic status and
gender may affect their attitudes differently. Thus it is useful to find relationships, if
any, between the attitudes ana other variables such as parental influence, teacher
influence, socioeconomic background, and gender.
International comparisons in mathematics education have been seen as fruitful
in improving the achievement in mathematics of students in most of the countries
participating in such comparisons. This is evident from the increasing participation of
47 countries in the upcoming Third International Mathematics and Science Studies
(TIMSS). Twenty-two countries participated in the Second International Mathematics
Study (SIMS) and only 12 participated in the First International Mathematics Study
(FIMS) (Robitaille, 1990; Robitaille & Donn, 1992).
Recently, most major evaluation studies of mathematics achievement have
included data on attitudes toward mathematics. Among the studies are the 1986
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in the United States (Dossey e i'
al., 1988), the NAEPs 1990 assessment in The State o f Mathematics Achievement
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1992), and the Second International
Mathematics Study (McRnight et al., 1987).
Conclusion
The importance of attitude measures in education research, as expressed
above, and the uniqueness of the Malaysian society, in terms of racial composition,
languages, and religious background, coupled with a system of education that is
different from that which is practiced in the United States, suggest that students
attitude toward mathematics and its relationship to achievement in mathematics may
also exhibit unique patterns. In contrast to the U .S., Malaysian students are more
reluctant to express their opinions about anything. Thus, this study may get results
that contrast with results of similar studies done in the United States.
Another potential key factor in Malaysian students attitudes is the national
examination. When a school system puts so much emphasis on one national
examination, there could be a different set of attitudes from that usually found in
countries such as the United States where the national examination is not the only
examination used for evaluating students achievement. Findings such as those of
Leong (1982) concerning students views of learning, as explained in the literature
review section, are worth studying in more detail. The effect of students and
parents emphasis on the importance of examinations on their mathematics
achievement should be analyzed critically. It is generally believed that secondary
school students in Japan and their parents are also very examination oriented in their
approach to learning because of the university entrance requirement in that country.
This has been known to result in a different kind of attitude among Japanese students
than students in the U .S., where students in Japan had a greater dislike for
mathematics than their counterparts in the United States (McKnight, Crosswhite,
Dossey, Kifer, Swafford, Travers, & Cooney, 1987).
Thus, this study is an investigation of the attitudes toward mathematics of
secondary school students in Malaysia. The groups of attitude variables that are
considered in this study include: (a) confidence in learning mathematics, (b) attitude
toward success and toward failure in mathematics, (c) perception of usefulness o f
mathematics, (d) gender stereotyping in mathematics, (e) attributions of success and
failure in mathematics, (f) perceptions of parental support in learning mathematics,
and (g) perception of teachers role in success in mathematics and on attitude toward
mathematics. The rationale for choosing these attitude variables in this study and the
conceptual framework for the measurement of attitudes are explained in Chapter 2 and
Chapter 3. These attitudes will be compared with the students achievement in
mathematics, which is measured using their most recent national examination scores
and their latest class test scores. This study should add to the knowledge obtained
from the international studies, particularly with respect to Malaysia which has not
been a participant in international studies.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Three main questions and corresponding subquestions are addressed in this
study:
1. What are the attitudes toward mathematics of students in secondary schools in
Malaysia?
2. Are the students attitudes toward mathematics related to their achievement in
mathematics?
2(a) Is students perception of their ability in mathematics related to their
achievement in mathematics?
2(b) Is the perception of the usefulness of mathematics for everyday life
related to students achievement in mathematics?
2(c) Is the perception of the usefulness of mathematics for college admission
and job opportunities related to students achievement in mathematics?
2(d) Are the students attitude toward success or failure in mathematics
related to their achievement in mathematics?
2(e) Are there any relationships between the students gender stereotyping in
mathematics and their achievement in mathematics?
2(f) What are the relationships, if any, of the students attributions of
success or failure in mathematics to their achievement in mathematics?
2(g) Is there a relationship between the time the students say that they spend
on mathematics at home or attending private tutorial sessions in
mathematics, and their achievement in mathematics?
2(h) Is students perception of parental support related to the students
2(i) To what extent do students perceive their teachers as influential in
developing their attitudes toward mathematics and their achievements in
mathematics?
3. Are there differences in attitudes toward mathematics and their relationships to
achievement according to gender, socioeconomic status, or school?
10
OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS
To provide a scholarly foundation for the study, a review of relevant research
and theoretical literature is included in Chapter 2 which begins by discussing the
various definitions o f attitudes, how attitudes are acquired by people, and how
peoples attitudes are measured. Following these, there is a discussion of student
attitudes toward mathematics including several of the more important and most
discussed attitudes such as confidence, usefulness, gender stereotyping, and
attributions o f success and failure. Next, findings on students attitudes toward
mathematics from studies in the United States and other countries are discussed,
including their relationships to achievements, differences by students gender and
differences by socioeconomic status of students, particularly differences by students
rural-urban status. Finally, there is a brief discussion o f the Malaysian background,
studies on attitudes toward mathematics in Malaysia, and possible effects of the
Malaysian system o f education and culture on students attitudes toward mathematics.
In the third chapter, the method employed to determine the attitudes toward
mathematics of secondary school students in Malaysia is explained. The first part of
the chapter describes the development of the instruments and rationale for choosing
the scales. Then, the methods of determining students achievement, gender, and
socioeconomic status are illustrated. Next, the sample to be given the instrument is
described and then the procedure for getting permission to conduct the study in
Malaysia and the process of conducting the survey are reported. Finally, an
explanation of the analysis of data is given.
11
Chapter four contains the analysis of data. Results of the reliability analysis
and descriptive statistics for each scale are given in the first part. Next, results of
analysis of variance tests for difference in urban-rural, gender, school, and
achievement scores (PMR), of all the scales are presented. This is followed by
results for bivariate correlation among the achievement scores and attitude scales for
all the sample combined and separated by gender. Finally, results o f stepwise
multiple regression analysis with achievement scores as the dependent variable are
presented.
In chapter five, a summary of the study and a discussion of conclusions are
given. In addition, several suggestions for future studies are included.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS STUDY
The study sheds some light on an area of research which has been and
continues to be extensively carried out in the U.S. and has been the focus in several
international studies of mathematics, but has not received much attention in Malaysia.
Findings from the study will help policy makers in their search for a solution to the
deteriorating achievement in mathematics in Malaysian schools, especially those in the
rural areas. For example, policymakers could use the findings on confidence of
students and its positive relationship to achievement to guide teachers in developing
confidence among students. Findings and recommendations from this study should
also help guide further research on the topic among Malaysian mathematics educators
by adding to the small number of published studies in mathematics education in
12
Malaysia.
13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
OVERVIEW
This chapter contains a review of literature pertaining to attitudes in general,
student attitudes toward mathematics and some relevant studies on the relationship
between attitudes and achievements. Sources of this review include journals, books,
publications from professional organizations including the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), doctoral dissertations, and official reports from
schools, departments of education and the Ministry of Education in Malaysia.
The first part of this chapter includes the definitions of the term "attitude" that
are relevant to this study, discussion on how attitudes are acquired, and how they are
measured. Then, there is a discussion of the specific attitudes toward mathematics
that have been studied and published, including their relationships with factors such as
achievement scores, parental support, teacher influence, gender and socioeconomic
status. This is followed by a brief discussion on one specific aspect of attitude toward
mathematics, namely attribution of success and failure in mathematics. Finally, this
chapter gives a brief description of the Malaysian situation that is relevant to this
study and argues for the importance of this study to be done in the Malaysian schools.
14
ATTITUDES
Definition
Before summarizing the literature it is necessary to clarify the term "attitude"
because it has been interpreted in many different ways by different authors. The
terms "affect," "affective domain," "attitude," "belief," "belief system," "emotion,"
"feelings," moods," and "anxiety" have been used in different ways by psychologists
and mathematics educators who are interested in research on problem solving and
attitudes toward mathematics (Bassarear, 1991). This lack of consistency in defining
terms has made it difficult to interpret results and compare results from across
studies. In many cases, no description or definition of a particular variable is
included in the research report (Hart, 1989).
An early and comprehensive definition of attitude was given by an eminent
social psychologist, Gordon W. Allport (1935) who defined attitude as "a mental and
neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or
dynamic influence upon the individuals response to all objects and situations with
which it is related" (p. 810). A more recent definition by Rokeach (1968) states that
"Attitude is an organization of several beliefs focused on a specific object or situation
predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner" (p. 159). Attitudes are thus
psychological entities that can arise from single and multiple experiences, both direct
and indirect. Attitudes prompt us to do things and direct us to do them in an orderly
and coherent fashion (Rajecki, 1990). According to Hart (1989), "attitude is
generally defined by psychologists as a predisposition to respond in a favorable or
15
unfavorable way with respect to a given object (that is, person, activity, idea, etc.)"
(p. 39). McLeod (1992) refers to attitude as the "affective responses that involve
positive or negative feeling of moderate intensity and reasonable stability" (p. 581).
There are three components of attitude implicit in these definitions, namely,
(a) an affective or emotional reaction to the object, for example, liking, disliking,
fearing, anger, and happiness, (b) behavior toward the object such as rejecting, voting
for, avoiding, and choosing, and (c) cognition of or beliefs about the attitudinal object
such as what the objects are, where they come from, and how they may be used
(Rajecki, 1990). According to these definitions, attitude involves the affective or
emotional reaction, which leads to behavior toward the object and results in a belief
about or cognition of the object.
Attitude has also been considered as one of the subsets of the affective domain,
the others being beliefs and emotions (McLeod, 1992), although the definition of
affect is just as problematical as the definition of attitude. Bassarear (1991) concludes
that authors of the chapters in the book by McLeod and Adams (1989) show a
tendency to consider attitude as one of the two groups of affective variables, the other
being belief. Variables that they consider to be attitudes toward mathematics include
anxiety, confidence, liking or disliking of mathematics, beliefs about self, and
attributions for success or failure. However, according to Hart (1989), "Many social
psychologists would not include anxiety among the attitudes" (p. 40).
In this study, attitude will be considered as an affective reaction of moderate
intensity and reasonable stability, which leads to behavior toward the object and
16
R eprod u ced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
results in a belief about or cognition of the object. For example, a student who did
not do well in a test would feel an affective reaction of shame or dissatisfaction, and
to overcome that, might work harder so that he or she would do better in the next
test. The latter would happen if the student believed that the failure was due to lack
of effort. However, if the student who failed believed that the failure was due to a
lack of ability and this would put him or her in a bad standing with his or her
colleagues, this would result in the student putting in less effort so that the failure
would not be attributed to his or her lack of ability. Emotions and anxiety will thus
not be part of the feelings included as attitude in this study due to their high intensity
and rather unstable nature.
Acquisition
There has been very little information on the formation and development of
attitudes in individuals. Acquisition of attitudes starts from the acquisition of the
affective or emotional reaction. McLeod (1989) explains Mandlers view on the
source o f emotion as "the interruption of an individuals plans or planned behavior"
(p. 23). When an interruption occurs the individual is physiologically aroused and as
the individual evaluates the meaning of the interruptions he o r she begins to acquire
emotions such as surprise, frustration, joy or some other emotions toward the object.
Attitudes would then result from the automatizing of a repeated emotional reaction
toward the object (McLeod, 1992). For example, if a student is unable to do his or
her mathematics homework, he or she will experience frustration. After repeated
17
negative experiences, the emotional feeling of frustration would lessen over time and
result in loss of confidence or hatred toward the subject.
Allport (1967) suggests that the majority of attitudes held by a person are
acquired from contacts with family and friends. Our interaction with other people
guides the formation of our own attitude. Haladyna, Shaughnessy, and Shaughnessy
(1983) suggest that attitude development may have been influenced by factors
operating inside school (endogenous) such as teacher and learning environment as well
as those outside school (exogenous) such as gender, social class, and scholastic
aptitude. This means that it is important to investigate the roles that parents,
teachers, classmates, and the society have on the formation of the students attitudes
toward mathematics.
Attitudes can also be influenced by our direct experiences with the attitude
object. For example, our attitude toward mathematics as an attitude object may be
negative after experiencing repeated failures in the tests and frustrations in our
inability to do the problems. On the other hand, we might be looking forward to
more mathematics if we have been experiencing success in all our mathematics tests
and assignments as well as a happy mathematics classroom experience with the
teachers.
Measurement
Measurement of attitudes is necessary in order to compare and analyze the
attitudes of an individual or groups of individuals toward the attitudinal object. There
18
are several types of measuring devices in research which depend on the objects to be
measured. These include objectively scored items, direct observation, self-report, and
interview. Because there are different types o f attitudes, the best methods of
measuring them may also be different. Attitudes are also not merely dichotomous
feelings such as acceptance-rejection or favorable-unfavorable. They differ in
intensity from person to person and are usually considered to be some kind of
continuum between the extremes. By far the most popular technique for measuring
attitudes is through the development of different types of self-report scales. The
techniques include the semantic differential scales, intuitive interval scales, and
empirically determined scales such as the Thurstone scale and the Likert scale. They
have resulted in the development of numerous attitude scales (see Rajecki, 1990).
The techniques used usually involve paper-and-pencil measurement devices suitable
for use in the laboratory, but other techniques that include field-experimental
techniques such as the telephone, or polls and surveys, have been used. Paper-and-
pencil measurement devices are easy to construct, administer and score and these
make them popular for collecting data from large samples. However, observations of
behavior in natural settings and interviews with subject would give more accurate and
reliable information.
STUDENTS ATTITUDES TOWARD MATHEMATICS
Many o f the early studies in attitudes toward mathematics were limited to one
dimension, preferential responding or the degree o f liking or disliking the subject of
19
mathematics (Aiken, 1971). Other attitudes measured include that of enjoyment,
anxiety, and confidence. Reviews and analysis by Kuhn (1980), Leder (1987), and
Reyes (1984) use attitudes as a general term that include beliefs about mathematics
and about self (see McLeod, 1992). Kulm (1980) suggests that the objects or
situations on which attention is focused for mathematics attitudes could include
mathematics content, mathematics characteristics, teaching practices, classroom
activities, and teachers. The population that could have some kind of attitudes toward
these objects or situations, according to Kulm, are either the students or the teachers.
For example, in studying students attitudes toward mathematics content, they
could be asked to respond to statements such as "I like fractions," "I avoid doing
fractions whenever I can," or "Word problems are hard." The characteristics of
mathematics that normally interest researchers include students response to statements
such as "There are many ways to solve a problem" or "It makes me nervous to think
about doing a math problem." Other mathematics characteristics that have been the
focus of mathematics educators include usefulness, importance, difficulty, and
interest. Items such as "I am happy in math class" and "I feel nervous when taking a
math test" are included under measures of students attitudes toward mathematics
classroom activities. Finally, students attitudes to teachers can be measured from
their responses to statements such as "My algebra teacher explains ideas well" and
"My teacher made me dislike mathematics."
In the present study, only the attitudes of students, and not the teachers,
toward mathematics are discussed. Teachers and parents influence on students
20
attitudes are also be considered. Reference to the object on which attention is focused
for the attitude is on mathematics in general with no specific mathematics content or
classroom activity mentioned. Instead of using individual statements to determine the
attitudes, this study aggregates similar statements into attitude scales. In this way, it
is hoped to increase the reliability in the response of the students. Fennema and
Sherman (1976) developed the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales to
measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by female and male students. In
this instrument, nine different scales were developed. They include: (1) Attitude
toward Success in Mathematics, (2) Mathematics as a Male Domain, (3) Confidence
in Learning Mathematics, (4) Effectance Motivation in Mathematics, (5) Usefulness o f
Mathematics, (6) Father, (7) Mother, (8) Teacher, and (9) Mathematics Anxiety.
Recent major studies have chosen several scales on attitudes toward
mathematics. The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) conducted in the
years 1981 and 1982 by members of the International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement, or IEA, developed attitude scales in seven areas. The
scales used were (1) Mathematics in School, (2) Mathematics as a Process, (3)
Mathematics and Myself, (4) Mathematics and Society, (5) Mathematics and Gender,
(6) Calculators and Computers, and (7) Parental Support fo r Mathematics (Wolfe,
1987; Crosswhite et al., 1986). The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) studies in 1986 measured attitudes in four categories: (1) Mathematics in
School, (2) Mathematics and Oneself, (3) Mathematics and Society, and (4)
Mathematics as a Discipline (Swafford & Brown, 1989). The 1990 NAEP reported
21
on items on students personal experience with mathematics which includes categories
such as enjoyment, confidence, and sex-role stereotyping, and items on students
perceptions of the utility of mathematics. The latter item includes two statements for
students to respond to, which are "Mathematics is useful for solving everyday
problems" and "Almost all people use mathematics in their jobs" (National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992).
Among the more important attitudes toward mathematics that are studied by
researchers are confidence, usefulness, and gender stereotyping. These are reviewed
separately in the following paragraphs. Other attitudes, including attitudes toward
success and attitudes toward failure in mathematics, are explained in Chapter 3 under
the section on instruments.
Confidence
Confidence is one of the most important affective variables studied by
mathematics education researchers. Confidence in learning mathematics, sometimes
referred to as self-concept specific to mathematics, "has to do with how sure a person
is of being able to perform well in mathematics, learn new topics in mathematics, and
do well in mathematics tests" (Hart & Walker, 1993). Lester, Garofalo and Kroll
(1989) hypothesized that confidence in learning mathematics is one o f the dominant
forces in shaping students mathematical behavior. It is thus, important to assess the
learners confidence in learning mathematics since confident students tend to learn
more, feel better about themselves, interact more with their teachers, spend more time
22
on task, and be more interested in pursuing mathematical ideas than students who lack
confidence (Reyes, 1984).
Fennema and Sherman (1976) measured students confidence by developing the
scale Confidence in Learning Mathematics. In the IEA study, there are nineteen items
that are included in the scale Mathematics and Myself which are designed to measure
the extent to which the students enjoy studying mathematics, feel confident in their
ability as a learner of mathematics, want to achieve in mathematics, and are not
anxious about mathematics. The Mathematics and Oneself scale of the NAEP study
has the statement "I am good at mathematics," as well as the question, "Do you feel
that you are as good as the others in your class?" to measures students confidence.
Perceived Usefulness of Mathematics
Perceived usefulness of mathematics is another important attitude studied by
mathematics education researchers. This attitude deals with students perception of
the usefulness of mathematics in everyday life and in their own career plans.
Students vary in their perception of the usefulness of mathematics both for their
current needs and for the future. This may influence their decision whether to take
more mathematics courses or not. Some students may take more mathematics
courses, even if they do not like mathematics, if they view mathematics as necessary
for their career goals (Reyes, 1984). Perception of usefulness of mathematics has
also been shown to be correlated to students decision to take optional mathematics
courses (Armstrong & Price, 1982; Perl, 1979; Sherman & Fennema, 1977).
23
Students who perceived mathematics as useful tended to elect more mathematics
courses. Thus, many studies on attitude toward mathematics have examined students
perceptions of the usefulness of mathematics (Armstrong, 1980; Armstrong & Price,
1982; Fennema & Sherman, 1977, 1978; Sherman & Fennema, 1977; Perl, 1979).
The Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales measure students
perception of the usefulness of mathematics through the scale Usefulness o f
Mathematics. To measure students perception of mathematics in everyday life,
respondents are asked to respond to items such as "Mathematics is of no relevance to
my life," and "I will use mathematics in many ways as an adult." In the Second
International Mathematics Study (SIMS) or IEA study, a scale Mathematics and
Society is designed to measure this attitude. There are eight items in this scale which
measures a students view of the usefulness and importance of mathematics to society
(Crosswhite et al., 1986). An example of an item designed to measure a students
perception of the usefulness of mathematics to society is "It is important to know
mathematics to get a good job." In a report on this study, McKnight et al. (1987)
said, "Some of the most positive responses to any of the items were obtained on this
scale. Both eighth- and twelfth-grade students in the United States indicated that it
was important to know mathematics in order to get a good job, that a knowledge of
mathematics was necessary in most occupations and that it was useful in everyday
life" (p.45).
24
Gender Stereotyping
Gender issues in mathematics began to receive the attention of researchers in
the mid 1970s. According to Fennema and Hart (1994), "little was done before
1974." Among the issues examined regarding gender and mathematics are
achievement, participation, and personal beliefs. Gender stereotyping in mathematics
involves an attitude that perceives mathematics as a domain of one of the gender
(usually the male) and not of the other. In the past, mathematics has been perceived
by many to be a male domain, and this may result in girls being less willing to pursue
studies in this area. Another aspect of gender stereotyping is to perceive female
students who excel in mathematics as being masculine. This would discourage female
students from performing to their best ability in mathematics.
Fennema and Sherman (1976) included a scale Mathematics as a Male Domain
in their Mathematics Attitudes Scales to "measure the degree to which students see
mathematics as a male, neutral, or female domain in the following ways: (a) the
relative ability o f the sexes to perform in mathematics; (b) the masculinity/femininity
of those who achieve well in mathematics; and (c) the appropriateness of this line of
studies for the two sexes" (p.3). One o f the items that was designed to measure
whether students perceive girls who are good in mathematics to be masculine is "Girls
who enjoy studying mathematics are a bit peculiar." Fennema and Sherman found
that overall, the students they surveyed had positive and desirable attitude in gender
stereotyping of mathematics. The scale had one of the highest scores among the nine
scales indicating that students did not see mathematics as a male domain. But the
25
difference in scores between male and female students was significant.
A scale called Mathematics and Gender is included in the Second International
Mathematics Study (SIMS) to determine to what extent mathematics is viewed by
students as a male domain. Among all the scales included in SIMS, the most positive
attitude was obtained on this scale (Crosswhite et al., 1986). This indicates that
students no longer sex-role stereotype mathematics as a domain more appropriate for
males than for females. Similar to the Fennema and Sherman study, this study also
found significant differences in the scores of male and female students in the scale
Mathematics and Gender.
Attribution of Success and Failure in Mathematics
As mentioned earlier, attribution o f success and failure in mathematics has
been considered as one of the components of attitudes toward mathematics. Research
concerning attributions in mathematics education deals with students perceptions of
the causes of their success or failure on mathematics tasks. Attribution theory
suggests that a student will be motivated to attempt academic tasks, on the basis of the
students reactions to academic success and failure (Ames & Ames, 1986; Weiner,
1979; Wittrock, 1986). According to the theory, students may attribute their success
or failure to numerous causes such as ability or talent, effort, environment (such as
teacher, peers, schedule, or luck), and task difficulty. For example, studies have
shown that males are more likely to attribute their success to ability than females, and
females are more likely to attribute their failure to lack of ability than males
26
(McLeod, 1992).
Attributions of past success and failure, in turn, are believed to provide
motivation for future achievement efforts. For example, blaming failure on lack of
ability often results in poor motivation because these students feel that success was
beyond their control and that effort was useless. Also, ability is not likely to change
dramatically and effort cannot overcome this cause for failure (Kloosterman, 1988).
Kloosterman (1988) also found that students who were high in confidence were also
likely to attribute success to ability and failure to lack of effort.
According to Fennema, Wolleat, and Pedro (1979), "The study o f causal
attribution has grown out o f achievement motivation theory and is based upon the
belief that an individuals attributions of causality of past successes and failures
provide powerful motivation for future achievement efforts" (p. 1). Attributions of
success and failures can be categorized as stable or unstable, internal or external, and
controllable or uncontrollable (Weiner, 1979, 1985). "In general, attributions to
stable causes (ability and task) have a greater influence on students motivation than
do attributions to unstable causes (effort and environment) because the students can
expect stable causes to result in similar amounts of success or failure in the future"
(Kloosterman, 1988, p. 346). Ability and effort are considered as internal factors
while task and environment are external factors. Effort is generally considered a
controllable factor while task difficulty and ability are not. Thus, for example,
blaming failure on lack of ability usually results in poor motivation because ability is
stable and not likely to change dramatically, and there is little the students could do to
27
increase the chance of success due to the fact that ability is also uncontrollable.
However, students who blame their failure on lack of effort could be easily motivated
to work harder to achieve, because they feel that success is controllable and depends
on their actions. In summary, attribution of success and failure can be categorized
into a matrix as shown in Figure 2.1 (Fennema, Wolleat & Pedro, 1979; Weiner,
1974).
Figure 2.1
Categories o f Attributions
Stability Locus of Control
Internal External
Stable Ability Task
Unstable Effort Environment
Cultural difference has been found to be an important factor in effort and
ability attributions to success and failure. In a review of the research on issues of
effort and ability, Holloway (1988) finds that effort is believed to be of primary
importance in determining achievement in Japan, but ability is seen as the primary
factor in the United States. This is supported by other studies on similar issue by
Hess, Chang, and McDevitt (1987), Stevenson et al. (1986), and Stigler and Perry
(1988).
28
Factors that Correlate with Attitudes
Many factors correlate with students attitudes toward mathematics, and studies
have been conducted to find the extent of these relationships. One of these factors is
parental support in learning mathematics, the other is teacher influence.
Parental support. Parental support can influence a childs attitude in several
ways. These include parental expectations of childs achievement, parental
encouragement, and parents own attitude toward mathematics (Eccles & Jacobs,
1986). Student ratings of parents perception o f mathematics ability have a strong
relationship with student ratings of confidence (Eccles et al., 1983). However, the
relationship between parents encouragement and expectation with students self
confidence is quite low (Fennema & Sherman, 1976). Students who reported greater
parental support for their endeavors in mathematics tend to rate mathematics as being
a useful subject to study (Eccles et al., 1983; Fennema & Sherman, 1976).
Teachers effect. Another important factor that has been discussed in relation
to students attitudes toward mathematics is the effect that the teachers have. Banks
(1964) states that:
By far the most significant contributing factor is the attitude of the teacher.
The teacher who feels insecure, who dreads and dislikes the subject, for whom
arithmetic is largely rote manipulation, devoid of understanding, cannot avoid
transmitting her feeling to children . . . . On the other hand, the teacher who
has confidence, understanding, interest and enthusiasm for arithmetic has gone
a long way toward insuring success (p. 16-17).
Aiken (1970) supports this view when he says that "It is generally held that teacher
attitude and effectiveness in a particular subject are important determinants of student
attitudes and performance in that subject" (p. 572). Aiken also points out that a study
29
by Aiken and Drager (1961) finds that "College men who disliked mathematics, as
contrasted to those who liked mathematics, stated that their previous mathematics
teachers had been more impatient and hostile" (Aiken, 1970, p. 573). From the same
study, Aiken states that "College women who disliked mathematics, in contrast to
those who liked mathematics, tended to view their previous mathematics teachers as
more impatient, not caring, grim, brutal, dull, severely lacking in knowledge of the
subject, and not knowing anything about how to teach mathematics" (p. 573).
However, according to Aiken, "It is also true that students who do not do well in a
subject may develop negative attitudes toward that subject and blame the teachers for
their failures, even when the teachers have been conscientious" (p. 572).
Gender and Socioeconomic Status
Since the early 1970s, research and discussions about gender differences
related to attitude toward mathematics, participation in mathematics, and achievement
in mathematics have been very extensive. Fennema and Leder (1990) edited a book
devoted to a discussion of gender issues in mathematics. Leder (1992) provides an
overview of 38 articles about gender and mathematics which appeared in Volumes 9-
21 (1978-1990) of the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. These make
up approximately ten percent of all articles published in that journal during that period
(Leder, 1992).
Investigations of high school and college students find that males tend to be
more confident than females in their abilities to learn and do mathematics, and tend to
30
perceive mathematics to be more useful for themselves and for society than do
females (Dossey et al., 1988; Eccles et al., 1983; Fennema & Leder, 1990; Fennema
& Sherman, 1976; Fennema & Sherman, 1977; Tocci, 1991). Also, although there
seems to be very little gender stereotyping in mathematics as evidenced by the high
scores in this scale in most studies, the difference between the perception of male
students and female students are significant. In the Second International Mathematics
Study for United States, Crosswhite et al. (1986) report that "The females believe
much more strongly than the men that mathematics is as much for them as for their
male peers" (p. 386). In this study, eighth and twelfth grade students were asked to
respond whether they agree or disagree to statements such as "Boys have more natural
abilities than girls in mathematics." The strongest feeling against gender stereotyping
in mathematics was expressed by twelfth grade female students with an average score
of 4.5 on a scale o f one for strongly disagreeing to a positive statement to five for
strongly agreeing to such statement. Similar results were found in the Fennema and
Sherman (1976) study and by Tocci (1991) in her study of 13-year-olds in the United
States and Thailand using data collected during the IEA Second International
Mathematics Study.
Although there has been less done in the area o f gender and mathematics in
the last few years, the topic of mathematics and gender deserves continued attention
since it is generally accepted that gender differences in mathematics still exist in some
areas (Fennema & Hart, 1994). Female students participation rates in more
advanced mathematics courses such as trigonometry, precalculus, and calculus are still
31
low in the United States, and the same is found to be true in the United Kingdom and
Australia (Leder, 1990). Although recent studies find that gender differences in
achievement have declined, Leder says that "There is, however, a substantial body of
evidence to suggest that, from the beginning of secondary schooling, males frequently
outperform females in mathematics" (p. 13).
However, very little study has been done on socioeconomic status and urban-
rural differences that relate to mathematics achievement and students attitude toward
mathematics. These factors are usually studied together with the effects of parental
support and home environment.
Relationship Between Attitudes and Achievement
Researchers have been trying to find out the answer to the general question
"What is the strength of the relationship between attitudes and achievement?"
Findings of studies have, however, not been conclusive. But the common sense
feeling that achievement ought to depend heavily on attitudes have continued to
stimulate many studies in search of a clear, simple relationship between the two
variables. According to McLeod (1992), "research suggests that neither attitude nor
achievement is dependent on the other; rather, they interact with each other in
complex and unpredictable ways" (p. 582). However, many educators still
hypothesize that attitude causes achievements in mathematics.
Studies that examined the relationship between confidence and classroom
performance in mathematics reported positive correlations ranging from .28 to .59
32
(Eccles et al., 1983; Marsh et al., 1988; Marsh et al., 1985; Norwich, 1987;
Pederson et al., 1985; Schoenfeld, 1989). Studies show that there is a correlation
between students perception of the usefulness of mathematics and their achievement in
mathematics (Armstrong, 1980; Fennema & Sherman, 1977, 1978). Low positive
correlations ranging from .11 to .57 are also reported in studies on the relationship
between students perceived usefulness of mathematics and achievement (Eccles et al.,
1983; Ethington & Wolfe, 1984; Hackett & Betz, 1989; Pederson, Bleyer, & Elmore,
1985; Stage & Kloosterman, in press). Mathematics anxiety has been shown to be
negatively correlated to achievement in mathematics indicating a poorer performance
for those who reported higher anxiety level (Eccles & Jacobs, 1986; Gliner, 1987;
Hackett & Betz, 1989; Hadfield, 1986; Hendel, 1980; Hunsley, 1987; Pedro et al.,
1981; Sepie & Keeling, 1978; Wigfield & Meece 1988). The correlations range from
-.10 t o -.53.
There is also a report of complex and unpredictable interactions between
achievement in mathematics and their attitudes toward mathematics based on cultural
influence. McKnight et al. (1987), in the report based on data from the Second
International Mathematics study, show that Japanese students had a greater dislike for
mathematics than students in other countries, even though Japanese students had very
high achievement scores.
Although there seem to be only low correlations between the attitude variables
studied and achievements in mathematics, Reyes (1984) claims that "a positive attitude
toward mathematics is an important educational outcome, regardless of achievement
33
level" (p. 558). It is thus necessary to find ways to help students develop positive
attitudes toward mathematics so that they would continue to learn more mathematics,
use mathematics in everyday life and on the job without fear, and be able to help their
children to learn mathematics in the future. Furthermore, affective variables
(including attitude) have been found to be related to the underrepresentation of certain
groups of students (such as females and minorities) in mathematics classrooms and
careers requiring mathematics knowledge (Maple & Stage, 1992; Reyes, 1984). It is
for these reasons that studies on attitudes toward mathematics continue to interest
researchers.
MALAYSIAN BACKGROUND - POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON ATTITUDES
The states of Malaysia were all originally colonized by Britain until the year
1957, when the eleven states in peninsular Malaysia gained independence to form
Malaya. In 1963 two more states, Sabah and Sarawak, previously under British rule
joined Malaya to form the new country, Malaysia. The population of about 17.8
million in 1992, is made up o f Malays and other indigenous groups of Sabah and
Sarawak (about 61 percent), Chinese (31 percent), and Indians (8 percent). The
Malays are mostly Muslims while the other major religions practiced in the country
include Buddhism (17 percent), Christianity (7 percent), Hinduism (7 percent), and
animism as well as ancestral worship (Mukheijee & Singh, 1985). Languages spoken
are Malay (the national language), Mandarin and other Chinese dialects, Tamil and
some other Indian regional languages, languages and dialects of indigenous population
34
of Sabah and Sarawak, and English.
The country is one of the fastest developing countries in the region and
industrialization has taken over from agriculture as the focus of development and is
slowly becoming the main source of activity and employment. To facilitate
industrialization and economic growth in general, the leaders have emphasized
education as the indispensable instrument. Scholars and researchers have generally
emphasized the importance o f education as a determinant of status and as a factor in
the movement into elite or prestigious occupations in the country (Mukheijee &
Singh, 1985).
The education system which was developed during the British rule, is very
much influenced by the British system. This involves six years of primary school,
beginning at age six, followed by five years of secondary school. At the end of this
schooling period, all students take a national examination called the Sijil Pelajaran
Malaysia (Malaysian Certificate of Education) abbreviated as SPM, in order to qualify
for a certificate which is equivalent to a high school diploma in the United States. In
the SPM, students take nationally common tests in seven to nine subjects over a two
week period. Students are allowed to choose from several subjects offered but they
are required to take and pass certain subjects, as determined by the board of
examinations, in order to qualify for the certificate. As explained before,
mathematics is not one of the subjects that a student is required to pass in order to
qualify for the certificate, but all students have to take mathematics in school to
prepare them for the national examination (SPM) in the subject called Secondary
35
School Integrated Curriculum Mathematics, or Matematik Kurikulum Baru Sekolah
Menengah (Matematik KBSM).
After finishing school, students who intend to go to the universities will take
two further years of pre-university education. This is accomplished either through
attending form six classes which are normally conducted in the secondary schools, or
through one o f the matriculation programs which are conducted by the local
universities. In 1991, there were seven universities with enrollment of about 62,000
students (Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan, 1993). When
compared to about two million people between the ages of nineteen and twenty-four
that makes up the population in the country, this translates to only about three percent
of the population in the nineteen to twenty-four age group who were able to attend
local universities. University education is thus an elitist privilege and highly valued
by the society.
The mathematics curriculum taught in the government schools is determined
by the curriculum development center in the Ministry of Education. All students use
the same syllabus and the same prescribed text books throughout the school years.
Mathematics is a compulsory subject at all levels in the school and students proceed
together with other students in the same age group regardless o f whether they have
shown any understanding of the previous years topics or not. Teachers have to teach
according to the syllabus determined for each year of schooling.
In the upper secondary school (Form Four and Form Five), students who want
to take an extra mathematics course are allowed to take the additional mathematics
36
program which includes trigonometry and calculus. Students who take this course are
normally those who intend to specialize in the scientific and technological fields such
as engineering, medicine, and computers. Conversely students who do not take this
course are not normally accepted into the scientific and technological courses in the
universities. Thus, as in the United States, students have to decide very early in their
school career whether they want to take an extra mathematics course or not and this
decision has definite implications on their future university course choices. But,
unlike the United States, the students in Malaysia are given very little opportunity to
make up for this deficiency at the college level. Furthermore, only students who have
shown higher ability in mathematics in the earlier school years are considered for
taking this extra mathematics course.
Studies on attitude toward mathematics among Malaysian students are very
rarely published. Swetz, Langgulung, and Johar (1983) compared the attitudes of
students in Malaysia and Indonesia toward mathematics. They found that in
Malaysia, students expressed more favorable attitudes than Indonesian students do
toward the place of mathematics in society; urban students expressed more favorable
attitudes than their rural counterparts did, and males expressed more favorable
attitudes toward mathematics than females did. In this study, attitudes were classified
into two, namely Attitudes toward the Placement o f Mathematics in Society, and
Attitudes toward School and School Learning. Out of nineteen items in the
instrument, eight were designed to measure students attitudes toward mathematics
and these were all put in one scale named Mathsoc. However, most of the statements
37
involved attitude relating to the usefulness of mathematics in society and there was no
item that measure other aspects of attitudes toward mathematics such as confidence,
attitude toward success, and gender stereotyping. Leong (1982), in his study of 540
students in a district in Malaysia, found that the majority o f students are very
examination oriented and the same can be said of their parents. Ninety-one percent of
the students and ninety percent of the parents in the study believed that the main
purpose o f schools was to help students pass the national examinations. In other
words, according to Leong, "Learning has come to be associated with passing
examinations . . . the kingpin of the school system, influencing directly the learning
approaches of students" (cited in Ng, 1983, p. 184). Ng (1972), in a study of 1,106
Form Five students (in their final year of secondary schools) in Penang, Malaysia,
found that only 21 percent of the students said that they liked mathematics most
among all the subjects offered in school, and 23 percent said that they disliked
mathematics most. Of those who liked mathematics, the majority gave the reason that
mathematics is easy or mathematics is interesting. Only 8 percent said that they liked
mathematics because it is useful. Of those who said they disliked mathematics most,
the majority (66 percent) said they did so because mathematics is difficult.
SUMMARY
In this chapter, I have discussed the definition of attitude in general, how it is
acquired, and how it is measured. I have also reviewed the literature regarding
students attitudes toward mathematics, focussing on three major studies. These were
38
the Fennema-Sherman study on mathematics attitudes, the Second International
Mathematics Study (SIMS) and the National Assessment o f Educational Progress
(NAEP) studies. Based on these and other relevant studies, I identified three main
attitudes toward mathematics that are usually discussed by most mathematics
education researchers who research on attitudes. These attitudes were confidence,
perceived usefulness, and gender stereotyping.
My next focus was on attribution of success and failure in mathematics. In
this section, the model developed by Weiner (1974) and modified by Fennema,
Wolleat, and Pedro (1979), for determining attribution o f success and failure in
mathematics, was discussed. The influence of parents and teachers on students
attitudes toward mathematics was reviewed, as were studies on attitudes toward
mathematics according to sex and socioeconomic status of students. In addition,
studies of the relationship between attitudes and achievement in mathematics were
considered.
The final part of this literature review examined the Malaysian school system
and studies on attitudes toward mathematics done in Malaysia. However, there have
been very few studies on attitudes toward mathematics done in Malaysia that have
been published whether in journals in Malaysia or outside the country. This
strengthened my resolve to carry out this study so that I can add to the knowledge
base on attitude toward mathematics of students in Malaysia.
39
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
OVERVIEW
In the previous chapter, several questions concerning attitudes toward
mathematics, attributions o f success and failures in mathematics, and some other
related factors in the learning o f mathematics of secondary school students in
Malaysia were put forward. To answer those questions, attitude measures were
administered to 528 students who were in their fourth year of secondary education in
four schools in Malaysia. Data were analyzed by socioeconomic status, gender,
school, and mathematics achievement in the last national examination (PMR), using
various statistical techniques with the help of the computer statistical package SPSS
(Norusis, 1986). In this chapter I (a) explain the development of the instrument used
to measure students attitudes toward mathematics, (b) describe the sample and the
rationale for choosing them, (c) describe the procedures used to gather data, and (d)
describe the analyses that were carried out.
Variables
Six attitudes toward mathematics were included in this study:
(a) Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF),
(b) Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC),
(c) Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL),
40
(d) Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life (USEL),
(e) Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job
(USECJ), and
(f) Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND),
The study also involved the students attribution of success and failure in
mathematics under the following variables:
(a) Attributions o f success in mathematics related to task, ability, effort,
and environment (ST, SA, SEF, SEN), and
(b) Attributions o f failure in mathematics related to task, ability, effort,
and environment (FT, FA, FEF, FEN).
Other related factors in the learning of mathematics that were being studied
included:
(a) Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (including attending private
tutorial sessions) (TIME),
(b) Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH),
(c) Mothers Support in Learning Mathematics (MOTH),
(d) Teachers Role on Attitude toward Mathematics (TEACHA), and
(e) Teachers Role in Success in Mathematics (TEACHS).
Students achievement in mathematics was measured by their mathematics
grades on the national examination taken at the end of the previous school year. This
examination is called the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR), which translates in
English to Lower Secondary Assessment. Students PMR grades were self reported.
41
Initial attempt to check these grades with school records were not carried out due to
concerns about confidentiality.
All the above factors were analyzed according to the following students
characteristics:
(a) gender,
(b) achievement as determined by the mathematics grade in the PMR (A,
B, C, D, E),
(c) urban-rural status, and
(d) school (P, Q, R, S)
(e) other socioeconomic variables, which were parents highest academic
attainments and items available in parents homes.
INSTRUMENTS
In order to measure the students attitudes toward mathematics, a questionnaire
was constructed (see Appendix E and English translation in Appendix F). Students
were asked to respond to the statements in the questionnaire on a five-point Likert-
type scale. Each response to a "positive" statement was given a score of five for
"strongly agree," four for "agree," three for "uncertain," two for "disagree," and one
for "strongly disagree." The score was reversed for each "negative" statement. For
example, in the scale Confidence in Learning Mathematics, the statement "I am no
good in mathematics" was a negative statement and was given a score of one for a
response of "strongly agree," two for "agree," three for "uncertain," four for
42
"disagree," and five for "strongly disagree."
The statements on the scales for attributions of success and failure in
mathematics (ST, SA, SEF, SEN, FT, FA, FEF, FEN) were not classified as
negative or positive. Each of the four scales for attribution of success and for
attribution o f failure was compared with the others to find out the degree to which the
students attributed their success or their failure to the four factors of task, ability,
effort, and environment.
Attitudes Toward Mathematics
The statements in the scales Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF) and
Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC) were all taken from the Fennema-
Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976) which have
twelve statements for each scale, six positive and six negative. The CONF scale was
designed to determine students personal views of themselves as learners of
mathematics by measuring the extent to which they felt confident in their ability as
learners of mathematics. The original Fennema-Sherman scale has a split-half
reliability of .93. For the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) undertaken
by the International Association of Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
(Crosswhite et al., 1986) a similar scale called Mathematics and Myself, was
constructed. Apart from measuring the students confidence, this scale measures the
extent o f students enjoyment in studying mathematics, their desire to achieve in
mathematics, and their anxiety about mathematics. Five out of the original twelve
43
"Confidence" statements in the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales were
chosen for this study, two positive and three negative.
The Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC) scale was developed to
assess the motive to avoid success in mathematics. Originally, it came out of a
suggestion by "Horner (1972). . . that women with good intellectual capacity had a
fear of success (or a motive to avoid success) in intellectual areas traditionally
assumed to be male" (Fennema & Sherman, 1976, p. 2). Five statements were
selected to be included in the scale developed for this study, three positive and two
negative. The split half reliability for the original Fennema-Sherman Scale is .87.
Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL) is not a construct used in most
studies. However, Covington and Omelich (1979) studied affective reactions to
failure and presumed that "shame and dissatisfaction should be greatest when a
student fails despite considerable effort because low ability is implied, and least when
little or no effort is expended" (p. 171). This implies students who value ability and
do not want to be recognized for their low ability will put in less effort so that they
can attribute their failures to lack of effort and maintain a sense of ability. Also, as
explained in the first chapter, Malaysian students might have given up hope on the
subject due to repeated failures but have to take it in the school curriculum to meet
school requirement. They might not have cared about the subject any more and
resigned themselves to failure. It was thus appropriate to develop a scale to assess a
students attitude toward failure, based on the categories of the degree of personal
dissatisfaction and public shame experienced when he or she fails in mathematics.
44
Also, it was hoped that this scale might detect the extent to which some of the
students had lost interest in the subject. There were six statements in this scale, three
positive and three negative.
The Fennema-Sherman scales include a construct called Usefulness o f
Mathematics scale (split-half reliability equals .88) while the IEA study has a
Mathematics and Society scale. Both scales were designed to measure a students
view of the usefulness and importance of mathematics in society. It is my belief that
many Malaysian students think of mathematics only as an important subject necessary
for entering college or universities or for getting a job, but that they do not see
mathematics as useful in everyday life or in society. If this is true, then there is a
likelihood that the students will be learning mathematics only because they think that
it will help them go to college or get a job but not because they think of it as a useful
subject to learn for everyday life use. Thus, in the present study, the usefulness scale
was divided into two, one new scale USEL measured the students perception of the
usefulness of mathematics in everyday life, and the other USECJ measured whether
there was any evidence that students saw mathematics as only useful for entry into a
college or a job without really implying that it would ever be used on the job or in
college courses. The USEL scale was constructed with two positive and three
negative statements while the USECJ scale was constructed with two positive and two
negative statements. Three statements, two for USEL and one for USECJ, were
taken from the IEA study while the other statements in these scales were developed
based on other statements in this study and the Fennema-Sherman scales.
45
The Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND) scale in this study was also
adapted from the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales. The name
however, was changed from the original name which was Mathematics as a Male
Domain (split-half reliability equals .87). The IEA study used a similar scale called
Mathematics and Gender. There were four statements in the current scale, two
positive and two negative, which were developed from both the Fennema-Sherman
scales and the IEA study.
Attributions
The terms "ability," "effort," "task difficulty," and "environment" or "help
from others," have been used in many studies to designate attributions of causation of
successes and failures in mathematics. In this study, there were three or four
statements for each of the four commonly used attribution categories for success and
failure, namely ability, task, effort, and environment. The statements were mostly
adapted from the Mathematics Attribution Scale (Fennema, Wolleat, & Pedro, 1979).
This resulted in the subscales Success-Ability (SA), Success-Task (ST), Success-Effort
(SEF), Success-Environment (SEN), Failure-Ability (FA), Failure-Task (FT), Failure-
Effort (FEF), and Failure-Environment (FEN). The subscale reliability coefficients
(Cronbachs alpha) calculated by Fennema, Wolleat, and Pedro, for the attributional
characteristics of Success-Ability, Success-Effort, Failure-Ability, and Failure-Effort
(.77, .79, .63, and .66 respectively) were higher than those for Success-Task,
Success-Environment, Failure-Task, and Failure-Environment (.39, .48, .48, and .48
46
respectively).
Related Factors
Time spent on mathematics outside school hours depends on several factors.
A student with low ability but high motivation may spend more time than most other
students. On the other hand, a student with high ability but low interest may not
spend much time on mathematics at home. It is also common for well to do parents
in Malaysia to employ private tutors outside school hours to teach their children - a
practice that puts the students who come from poorer families, who could not afford
to employ private tutors, at a disadvantage in the national examinations. This variable
is, however, difficult to measure because students usually do not keep an accurate
record of the time they spend on doing mathematics at home. For the present study,
a scale called Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (TIME) was developed. Students
were asked to estimate the time they spent doing mathematics problems outside school
and to tell about mathematics tutorial sessions they have with private tutors. For the
scale, there were four statements, two positive (suggesting that they spent a lot of
time on mathematics at home) and two negative (suggesting that they spent the least
time on mathematics at home). There were also two questions requesting students to
respond to the range of hours they spent on mathematics at home and with private
tutors, both in the year before and the year of this study.
The attitudes of significant others particularly mother, father and teachers, are
important to the learning of mathematics. Thus, the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics
47
Attitudes Scale includes the Mother, Father, and Teacher scales to assess students
perceptions of these persons attitudes toward them as learners of mathematics. The
IEA study combines mother and father influences in a scale called Parental Support
fo r Mathematics. However it maintains separate categories in the analysis by having
six of the items paired, one for mother and one for father. In the present study, there
were two separate scales for father (FATH) and mother (MOTH) but similar
questions were used in both constructs. Four of the six statements in each of these
scales were taken from the Fennema-Shennan scale where the split-half reliabilities
were .91 for Father scale and .86 for the Mother scale.
For the current study, teachers influence was divided into two scales which
were, Teachers Role on Attitude toward Mathematics (TEACHA) and Teachers Role
in Success in Mathematics (TEACHS). The first scale had four statements while the
second had three statements.
The reliability coefficients quoted for the scales discussed above were those for
the original scales. As explained above, for each scale in the current study, only
some statements from these scales mentioned were used. Also, some statements that
were not from any of the scales mentioned were included. Thus, the reliability
indices given for the original scales do not apply directly to the scales developed for
this study, and a separate reliability coefficient was computed for each scale in the
new study. Because this study was not a scale development study, the reliability
coefficient for each scale was computed using the data obtained from the sample in
the study.
48
Achievement
Achievement data for each student was obtained from the students response to
the question asking for his or her mathematics grade in the last national examination
(PMR) and the mathematics grade in the previous semester examination (SEM).
However, the students responses to the question on their mathematics grades in the
previous semester examination (SEM) were inconsistent and could be considered
unreliable. Some students did not give any response (160 respondents or 30.3
percent), while out of those who responded, 193 or 36.6 percent reported a failing
grade. The latter suggested that most students were not serious in studying
mathematics during the semester immediately after the national examination, and took
the semester examination lightly. Many students might not have remembered their
mathematics grade for the semester examination. Thus, SEM grade that was reported
as other than a failing grade came only from 175 respondents or 33.2 percent of the
population considered. However, for those who responded to the question concerning
their previous semesters mathematics grade, there was a strong correlation (r=.53)
between the scores reported and their report of their other mathematics achievement
scores, the PMR grades. This could be because a large number of students who
reported both scores had a D in the PMR and that many of these students obtained
failing grades in the previous semesters examination (103 out of 140 students who
reported PMR grades of D). Because of the fact that the students report of their
previous semesters grade (SEM) was inconsistent as explained previously, and that
there was a strong correlation between this grade and the students PMR scores, SEM
49
grade was not included in the measure of a students achievement in mathematics.
Thus, only the self-reported mathematics grade for the national examination (PMR)
was used in this study to indicate a students achievement in mathematics. The
mathematics grades given in the PMR are A for excellent, B for a good pass, C for
an average pass, D for a poor pass, and E for a fail. These grades were coded as
scores of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively in this study.
Gender and Socioeconomic Status
The students gender and socioeconomic status were self reported. There was
a single question on gender although socioeconomic status was determined by several
factors. One main factor was the students report of the location of his or her house.
In this factor, students were classified as either living in a rural area or an urban area.
In Malaysia, most rural children are poorer than their urban counterparts. Facilities
such as libraries, telephones, roads, access to banks and business houses, and similar
opportunities are more limited to rural children than to their urban counterparts. It is
thus possible that rural/urban status of students affects their achievements and could
also affect their attitudes toward mathematics. The analysis of the sample below (see
Table 3.2) shows that in the two rural schools (schools R and S), 83.2 and 95.6
percent respectively indicated that their house location was rural, while in the urban
school (school Q), 42.6 percent reported that their house was located in the rural
area. The latter may be because there were students from the rural area who attended
the urban school and stayed with their relatives who live in the town or these students
50
were staying in dormitories at this school as is common in many urban schools in
Malaysia. Also, the areas around this urban school were partly rural and some
students from the rural areas nearby did go to this school. Almost no urban students
attend rural schools; the few in the rural schools who reported their house location as
urban, may be from the small towns that service the populations in these rural areas.
Another factor that was used in determining a students socioeconomic status
was the highest educational attainments o f their parents. The students were asked to
state the highest educational attainments o f both their father and mother. The parents
educational attainments were classified into the categories of (a) lower than SPM, (b)
SPM or equivalent, (c) STPM or Diploma but lower than a university degree, and (d)
university degree or equivalent professional qualification. As explained in the first
chapter, SPM which stands fon Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia, is an exit examination taken
at the end of five years in the secondary school, by most students in Malaysia. After
finishing secondary schools, students could proceed to pre-university classes and take
the Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia (STPM) examinations. This would normally take
another two years of education which was done mostly in secondary schools. A
"Diploma" is the term used to indicate an academic award by a higher education
institution for a program that is lower than a university degree program. A diploma
program in a Malaysian higher education institution would normally take three years
to complete after secondary school.
Another method of trying to identify the students socioeconomic status was by
asking them to report whether some items were available at their parents houses.
51
These items were motorcar, motorcycle, television set, refrigerator, encyclopedia,
computer, and piano.
Pilot Testing
Several Likert-scale type items were written for each scale noted. For some
scales open ended questions were written. Pilot tests on the suitability of the
questions and items used were carried out on ten Malaysian students who had just
finished their high school programs in Malaysia. These students were studying at
Indiana University and high schools in Bloomington in a program to prepare them to
go to prestigious universities in the United States. The items and questions were then
translated into the Malay language (language used by students in Malaysian schools)
and piloted again on twenty students from the same program. In the second pilot
study the students were asked to respond to the statements in the questionnaire and
comment on the suitability of the questions as well as to identify any mistakes in the
language used. Comments given by these students as well as comments by a
Malaysian secondary school teacher who was on leave in Bloomington, resulted in the
translations o f some questions being modified. In a few cases, some questions were
deleted or added.
SAMPLE
Data were collected from Malaysian students who were in their tenth year of
schooling (fourth year in secondary schools or otherwise known as Form Four
52
students). M ost of them were around fifteen years old and had taken a national
assessment examination for Form Three students, the Penilaian Menengah Rendah
(PMR) in their previous school year. They were then waiting for their next and final
school assessment examination that would be taken at the end o f the next year (when
they would be in Form Five). This examination was the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia
(SPM) and would determine their final school achievements. These students were
chosen because they might be more responsive to investigation and would be more
prepared to think carefully about the answers they give to the questions posed during
the investigation than students who were busily preparing for their national
examinations in the ninth year of schooling (Form Three) or those in the eleventh
year of schooling (Form Five). They would also be mature enough to give more
meaningful answers than younger students who might not have had enough experience
to give any meaning to attitude questions such as those students in the eighth year
(Form Two), or the seventh year (Form One) of schooling.
The sampling method used was convenience sampling. Malaysia is made up
o f thirteen different states and a Federal Territory. The states have different
population sizes, and are at different levels of economic development. However the
system of education is centrally controlled by the Federal Government and facilities,
funding, and teacher training are thus decided centrally. All schools are required to
follow the same mathematics syllabus and there is also no reason to believe that
educational performances of students vary widely between states. The state of Pahang
was chosen and the school administrative district selected was the district of
53
Pekan/Rompin. Most states consist of about five to fifteen districts and the state of
Pahang is divided into eleven districts for the purpose of school administration. It is
not possible to find a typical district within a state but all districts have the minimum
facilities in education and students performances between districts in a state are
reasonably uniform. There were 104 government aided secondary schools in the state
of Pahang and the district o f Pekan/Rompin had 14 o f them. Out o f the
approximately 11,000 Form Four students in the state of Pahang, about 1,800 students
were in the district of Pekan/Rompin. Within the district of Pekan/Rompin, four
schools were chosen for the study. These included one school in the urban area, two
in the rural area and one fully residential school which was located in the urban area
but admitted high achieving students from both urban and rural areas. Some students
from the fully residential school were from outside the district of Pekan/Rompin. By
choosing these schools, I was able to collect data within a smaller area but still had a
sample that was fairly representative of the population in general. In brief, it is
probable that the four schools chosen shared characteristics of most schools in
Malaysia. There were urban schools and rural ones. Students attending the selected
schools comprised proportions o f males and females according to that of the normal
population in most schools. A reasonable proportion of students were from all the
levels of socioeconomic status being considered although these proportions varied by
schools, and might also be different from the whole country in general. Achievement
in mathematics o f the students selected were thought to be representative of student
achievement in the country as a whole. Five hundred and twenty-eight (528) students
54
from the four schools returned questionnaires that could be used in the analysis.
Some students were absent from class during the administration of the questionnaire
and thus the number o f students who responded to the questionnaire from each school
did not reflect the exact number of students from that school. In one school, only
four of the six classes were given the questionnaires due to an insufficient number of
questionnaires being brought to the school.
Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 show the breakdown of the sample according to
school and gender, school and urban-rural status, and school and mathematics
achievement as determined by their self-reported grades obtained in the national
examination taken in the previous year (PMR). Out of the 528 students who made up
the sample, 142 were from school P, 94 from school Q, 135 from school R, and 137
from school S. There were 271 (51.3 percent) males and 256 (48.5 percent) females
and one respondent who did not state the gender. Distributions of female and male
students across different schools were not proportional, with school P having more
males than females (66.2 percent compared to 33.1 percent) while school R had more
females (58.1 percent) than males (41.9 percent). There were 387 (73.3 percent)
rural students and 136 (25.8 percent) urban students. As explained above, most of
the rural students were in the two rural schools R (129 out of 387) and S (131), while
urban students were mainly in the urban school Q (40 out of 136) and the fully
residential school P (67). Most of the students (243 or 46.0 percent) reported a grade
of D in their PMR mathematics grade and they form the majority of the students in
schools Q, R, and S (45.7, 69.7, and 65.0 percent respectively). The majority of the
55
Table 3.1
Sample by School and Gender
Male Female Missing Total
School a % # % % #
P 94 66.2 47 33.1 1 0.7 142
Q 41 43.6 53 56.4 94
R 65 41.9 90 58.1 155
S 71 51.8 66 48.2 137
Total 271 51.3 256 48.5 1 0.2 528
Table 3.2
Sample by School and Urban-Rural
Urban Rural Missing Total
School # % # % # % #
P 67 47.2 74 52.1 1 0.7 142
Q 40 42.6 53 56.4 1 1.1 94
R 24 15.5 129 83.2 2 1.3 155
S 5 3.6 131 95.6 1 0.7 137
Total 136 25.8 387 73.3 5 0.9 528
Table 3.3
Sample by School and Achievement (PMR Grades)*
PM R Grades
A B C D E Missing Total
School ff % ff % If % ff % ff % ff % ff
P 68 47.9 61 43.0 8 5.6 3 2.1 0 0.0 2 1.4 142
Q 9 9.6 12 12.8 21 22.3 43 45.7 5 5.3 4 4.3 94
R 1 0.6 7 4.5 25 16.1 108 69.7 7 4.5 7 4.5 155
S 0 0.0 7 5.1 34 24.8 89 65.0 1 0.7 6 4.4 137
Total 78 14.8 87 16.5 88 16.7 243 46.0 13 2.5 19 3.6 528
* PMR is the mathematics grade obtained in the national examination that the students took during the previous year. A,
B, C, and D are passing grades, while E is a failing grade.
students in school P (90.9 percent) reported PMR mathematics grades of either A or
B. Overall, 14.8 percent of the students reported a grade of A, 16.5 percent reported
a grade of B, 16.7 percent reported a grade of C, 46.0 percent reported a grade of D,
and 2.5 percent reported a grade of E. Further discussions o f the differences in
achievement grades by school, urban-rural status and gender are given in Chapter 4
and Chapter 5. The requirement for promotion to Form Four in all government
secondary schools is a passing grade (at least a D) in the mathematics grade in the
PMR. It is not clear under what circumstance the 13 students who reported that they
scored an E in their PMR mathematics examination were promoted to Form Four
classes and participated in this survey. The 19 students who did not state their grades
might have forgotten them or they simply may have been careless when answering the
questions.
PROCEDURE
Before any study can be conducted in the schools in Malaysia, the permission
of the Ministry of Education must be sought. This was done by submitting two
copies each, of a completed prescribed form together with a copy of the dissertation
proposal, to the Educational Planning and Research Division of the Ministry of
Education (see Appendix A). When the permission to do research was granted by the
Ministry of Education (Appendix B), a further permission to use students in the
schools as sample in the study had to be obtained from the Pahang State Director of
Education. The permission granted by the State Director of Education (Appendix C)
58
was subject to the agreements o f the respective school principals. At the district
level, the District Education Officer was responsible for all the schools. His advice
was sought on the most appropriate way to conduct the study. He contacted the
school principals concerned and it was agreed that the teachers would administer the
questionnaire in the classes they were teaching. The researcher explained the
procedures for administering the questionnaire to the teachers who were going to
teach the Form Four classes during the time the questionnaire was to be administered.
This was carried out in a room provided by the principal of each school, and there
were between four and six teachers involved in each school. In cases where the
teachers were not available for this briefing an individual explanation was provided.
The teachers in turn explained the questionnaire to the students in their respective
classes. The researcher was available to answer any questions that arose by moving
from classroom to classroom.
A translated version of the IUB Study Information Sheet (see Appendix D) was
read to the students. They were then asked to respond to the questionnaire (see
Appendix E). As previously noted, the questionnaire consisted of Likert-scale type
questions (Section A) and several open ended questions (Section B). In the final part
of the questionnaire (Section C), the students were asked to give information
regarding their personal backgrounds. Most students took about 45 minutes to one
hour to complete the questionnaire.
59
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Reliability analysis was carried out using SPSS to determine internal
consistency of the responses for each scale. Analyses o f data were then carried out
using analysis of variance, correlational analysis, and stepwise multiple regression
analysis.
Analysis o f data resulted in the following:
(a) reliability coefficients, means, standard deviations, ranges, and means per item
for each scale (attitude, attributional, other related factors),
(b) means, standard deviations and F values for differences in achievement
measures (PMR score) between students according to urban-rural, gender, and
school.
(c) means, standard deviations and F values for differences in each scale between
subgroups of students according to urban-rural status, gender, school and
achievement (PMR grades).
(d) correlations between all the scales and achievement scores for all students and
for students according to gender.
(e) stepwise multiple linear regression analysis for predicting achievement from all
the attitude scales, attributional scales, and scales for other related factors, for
the whole sample and separately by gender, socioeconomic status, and urban-
rural status.
60
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
OVERVIEW
The primary purpose o f this study was to determine the attitudes of secondary
students in Malaysia toward mathematics. For this purpose, a survey containing 79
Likert-type scales was administered to 528 students who were in their tenth year of
schooling at four secondary schools in a district in Malaysia. Reliability analysis was
performed to assess the consistency of the items in each scale. In the first part of this
chapter a summary o f the survey data is presented. Next, the survey data were
analyzed by four separate categories namely urban-rural status, gender, school, and
mathematics achievement scores (PMR). This analysis is presented in the second part
of this chapter. Correlation analyses between each of the attitude scales and the
mathematics achievement scores were then performed to find out whether there were
significant correlations between any of them. Correlation analyses were also
performed separately by gender. Correlation analyses were not performed according
to urban-rural status because oneway analysis of variance results showed that only two
scales, that of FATH and MOTH, had significant differences between urban-rural
status, at the .01 level of significance. The results of these analyses are presented in
the third part of this chapter. Finally, stepwise multiple regression analysis was
carried out with achievement score as the dependent variable. This forms the final
section of this chapter.
61
RELIABILITY AND ATTITUDES
Because some of the statements in the scales used were selected by the author
from other scales and some others were designed by the author himself, it was
necessary to compute the reliability coefficients of these scales to determine whether
the different statements, when combined, yielded consistent results. This was done
by calculating a reliability coefficient (Cronbachs a ) for each scale, based on the
responses by students to the statement in the questionnaire in this study, using the
SPSS package (Norusis, 1986). Cronbachs a gives a measure o f the internal
consistencies of the various statements in each scale. A value of 1.0 means that the
responses to all the statements in a particular scale are perfectly correlated. A
reliability of zero would mean that the scale is totally useless and the different
statements in the scale do not measure the same attitude. Usually, "reliability
coefficients of .70 or above are considered respectable . . . but lower coefficients are
sometimes tolerated, although this affects the confidence with which you can make
decisions based on measurement results" (Henerson, Morris, & Fitz-Gibbon, 1978,
p. 153). In this study, coefficients of .8 and above were considered very reliable,
while those between .6 and .8 require some caution when results are interpreted.
Where the coefficients were between .4 and .6, extreme caution must be exercised in
interpreting the results.
The results of the reliability analysis and the means, standard deviations,
ranges, and means per item for each scale are found in Table 4.1. Apart from the
scale Teachers Role in Success in Mathematics (TEACHS) which has a reliability
62
Table 4.1
Reliability Coefficients (Cronbachs a), Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Means per Item
Attitude Scales Number Cases Cronbachs a Mean S. D. Range Mean/item

o f items
Confidence (CONF) 5 498 0.70 18.52 3.04 5 - 25 3.70

Toward Success (SUCC) 5 497 0.46 19.08 2.47 5 - 25 3.82
Toward Failure (FAIL) 6 500 0.65 25.04 3.48 6 - 30 4.17
Usefulness (Life) (USEL) 5 496 0.63 19.99 2.82 5 - 25 4.00
Usefulness (College) (USECJ) 4 499 0.66 17.77 2.06 4 - 20 4.44
Gender Stereotype (GEND) 4 498 0.70 14.09 3.04 4-20 3.52
Success-Task (ST) 3 503 0.41 10.94 1.80 3 - 15 3.65

Success-Ability (SA) 3 500 0.67 9.51 2.15 3 - 15 3.17
Success-Effort (SEF) 3 497 0.57 11.49 1.90 3 - 15 3.83
Success-Environment (SEN) 3 522 0.49 11.63 1.73 3 - 15 3.88
Failure-Task (FT) 4 501 0.63 13.21 2.51 4 - 20 3.30
Failure-Ability (FA) 4 500 0.62 12.37 2.69 4 - 20 3.09
Failure-Effort (FEF) 3 519 0.71 12.06 1.99 3 - 15 4.02
Failure-Environment (FEN) 4 503 0.76 10.54 2.97 4 - 20 2.64
Time Spent (TIME) 4 509 0.81 11.95 3.17 4 - 20 2.99

Father (FATH) 6 453 0.82 23.63 4.09 6 - 30 3.94
Mother (MOTH) 6 470 0.78 23.49 3.74 6 - 30 3.92
Teacher/Attitude (TEACHA) 4 499 0.52 14.79 2.49 4 - 20 3.70
Teacher/Success (TEACHS) 3 514 0.13 10.25 1.78 3 - 15 3.42
coefficient of .13, the values of reliability coefficients (Cronbachs a) for all other
scales range from .82 for the scale Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics or
Father scale (FATH) to .41 for Success-Task (ST). The SPSS analysis also showed
that removal of any of the items from the scales, would not improve the reliability
coefficients by much. It was thus decided to use all the items from the questionnaire
in this study except for the scale TEACHS. The statements that made up this latter
scale (TEACHS) were analyzed as separate items. However, caution must be used in
interpreting the results involving the scales with reliability coefficients between .4 and
.6 which were SUCC, ST, SEF, SEN, and TEACHA.
Because the number of items per scale varied from three to six, it was
necessary to use the means per item when comparing the scales. The number of
cases in each scale varies from 453 for the Father scale (FATH) to 522 for the
Success-Environment scale (SEN). This variation in die number of cases for each
scale was because some students did not respond to some statements in the
questionnaire and if any of the statements relating to a particular scale were omitted
by a student, that students responses were not used to compute the reliability
coefficient, mean, standard deviation, and range for that scale. The lower number of
cases in the categories of FATH scale and MOTH scale may be partly due to the fact
that students did not respond to questions regarding their father or mother if they did
not live with either of them due to death or divorce. Step parents and adopted parents
were considered the same as parents, in this case.
The scoring of the responses to the statements was 5 for "strongly agree"
64
indicating the most positive attitude, 4 for "agree," 3 for "undecided," 2 for
"disagree," and 1 for "strongly disagree" which indicated the most negative attitude in
each scale. Where the statements were written in the negative sense, the scoring was
reversed. Thus, a value of 3 on the mean per item indicates that the attitude is
neutral while a score of more than 3 indicates a positive attitude. Similarly, a score
of less than 3 shows a negative attitude. The foregoing explanation does not apply to
the scales concerning attributions o f success in mathematics (SA, ST, SEF, and SEN)
and attributions of failure in mathematics (FA, FT, FEF, and FEN). Because in these
scales all the statements were designed to show how much the students attributed their
failure or success in mathematics to each o f the factors of ability, task, effort, and
environment, all the items on these scales had positive wordings. Comparisons of the
means per item of each of the scale gives the relative importance of the factors to the
students in terms of their attributions of their success or failure. A higher mean per
item in one scale compared to the other indicates that the students, as a group,
attribute their success or failure more to the factor with the higher mean per item than
that with the lower mean per item.
Main Attitude Category
There were six scales in this main attitude category. They were Confidence in
Learning Mathematics (CONF), Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC),
Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL), Usefulness o f Mathematics in
Everyday Life (USEL), Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or into a
65
Job (USECJ), and Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND). The highest mean
per item score was 4.44 for the USECJ scale indicating that most students surveyed
agreed or strongly agreed to the positive items in the scale and disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the negative items in the scale. For example, in response to the
statement "It is important to know mathematics to get a good job" 499 (95.7 percent)
out of the 521 students who responded, said that they agreed or strongly agreed with
this statement. Details giving percentages of respondents who agreed or strongly
agreed, were uncertain, or who disagreed or strongly disagreed with each statement in
the questionnaire are given in Appendix G.
The next highest mean per item score for the attitude scales was that of FAIL,
with a mean per item of 4.17. Most of them indicated that they agreed or strongly
disagreed to statements such as "I cant afford to fail mathematics" (93.2 percent), "If
I fail in a mathematics test I would be very much ashamed" (75.6 percent), and "If I
fail in a mathematics test I would feel very much dissatisfied" (89.4 percent). They
disagreed or strongly disagreed to statements such as "It doesnt bother me if I fail in
mathematics" (91.8 percent), and "I would not feel ashamed if I fail in mathematics"
(79.9 percent). This means that the students surveyed had a very desirable attitude
toward failure in mathematics.
The USEL scale also had a high mean per item score of 4.00. The mean of
the SUCC scale was 3.82 while CONF had a mean of 3.70 and GEND had a mean of
3.52. While lower than the other scales, these scores still indicated moderately
positive attitudes.
66
In summary, most of the students surveyed had positive attitudes toward
mathematics in the six scales in the main attitude category with the most positive
being that of Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job
(USECJ), and the least positive being that of Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics
(GEND). Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics had the lowest mean per item score
and indicated that students were ambivalent about gender stereotyping. None of the
scales showed that students had negative attitudes toward mathematics.
Attributions of Success and Failure
With respect to attribution of success, the students surveyed had almost similar
mean per item scores for effort (3.83) and environment (3.88). These two were much
higher than their attribution o f their success to ability (3.17), and slightly higher than
their attribution o f success to task (3.65). For example, in response to the statement,
"When I did well in mathematics it was because the teacher explained the topic real
well," 79.9 percent said they agreed or strongly agreed while only 3.1 percent said
they disagreed or strongly disagreed. Also, 78.6 percent said they agreed or strongly
agreed to the statement, "When I did well in mathematics it was because I worked
hard doing the homework assigned." This means that the students surveyed believed
that their own effort and their teachers and friends help were important factors in
their success in mathematics. Talent and ability were less important in their success.
Only 25.2 percent agreed or strongly agreed to the statement, "When I was able to
solve problems in mathematics it was because o f my natural ability."
67
The students surveyed had fairly strong views on causes of failure. Attribution
of failure to lack of effort (mean per item for FEF equals 4.02) was much higher than
those for task (3.30), lack of ability (3.09), and environment (2.64). That is, the
students surveyed put most of the blame for their failure on their own lack of effort.
For example, 83.3 percent said they agreed or strongly agreed to the statement,
"When I did not do well in mathematics it was because I did not put enough effort
over my work." They put very little blame for their failure on the environment, in
this case, the teachers. In a response to the statement, "When I did not do well in
math it was because the teacher spent too little time in class discussing the topic
concerned," only 15.9 percent said they agreed or strongly agreed while 58.4 percent
said they disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Other Related Factors
The students surveyed seem to have a very positive perception of their parents
support for their learning o f mathematics. Mean per item scores for Father and
Mother scales (FATH and MOTH) were 3.94 and 3.92 respectively. As shown in
Appendix G, 81.1 percent of the students surveyed said that they agreed or strongly
agreed to the statement, "My father has always encouraged me to do well in
mathematics," while the percent agreed and strongly agreed to the same statement for
mother instead of father was 87.8.
They also perceived that their teachers played a major role in influencing their
attitude toward mathematics. The mean per item score for this scale (TEACHA) was
68
3.70. For example, response to the statement, "My mathematics teachers are
responsible for making me less or more confident in mathematics" show that 77.4
percent of the students said that they agreed or strongly agreed. Because the
reliability of the scale TEACHS was very low, the statements in this scale were
analyzed individually. Each item on the scale had a mean of above 3.0. The highest
mean score was that for the response to statement 9 in the instrument which was "My
mathematics teachers have not been influential in my success (or lack of success) in
mathematics." The score was 3.62 (57.7 percent said they disagreed or strongly
disagreed with this statement) after it was reversed indicating that the most of the
students considered their teachers as influential in their success or failure in
mathematics.
The scale Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (TIME) had a relatively low
mean per item score of 2.99. This indicates that the students surveyed were reluctant
to say that they spent a lot of their time on mathematics at home, when compared to
the time they spent on other subjects or other activities. For example, 46 percent of
the students agreed to the statement, "I spend very little time on mathematics at
home" and 26.6 percent were undecided (see Appendix G). This result is supported
by the response to the question on the amount of time they spent at home on
mathematics. Two hundred and seventeen students (41.1 percent) said that they spent
less than one hour per week on mathematics at home the year before and the same
number said that they spent less than one hour per week on mathematics the current
year. A further 231 students (43.8 percent) said that they spent between 1 hour and 5
69
hours per week at home on mathematics the previous year and a similar number (234
or 44.3 percent) said that they spent the same time for the current year. The above
shows that more than 80 percent of the students surveyed said that they spent, on the
average, less than an hour per day on school days at home on mathematics.
In summary, the perceptions of the students surveyed on the attitude of their
parents and their teachers toward them as learners of mathematics were positive.
They said that their parents supported them well in learning mathematics and that
their teachers were influential in the formation of their attitudes toward mathematics
and their success in mathematics. However most of them reported that they spent
very little time on mathematics at home.
ANALYSIS BY URBAN-RURAL, GENDER, SCHOOL,
AND ACHIEVEMENT SCORES
Oneway analyses of variance was performed to see if there were urban-rural
status, gender, o r school difference in achievement scores (PMR). Similarly, the
eighteen scales developed in this study were analyzed by urban-rural status, gender,
school, and achievement scores (PMR). Significance was determined at the .01 level.
Post-hoc analysis to determine significant differences between pairs of groups, when
there were more than two groups being compared, were made using the Scheffe
procedure with a significance level of .05.
70
Achievement (PMR grades')
Students achievement in mathematics was based on their mathematics grade in
the national examination, denoted as PMR, which they took in the previous year.
Scores of 5, 4, 3, and 2 were given for the passing grades A, B, C, and D
respectively. The failing grade E was given a score of 1. Table 4.2 shows the
analysis of students mathematics scores by urban-rural status, gender, and school.
There was a significant difference in mathematics achievement between urban students
and rural students with the urban students having a mean score of 3.50 compared to
2.75 for rural students. Male students had significantly better achievement scores
than female students, with a mean score of 3.16 compared to 2.73 for female
students. Finally, the achievement scores in the PMR varied significantly by school
with school P (mean of 4.39) having a much higher average grade than the other three
schools. School Q, with a mean of 2.74, was also significantly better than schools R
(mean=2.24) and S (mean=2.36) at the .05 level using the Scheffe test. There was
no significant difference between the achievement grades of students in school R
compared to those in school S.
Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONFf
There was no significant difference in the scale Confidence in Learning
Mathematics (CONF) between urban and rural students and between male and female
students (see Table 4.3). However, there were significant differences between
students from different schools. School R, with a mean of 16.99, was significantly
71
Table 4.2
Means, Standard Deviations and F values for Mathematics Achievement Scores (PMR)
by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, and School.
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 134 3.50 1.24 43.51*

Rural 371 2.75 1.08
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 260 3.16 1.16 17.54*

Female 249 2.73 1.14
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 140 4.39 0.69 249.36*

School Q 90 2.74 1.09
SchoolR 148 2.24 0.64
School S 131 2.36 0.60
* p < . 01
PMR Grades were coded 5 for A, 4 for B, 3 for C, 2 for D, and 1 for E.
Table 4.3
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r Confidence in Learning Mathematics"
Scale (CONF) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores
(PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 128 18.91 3.15 2.68

Rural 367 18.40 3.00
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 259 18.59 3.08 .30

Female 238 18.44 3.01
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 140 19.76 2.93 22.85*

School Q 82 18.74 3.25
School R 144 16.99 2.68
School S 132 18.75 2.72
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 21.03 2.36 22.42*

Grade of B 79 18.95 3.05
Grade of C 80 18.83 2.52
Grade of D 233 17.61 2.95
Grade of E 13 17.38 2.47
* p < . 01
73
lower at the .05 level than school P (m ean=19.76), school Q (mean =18.74), and
school S (mean= 18.75). The difference between the means for school P and school
S was also significant at the .05 level. There was also a significant difference
between the means of the scores for the CONF scale when stratified by achievement
levels in mathematics. Students who had A s in the PMR score had the highest mean
of 21.03 for the scale. This mean was significantly different from those who have
Bs (18.95), C s (18.83), D s (17.67), and E s (17.38) in the achievement scores.
The only other significant differences in this scale were between those who had Bs
and those who had Ds, and between those who had C s and those who had D s.
Nevertheless all the scores were above the mid-level for a neutral (or undecided)
score of 15 for this scale.
Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC)
As shown in Table 4.4, the only significant difference on the Attitude toward
Success in MathenxaXics scale was between genders. Instead of fearing success
because of the negative consequences that were supposed to accompany female
success in mathematics (Homer, 1968), female students in this study had a more
positive attitude toward success in mathematics (mean= 19.44) than their male
counterparts (18.74).
Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL)
Table 4.5 shows the results of the analysis o f the scale Attitude toward Failure
74
Table 4.4
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Attitude toward Success in
Mathematics" Scale (SUCC) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Achievement Scores (PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 128 19.13 2.57 .09

Rural 365 19.06 2.44
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 258 18.74 2.56 9.89*

Female 238 19.44 2.33
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
SchoolP 139 18.76 2.65 1.30

School Q 84 19.20 2.55
SchoolR 144 19.31 2.37
School S 130 19.09 2.32
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 18.83 2.71 1.16

Grade of B 78 18.67 2.46
Grade of C 81 19.19 2.50
Grade of D 233 19.25 2.43
Grade of E 13 19.53 2.33
* p C .O l
75
Table 4.5
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Attitude toward Failure in
Mathematics" Scale (FAIL) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement
Scores (PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 127 25.17 3.91 .28

Rural 369 24.98 3.32
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. E
Male 259 24.16 3.54 36.32*

Female 240 25.98 3.16
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 140 26.01 3.24 6.84*

School Q 84 24.25 3.57
School R 144 25.14 3.13
School S 132 24.39 3.79
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 26.27 3.12 5.12*

Grade of B 79 25.86 3.10
Grade of C 83 24.58 3.62
Grade of D 232 24.57 3.54
Grade of E 13 25.62 3.36
'/? < .01
76
in Mathematics (FAIL). There was a significant difference in the FAIL scale
according to gender, school and achievement scores (PMR). However, there was no
significant difference in this scale between urban students and rural ones. Female
students had a more desirable attitude toward failure in mathematics (mean=25.98)
than male students (mean=24.16). School P, with a mean score of 26.01 was
significantly higher than school Q (mean=24.25) and school S (mean=24.39). No
other differences between pairs of schools were significant in the FAIL scale. In the
analysis by achievement, students who scored A were significantly higher in their
attitude toward failure score (mean=26.27) than students who scored C
(mean=24.58) and students who scored D (mean=24.57). Nevertheless, all the
groups concerned had scores of above 24 which translates to a mean per item of
above 4.0, indicating a very positive attitude.
Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life (TJSF.D
Table 4.6 shows the results of the analysis of the Usefulness o f Mathematics in
Everyday Life scale. The only significant difference involved gender where female
students perceived mathematics as being more useful in everyday life (mean=20.57)
than did male students (mean= 19.46).
Usefulness o f Mathematics for Entry into a College or Entry into a Job fUSECD
The analysis of the scale Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or
Entry into a Job is shown in Table 4.7. There were significant differences in this
77
Table 4.6
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday
L ife " Scale (USEL) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores
(PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 128 20.33 2.74 2.36

Rural 365 19.88 2.86
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 255 19.46 2.89 19.73

Female 240 20.57 2.64
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 140 20.49 2.49 2.68

SchoolQ 83 19.51 3.14
SchoolR 141 20.04 3.06
School S 132 19.73 2.62
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. E
Grade of A 75 20.83 2.67 2.34

Grade of B 79 20.32 2.72
Grade of C 80 19.84 2.63
Grade of D 230 19.79 2.94
Grade of E 13 19.46 3.09
* p < . 01
Table 4.7
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry
into a College or Entry into a Job" Scale (USECJ) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender,
School, and Achievement Scores (PMR).
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 126 17.87 2.04 .52

Rural 370 17.72 2.08
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 257 17.27 2.12 32.70*

Female 241 18.29 1.86
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
SchoolP 138 18.23 1.76 5.24*

SchoolQ 84 17.26 2.31
School R 143 17.89 2.09
School S 134 17.47 2.06
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 74 18.50 1.60 2.87

Grade of B 78 17.27 2.14
Grade of C 82 17.71 2.00
Grade of D 233 17.59 2.18
Grade of E 13 18.08 1.89
<p<. 01
79
scale when analyzed by gender and by school. Analyses by urban-rural status and by
achievement did not reveal any significant differences in the scores. Female students,
with a mean score of 18.29, had a significantly more positive attitude in the USECJ
scale than male students whose mean score was 17.27. For the analysis by school,
the results show that school P, with a mean score o f 18.23 had a significantly higher
score than schools Q (mean=17.26) and S (mean= 17.47). Although the analysis by
achievement did not show any significant differences in attitude by achievement level
at the .01 level, the post-hoc test at .05 level o f significance showed that there is a
significant difference between students who obtained As in the PMR, with score of
18.50, and students who scored D s, whose mean score was 17.59. It should also be
pointed out here that all groups of students had scores of much higher than 16.0,
which translates to a mean per item score of 4.0.
Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND)
The results of the analysis is shown in Table 4.8. Gender Stereotyping in
Mathematics (GEND) was shown to be significantly different by gender, school, and
by achievement score. Female students, with a mean of 16.10 had significantly more
positive attitude on gender stereotyping than male students whose mean score was
12.24. Since there were four items in this scale, and the neutral score for the scale
was 12.0, the score for male students indicates that they had an almost neutral attitude
toward gender stereotyping in mathematics. School P had a significantly lower score
of 12.88 than schools Q (mean= 14.74), R (mean= 14.62), or S (mean=14.40).
80
Table 4.8
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics
Scale (GEND) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores
(PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 129 13.97 3.00 .22

Rural 366 14.11 3.05
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 259 12.24 2.41 335.48*

Female 238 16.10 2.28
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
SchoolP 141 12.88 2.88 11.34*

SchoolQ 85 14.74 2.88
SchoolR 144 14.62 2.90
SchoolS 128 14.40 3.11
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 13.04 3.07 6.54*

Grade of B 80 13.31 3.07
Grade of C 81 13.84 3.04
Grade of D 231 14.69 2.88
Grade of E 13 14.92 2.22
* /?< .01
81
Students with grade D in the PMR had significantly more positive attitude in Gender
Stereotyping in Mathematics scale (mean= 14.69) than those who had grades A
(mean =13.04) or B (m ean=13.31).
Success-Task (ST)
Table 4.9 shows the analysis of the scale Success-Task. There was no
significant difference in this scale between any o f the factors considered indicating
that the attributions of success to task was similar for urban and rural students, female
and male students, students from schools P, Q, R, and S, and students of all
achievement grades in the PMR.
Success-Abilitv (SA)
As shown in Table 4.10, the only significant difference on the Success-Ability
scale was between school. Post-hoc analysis shows that students in school S, where
the mean was 10.06, had a significantly higher score than students in school P
(mean=9.12) or school R (mean=9.31), meaning that students from school S
attributed their success more strongly to their ability than did students in school P or
school R.
Success-Effort CSEF)
In the analysis of the scale Success-Effort, only gender was significant (see
Table 4.11). Female students, with a score of 11.96 had a significantly higher score
82
Table 4.9
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Success-Task Scale (ST) by Urban-
Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores (PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 129 11.18 1.83 2.96

Rural 370 10.85 1.79
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 263 10.78 1.74 4.32

Female 239 11.11 1.85
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 141 10.65 1.92 3.27

School Q 85 11.20 1.70
School R 144 11.21 1.90
School S 133 10.79 1.57
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 10.45 1.89 2.71

Grade of B 80 10.74 2.01
Grade of C 81 10.98 1.66
Grade of D 235 11.08 1.75
Grade of E 13 11.77 1.09
83
Table 4.10
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r Success-Abilityn Scale (SA) by Urban-
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D.
Urban 128 9.17 2.24

Rural 368 9.62 2.09
Gender
Cases Mean S.D.
Male 260 9.34 2.12

Female 239 9.72 2.17
School
Cases Mean S.D.
School P 141 9.12 2.42

School Q 87 9.66 2.17
School R 140 9.31 1.82
SchoolS 132 10.06 2.06
PMR
Cases Mean S.D.
Grade of A 74 9.68 2.63

Grade of B 81 9.09 2.00
Grade of C 82 9.79 2.02
Grade of D 233 9.42 2.09
Grade of E 13 10.92 1.80
* pC .O l
Table 4.11
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Success-Effort" Scale (SEF) by Urban-
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 128 11.44 2.01 .10

Rural 366 11.50 1.87
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 257 11.05 1.87 30.07*

Female 239 11.96 1.83
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 139 11.32 1.82 1.42

School Q 84 11.75 2.01
School R 144 11.35 2.01
School S 130 11.65 1.78
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 11.43 1.81 1.64

Grade of B 78 11.43 1.77
Grade of C 81 11.94 1.85
Grade of D 232 11.40 1.96
Grade of E 13 11.92 2.29
* p < . 01
than male students whose score was 11.05. In other words, female students attributed
their success to effort more strongly than did male students. Students attributions of
success in mathematics to effort were not significantly different by urban-rural status,
by school, or by achievement scores in mathematics.
Success-Environment (SEND
As shown in Table 4.12, there was no significant difference in the students
attribution of success to environment. Students in all categories of urban-rural,
gender, school, and achievement grades attributed their success to the environment
(teachers and friends) in similar manner with means between 11.45 and 11.95.
Failure-Task (FT)
Table 4.13 shows that there was no significant difference in the students
attribution of failure to task when analyzed by all the four factors of urban-rural,
gender, school, and achievement (PMR).
Failure-Ability (FA)
Table 4.14 shows the results of the analysis of the scale Failure-Ability. There
was a significant difference in this scale by school and by achievement scores.
Students from school R, where the mean score was 13.24, attributed their failure
more strongly to lack o f ability than did students in schools P (mean=11.95), Q
(11.99), or S (12.14). No other pair of schools had significantly different scores. In
86
Table 4.12
Means, Standard Deviations and F values for Success-Environment" Scale (SEN) by
Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores (PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 136 11.94 1.79 6.10

Rural 381 11.52 1.69
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 268 11.51 1.73 2.51

Female 253 11.75 1.73
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
SchoolP 141 11.88 1.61 1.54

School Q 94 11.45 1.98
School R 154 11.63 1.80
School S 133 11.51 1.56
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 78 11.95 1.84 .83

Grade of B 86 11.55 1.75
Grade of C 87 11.71 1.61
Grade of D 239 11.58 1.74
Grade of E 13 11.46 1.45
87
Table 4.13
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Failure-Task " Scale (FT) by Urban-
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 130 13.33 2.57 A1

Rural 368 13.15 2.49
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 262 13.05 2.51 2.15

Female 238 13.38 2.50
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 141 13.26 2.46 1.15

School Q 86 12.95 2.90
School R 143 13.48 2.75
School S 131 13.02 1.93
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 12.75 2.30 1.28

Grade of B 80 13.51 2.43
Grade of C 82 13.38 2.35
Grade of D 232 13.17 2.66
Grade of E 13 13.92 2.87
88
Table 4.14
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Failure-Ability" Scale (FA) by Urban-
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 129 12.33 2.87 .01

Rural 368 12.36 2.62
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 261 12.18 2.66 2.49

Female 239 12.56 2.70
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 142 11.95 2.66 7.27*

School Q 85 11.99 2.79
School R 141 13.24 2.72
School S 132 12.14 2.40
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 10.83 2.32 8.50*

Grade of B 80 12.59 2.49
Grade of C 81 12.19 2.57
Grade of D 232 12.80 2.67
Grade of E 13 12.62 3.31
p < . 01
89
the comparison by achievement, students with PMR grades of A had significantly
lower score (mean= 10.83) than those with grades of B (12.59), C (12.19), or D
(12.80). In other words, students with grade of A were less likely to attribute their
failure to lack of ability than students with grades of B, C, or D. There were no
other significantly different pairs.
Failure-Effort CFEF)
Table 4.15 shows the results of the analysis of the scale Failure-Effort.
Female students had a significantly higher score (mean= 12.36) than male students
(11.76) indicating that they attributed their failure in mathematics to lack of effort
more strongly than did their male counterparts. The only other significantly different
pair were school P (mean=12.57) and school S (11.48). Students from school P thus
attributed their failure to lack of effort more strongly than did students from school S.
Failure-Environment (FEN)
As shown in Table 4.16, the only significant difference in the Failure-
Environment scale was between schools. Students from school R (mean=11.65) had
significantly higher scores than students from schools P (mean= 10.42), Q (10.19),
and S (9.72). This indicates that students from school R attributed their failure to the
environment (teacher) more strongly than their counterparts from schools P, Q, and
S.
90
Table 4.15
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r "Failure-Effort" Scale (FEF) by Urban-
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 135 12.43 1.86 6.48

Rural 379 11.92 2.03
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 268 11.76 2.02 11.98*

Female 250 12.36 1.92
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 141 12.57 1.80 6.99*

School Q 92 12.03 2.14
School R 154 12.10 2.12
School S 132 11.48 1.78
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 78 12.41 2.15 2.48

Grade of B 86 12.22 1.89
Grade of C 85 12.25 2.00
Grade of D 239 11.81 1.97
Grade of E 12 12.92 1.08
' p < .01
91
Table 4.16
Means, Standard Deviations and F values for "Failure-Environment" Scale (FEN) by
Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores (PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 128 10.59 3.01 .05

Rural 371 10.52 2.94
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 261 10.62 2.80 .35

Female 241 10.46 3.15
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 140 10.42 2.76 11.23*

School Q 85 10.19 2.92
School R 143 11.65 3.37
School S 135 9.72 2.39
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 10.07 2.59 1.38

Grade of B 79 10.58 2.80
Grade of C 83 11.08 2.52
Grade of D 234 10.46 3.16
Grade of E 13 11.15 3.98
*p < .01
Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (TIME)
Table 4.17 shows the results of the analysis of the scale Time Spent on
Mathematics at Home. There were significant differences between schools and
between achievement grades. Students in school R (m ean=10.91) had significantly
lower scores on the scale TIME than those in schools P (12.64), Q (12.18), and S
(12.23). This indicates that students in school R reported that they spent less time on
mathematics at home than students in the other three schools. In the analysis by
achievement grades, students with a grade of D had significantly lower scores
(mean= 11.28) than those with a grade o f A (13.09) and a grade of B (12.78).
Students with a grade o f D reported they spent less time on mathematics at home
compared to students with grades of A and B.
Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH)
As shown in Table 4.18, there were significant differences in the scale
Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH) between students urban-rural
status, schools, and achievement scores. Urban students had a significantly higher
score (mean=24.92) than rural students (mean=23.16) indicating that urban students
perceived their fathers as more supportive in their learning of mathematics than did
rural students. Students from school P had significantly higher scores (mean=25.55)
than those from schools Q (mean=23.00), R (mean=22.79), and S (mean=22.89).
In the category of achievement, the majority of the students, who were those with
grade D, had significantly lower scores (mean=22.67) than students who had grades
93
Table 4.17
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r Time Spent on Mathematics at H om e"
Scale (TIME) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement Scores
(PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 130 12.09 3.15 .48

Rural 374 11.87 3.17
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 258 11.75 3.05 2.15

Female 250 12.16 3.27
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 136 12.64 3.45 8.40*

SchoolQ 92 12.18 2.99
School R 148 10.91 3.01
School S 133 12.23 2.88
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 75 13.09 3.25 6.89*

Grade of B 83 12.78 3.35
Grade of C 87 12.09 3.48
Grade of D 233 11.28 2.81
Grade of E 13 11.31 3.22
* p < .01
94
Table 4.18
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r Fathers Support in Learning
Mathematics" Scale (FATH) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and Achievement
Scores (PMR).
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 119 24.92 3.93 16.68*

Rural 330 23.16 4.06
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 235 23.31 4.20 2.95

Female 217 23.97 3.96
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
SchoolP 127 25.55 3.34 14.24*

School Q 77 23.00 4.03
SchoolR 127 22.79 4.11
SchoolS 122 22.89 4.21
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 64 25.42 3.60 8.40*

Grade of B 73 24.93 3.71
Grade of C 74 23.51 4.24
Grade of D 215 22.67 4.11
Grade of E 12 23.67 2.77
: />< .01
95
A (mean=25.42) and B (mean=24.93). All other pairs of student groups analyzed
did not have significantly different scores on the FATH scale.
Mother's Support in Learning Mathematics (MOTHl
Table 4.19 shows the results of the analysis of the scale Mothers Support in
Learning Mathematics. There were almost similar results to the FATH scale in terms
of significant differences. Significant differences were found in the analysis between
urban-rural status, schools, and achievement scores. Urban students had significantly
higher scores (mean=24.23) than rural ones (23.21). Students from school P had
significantly higher scores (mean=24.56) than those from schools R (23.18), and S
(22.70). Similar to that of FATH scale, students with grade of A had a higher score
(mean=24.56) than those with grade of D (mean=22.92).
Teachers Role in Attitude toward Mathematics (TEACHA)
Table 4.20 shows that the only significant difference on the scale Teachers
Role in Attitude toward Mathematics is that between gender. Female students had a
significantly higher score (mean= 15.13) than male students (m ean=14.47) indicating
that they perceived their teachers as responsible for forming their attitudes toward
mathematics more strongly than did their male counterparts.
96
Table 4.19
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r M others Support in Learning
Mathematics Scale (MOTH) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 124 24.23 4.05 6.90*

Rural 343 23.21 3.59
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 244 23.18 3.66 3.52

Female 225 23.83 3.80
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
SchoolP 136 24.56 3.41 5.97*

SchoolQ 80 23.38 3.77
SchoolR 137 23.18 3.93
SchoolS 117 22.70 3.60
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 73 24.56 3.61 3.43*

Grade of B 77 24.16 3.34
Grade of C 75 23.52 4.02
Grade of D 215 22.92 3.84
Grade of E 12 23.08 2.64
p <.01
97
Table 4.20
Means, Standard Deviations and F values fo r Teachers Role on Attitude Toward
Mathematics" Scale (TEACHA) by Urban-Rural Status, Gender, School, and
Urban-Rural
Cases Mean S.D. F
Urban 126 14.78 2.52 .00

Rural 369 14.77 2.48
Gender
Cases Mean S.D. F
Male 261 14.47 2.43 8.75*

Female 237 15.13 2.52
School
Cases Mean S.D. F
School P 140 15.14 2.37 1.39

School Q 86 14.79 2.66
School R 141 14.60 2.48
School S 132 14.62 2.50
PMR
Cases Mean S.D. F
Grade of A 74 15.23 2.71 1.04

Grade of B 80 15.01 2.22
Grade of C 83 14.63 2.19
Grade of D 231 14.64 2.66
Grade of E 12 14.92 2.11
p C .O l
98
CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Bivariate correlation coefficients between all pairs of the variables achievement
score, and the eighteen other scales, for the whole sample, are shown in Table 4.21.
Those for male students and female students separately are shown in Table 4.22 with
coefficients for male students on the upper diagonal and correlations for female
students on the lower diagonal. Correlations that were significant with probability
less than or equal to .01 (p < .01), on a two-tailed test, are marked with an asterisk
(*)
Achievement score (PMR) was found to be significantly correlated with ten
scales. It was positively correlated with the scales CONF (r = .38), FAIL (.18),
USEL (.13), USECJ (.12), TIME (.23), FATH (.25), and MOTH (.17). There were
negative correlations between achievement score and the scales GEND (-.22), ST (-
.14), and FA (-.21). However, for female students, PMR was only significantly
correlated with six o f the foregoing scales and was not significantly correlated with
USEL, USECJ, GEND, and MOTH. For male students, PMR was significantly
correlated with all the scales that were correlated with it for all students except with
ST.
Apart from being correlated with PMR, the scale Confidence in Learning
Mathematics (CONF) was also significantly correlated with thirteen other scales, nine
positively and four negatively. The CONF scale was positively correlated with the
scales FAIL (.14), USEL (.28), USECJ (.29), SA (.24), SEF (.16), TIME (.41),
FATH (.23), MOTH (.27), and TEACHA (.16). It was negatively correlated with
99
Table 4.21
Bivariate Correlations Among Achievement Scores (PMR) and Attitude Scales (470 n <, 522)
Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. PMR .38* -.09 .18* .13* .12* -.22* -.02 -.14* -.01 .06 -.21* -.04 .09 -.04 .23* .25* .17* .08
2. CONF .00 .14* .28* .29* .04 .24* -.14* .16* .02 -.54* -.23* -.09 -.21* .41* .23* .27* .16*
3. SUCC .21* .13* .11 .21* .17* .14* .20* .16* .06 .14* .12* -.02 -.08 .07 .08 .01
4. FAIL .33* .44* .15* .11 .02 .22* .14* .02 .07 .23* .04 .09 .23* .20* .19*
5. USEL .60* .18* .06 .00 .15* .18* -.19* -.08 .07 -.06 .11 .21* .16* .18*
6. USECJ .19* .09 .00 .22* .14* -.15* -.03 .11 -.03 .12* .25* .20* .18*
7. GEND .06 .08 .23* .05 -.03 .02 .07 -.02 .06 .11 .11 .10
8. SA .23* .18* .12* -.11 .10 -.12* .10 .13* .10 .09 .12*
9. ST .21* .41* .25* .42* .20* .24* -.16* -.07 -.04 .05
10. SEF .20* .03 .08 .21* .01 .24* .09 .16* .10
11. SEN .09 .21* .25* .24* -.05 .10 .05 .21*
12. FA .37* .30* .25* -.37* -.15* -.14* -.10
13. FT .20* .37* -.16* -.14* -.13* -.05
14. FEF .06 -.26* .04 .01 .02
15. FEN -.14* -.10 -.12* -.14*
16. TIME .17* .20* .12*

17. FATH .76* .10
18. MOTH .11
19. TEACHA
Note: * denotes correlations that are significant at p < .01 (2-tailed).

* * 4
OS o o O s VO g I 'm n 'o n f m a t-* CO
- < ^ O J - < 0
Bivariate Correlations Among Achievement Scores (PMR) and Attitude Scales for Males (235 n <, 268) and Females (217 <, n <, 254)
4 4 4 4 4
in
(S n w o
oo m O 'tO 'T frtO t'
N O - * -H-H
c s oo
cn
r*-

* * * 4
Os m
CN CN s h Tt n
CO CN CN
T t ' f i t ' T tI*
* - H f H *
- n*h- oo in co r^
r-
VO Tj* ^ CO CO CO Q C O ^ C O \ O O s t J-00(S
CO C N C N C O C N C N *^
*
CO oo a \ vo CN CN CN T* CN m vo oo o s
o ts o o S CN CN CN CO ^ ^ ^
m m
2 g g s 3 8 cn ~
Correlations for Males are in the upper triangle and Correlations for Females are in the lower triangle.
i i i
4 * * * * *
CO
CN VO T f g N v i n
o 04 04 O O 04
* "
CN ^ s ' t O M Tf 04 T f 8 S g
i* r * i i* i
* * * * * 4 4
CN ^ 1m
n
0 (^
0 ^ so Os ^ O m m 04 rt" 0 4 O ' i n *-
CN ~ 04 O O m 04 c o cn
i* * i* i* i
* * 4 4 4 4 4
CO O s ^ os in in (N os vo in ^ rf
^ CN - h 8 CO CN <N m-i <n -
* * 4 4
^ CO cn CO ^ CO CN
CS (O CS -H M CN
* * 4 4 4 4 4 4
t CO i n CO CO m c o t j- so r^*
C\ 8 CN CN CN <<t CN CN
c o Os

m
4 4
oo

vo CNco*-^ <N ^ cn in ^ co m vo N
CS m
N vo
*4
^ <n cn ^ ^
4 4 1
tncsosoosoocsm M n i n Os *4c3
-* -^ *H ^ CN <N i

CN
*
VO 0 0 Ov <* CN
CS CO *H VO
Os 0 n i n M fc^
isn
i<n
^
vo n
fs| 4H *H
*rt
V
4 * 4 * * Ci,
t'*
^ *-j ^Tt *O*^
C*- lO CO CO f*- oo so in co rt
in ts CO *H CO lO -H -< -H
i i* * i* aa
4 4 4 * 4 4 4 o
00 Tf in
cn cn cn
cn in r -
CN CO O
g g *-h oo o op cn
cn im
n g c j co in
i
^ *-4 CO
.P
w
oo r - N N CN CN t"- oo ^ aM
>
8 8 S 2 ~< CN S ^ S C3
4-t
CQ
JS
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
m O s v p -h o s c s CO CO CO 00 CN OO CN CN CS
CN c n < cn co^^H incs^cs CO CN CN
ctj
4 4 *a>
* 4 CO so fs i n oo
CO cn H (N H O o
o
s
o
c
Table 4.22
w X CJ
OS fe u
Z U S WWZ
D 9
uu 2 5! 1
o
.2 s O D < co co tQ
a. U w S , D D O
< h w u < [-m u s
H
<
U* 0)
i cn co ^ i n vo od(^0*^cN cogin so r* oo Os o
2
101
the scales ST (-.14), FA (-.54), FT (-.23), and FEN (-.21). The same was true for
male students though the coefficients were slightly different. For the female students,
there was no significant correlation between CONF and FAIL, ST, SEF, or
TEACHA. However, additional scales that were significantly correlated with CONF
for female students were GEND (.22), and FEF (-.18).
The scale Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC) was significantly
correlated with nine other scales. These were FAIL (.21), USEL (.13), GEND (.21),
SA (.17), ST (.14), SEF (.20), SEN (.16), FT (.14), and FEF (.12). All these
scales, except USEL, SEN, and FT, were also significantly correlated with SUCC for
male students. However, for female students only SEN was significantly correlated
with SUCC.
The scale Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL), was significantly
correlated with PMR and twelve (12) other scales. Apart from correlations with the
scales CONF and SUCC, FAIL was also positively correlated with USEL (.33),
USECJ (.44), GEND (.15), SEF (.22), SEN (.14), FEF (.23), FATH (.23), MOTH
(.20), and TEACHA (.19). When analyzed by students gender, FAIL was not
significantly correlated with GEND for both male and female students. Also, only
the scales USEL and USECJ had significant correlations with FAIL for both male and
female students. SEN and SEF were not correlated with FAIL for male students
while SEF, FATH, MOTH, and TEACHA were not correlated with FAIL for female
students.
As shown in Table 4.21, Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life or USEL
102
was significantly correlated with all the other main category attitude scales of CONF,
SUCC, FAIL, USECJ, and GEND. It was highly correlated with USECJ with
coefficient of .60 for all students, .62 for male and .53 for female. The correlation
with GEND was, however, not significant for male students. Although it was also
significantly correlated with a number of other scales, such as SEF, SEN, FA,
FATH, MOTH, and TEACHA, these were found to be not significant for female
students. The scales that were significantly correlated with Usefulness o f Mathematics
fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job (USECJ) were almost the same as those
that were significantly correlated with USEL. Both scales were negatively correlated
with FA for all students taken together and for male and female students separately.
From the above paragraphs, it is noted again here, that the scale Gender
Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND) was significantly correlated with all the main
attitude scales except CONF. The correlation with achievement (PMR) was however
negative. GEND was also correlated with SEF ( r = .23) but this correlation was not
significant when both male and female students were considered separately. Also,
female students showed high positive correlations between the GEND scale and the
FATH (.25) and MOTH (.25) scales.
Among the attribution of success scales, the attribution o f success to ability, as
measured by the scale Success-Ability (SA), was significantly correlated with all the
other three scales for attributions of success and the highest correlation of .23 was
that with the attribution o f success to task as measured by the scale Success-Task
(ST). The correlation between SA and ST was also significant for both male and
103
female students. Apart from being correlated with SA, the scale ST was also
correlated with Success-Effort (.21) and Success-Environment (.41). Correlation
coefficients between ST and the other scales were very similar when analysis was
done separately for male and female students. Success-Effort (SEF) was further
significantly correlated with Success-Environment (SEN) with a correlation coefficient
of .20. This correlation was also significant for male students but not for female
students.
In summary, all the attribution of success scales were significantly correlated
with each other. When analyzed separately by gender, the correlations that were not
significant were those between SA and SEF, and between SA and SEN for male
students, and those between SA and SEN, and between SEF and SEN for female
students.
Among the attribution of failure scales, there were significant correlations
between all of them except that between the attribution of failure to environment
(FEN) and the attribution of failure to effort (FEF). Particularly high correlations
were those between the attribution of failure to ability (FA) and the attribution of
failure to task (FT) with a correlation of .37, and between Failure-Task or FT and
Failure-Environment or FEN (.37). Similar results were observed for correlations
between these attribution of failure scales in the analysis by gender.
Analysis of correlations between attribution of success scales and attribution of
failure scales, showed that Success-Ability (SA) was only significantly correlated with
Failure-Effort (FEF) with a correlation of -.12. The scale Success-Task (ST) was,
104
however, significantly correlated with all the four attribution of failure scales FA, FT,
FEF, and FEN, the highest coefficient being .42 for correlation with Failure-Task
(FT). These latter correlations were also significant when analyzed by gender except
one, that between ST and Failure-Effort (FEF) for female students. The scale
Success-Effort (SEF) was only significantly correlated with FEF (.21) in the
attribution of failure scales, and this significant correlation was also true for male
students but not for female students. The Success-Environment (SEN) scale was
significantly correlated with three of the attribution of failure scales which were FT
(.21), FEF (.25), and FEN (.24). Correlations between SEN and the attribution of
failure scales FT, FEF, and FEN were also significant when analyzed separately by
gender.
There were several other noticeable correlations between the attributional
scales and the other scales being discussed here. As mentioned previously, the scale
FA was negatively correlated with CONF (-.54). The scale Time Spent on
Mathematics at Home (TIME) was also significantly correlated with all but one of the
attributional scales. It was positively correlated with SA (.13) and SEF (.24).
Significant correlations with the other attributional scaies were negative, which were
ST (-.16), FA (-.37), FT (-.16), FEF (-.26), and FEN (-.14). Analysis by gender for
the foregoing correlations produced similar results. A noticeable difference was that
the correlation between SA and TIME was highly significant for female students (.22)
but was not significant for male students. The only other significant correlations
worthy of mention were those between the Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics
105
(FATH) and Mothers Support in Learning Mathematics (MOTH) scales (.76) and, as
mentioned earlier, between the scales CONF and TIME (.41).
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
As part of the effort to answer the question of whether the attitudes toward
mathematics were related to the students achievement in mathematics, stepwise
multiple regression analysis was performed using SPSS package. Students
achievement (PMR) was the criterion variable, and all the nineteen scales (including
TEACHS) discussed in this study were entered at the same time as predictor
variables. Analysis was also done for male and female students separately. Output of
this program shows the predictor variables that were included during each step of
calculation in their order of importance as a predictor to the criterion variable, PMR.
Table 4.23 shows the results of the analysis.
As shown in Table 4.23, in each case, there were five scales that contributed
significantly to the R2 and were thus included as significant predictors in the equation
to predict achievement score (PMR). The scales that were included in the prediction
of achievement score for all students were CONF (Beta=.34), GEND (-.31), FATH
(.19), FAIL (.13), SA (-.13), and TEACHS (.12). Scales USEL, and USECJ did not
enter into the prediction equation, although they were significantly correlated with
PMR, because of the intercorrelation with CONF. Similarly, only the FATH scale
and not MOTH was included because of the intercorrelation between the latter two
scales. For male students, the scales that were included were CONF (Beta=.24),
106
Table 4.23
Significant Predictors fo r Achievement scores (PMR) in Stepwise Multiple Regression
Analysis o f Achievement on All the Scales fo r All Students, Male Students and Female
Students
Significant Predictors Beta F ft2 Adj. ft2
All students
CONF .34 55.34 .130 .127

GEND -.31 47.40 .204 .200
FATH .19 41.44 .253 .246
FAIL .13 34.23 .272 .264
SA -.13 29.13 .285 .275
TEACHS .12 25.79 .300 .286
Male students
CONF .24 41.80 .183 .178

GEND -.22 27.73 .230 .221
FATH .17 23.66 .277 .266
FAIL .15 19.65 .299 .284
TIME .20 17.21 .320 .301
FEF .14 15.51 .338 .316
Female students
CONF .33 17.65 .089 .084

ST -.28 16.90 .158 .149
FEF .21 15.49 .206 .193
FATH .18 14.15 .241 .224
TEACHS .17 12.80 .266 .245
SA -.14 11.53 .282 .258
Note: Significant predictors included are those that add significantly to the ft2.
GEND (-.22), FATH (.17), FAIL (.15), TIME (.20), and FEF (.14). The scales that
were included in the prediction of achievement score (PMR) for female students were
CONF (Beta=.33), ST (-.28), FEF (.21), FATH (.18), TEACHS (.17), and SA
(-.14). The final I?2 for all students was .300, while that for male students was .338.
Female students had a final R1 of .282. These values of R1 measure the proportion of
the original variance in achievement score (PMR) that is "accounted for" by each
regression equation.
SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS
Apart from urban-rural status of students, analysis by socioeconomic factors
were also carried out using two other criteria. These were parents highest academic
attainment and items that students reported as available in their parents homes.
Although parents income is usually used to determine socioeconomic status in many
studies, this was not used to determine students socioeconomic status in this study
because it was not felt likely that the students could respond accurately to such
question in a brief questionnaire as the one administered in this study.
In the first case, a student was given a code of 1 for his or her socioeconomic
status if both parents had qualifications below SPM (the final high school public
examination). If any or both the parents had a highest qualification of SPM or
equivalent, the student was given a code of 2. A student was given socioeconomic
status code of 3 if any or both of the parents had highest academic qualification of
STPM (pre university examination) or Diploma. Finally, a student was given a code
108
of 4 if any or both o f the parents had at least a university degree or equivalent
qualification. This criterion for determining socioeconomic status was denoted by
SESPQ. Using this criterion, there were 328 students (65.2 percent) in category 1,
118 (23.5 percent) in category 2, 34 (6.8 percent) in category 3, and 23 (4.6 percent)
in category 4.
In the second case for determining students socioeconomic status, students
were asked to report whether any of the items listed were available in their parents
homes. The items were motorcar, motorcycle, television, refrigerator, encyclopedia,
computer, and piano. After initial analysis of the data, it was found that almost all of
the students reported having a television set in their parents home (515 out of 528)
and thus this item would not discriminate the students in terms of socioeconomic
status. Motorcycle was also considered not suitable as an indicator of socioeconomic
status because ownership of motorcycle was prevalent among rural households and
there were households that owned cars but did not own motorcycles. The refrigerator
was not considered discriminating enough because almost all urban students (94.1
percent) reported having a refrigerator and a large number of mral students (80.1
percent) also reported having a refrigerator in their homes. Only 85 students (16.3
percent) reported that they did not have a refrigerator in their parents homes.
Finally, it was decided to divide students into those whose parents owned a car and
those whose parents did not to indicate level of prosperity. Because owning a car
could vary widely between the rich and the not so rich, and not owning a car also did
not mean that the parents did not have basic essentials for their childrens education,
109
it was decided to subdivide each of the above categories into subcategories. That is,
each category was further subdivided into those who had and those who did not have
any one of the items encyclopedia, computer, or piano in their parents homes. This
latter subdivision was thought to be able to discriminate between parents who were
able to provide their children with facilities for extra learning and those who were not
able to.
The socioeconomic status code given was 1 if the student said that he or she
did not have a car and any of a group of three items which were encyclopedia,
computer, and piano. If the student reported that he or she did not have a car but had
either one or more of the group of three items mentioned previously, the
socioeconomic code given was 2. A code of 3 was given if the student had a car but
did not have any o f the group of three items and a code of 4 was given if the student
had a car as well as one or more of the items from this group of three items. The
above decision in allocating socioeconomic status to students were chosen based on
the available data. This criterion for determining socioeconomic status was denoted
by SESAH. Using this criterion, there were 304 students (57.6 percent) in category
1, 31 (5.9 percent) in category 2, 114 (21.6 percent) in category 3, and 79 (15.0
percent) in category 4.
Oneway analysis of variance on PMR scores and the scales using these two
socioeconomic criterion (SESPQ and SESAH) did not show any difference from those
found from analysis by students urban-rural status. In all three cases, there were
significant differences in achievement scores and in both the MOTH and FATH
110
scales. There was no significant difference in all the other scales. The F-ratio of
11.39 for the difference in FATH by SESPQ was statistically significant, F(3, 439) =
11.39, p < .001. Post-hoc analysis showed that at the .05 level, the mean for the
group with socioeconomic code of 1 (22.83) was significantly lower than those with
socioeconomic codes of 2 (24.48), 3 (25.68), or 4 (26.24). The F-ratio for FATH by
SESAH was also significant, F (3, 449) = 14.27, p < .001 and post-hoc analysis
showed that at the .05 level, students with socioeconomic code of 4 had a
significantly higher mean (26.11) than those with socioeconomic codes of 1 (22.79) or
3 (23.97).
Ill
CHAPTERS
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSION
OVERVIEW
This chapter summarizes both the research design and the results of data
analysis. The findings are discussed and suggestions and speculations about the
findings are provided. The chapter also contains several recommendations for
teachers and school administrators in Malaysia. To conclude, the chapter contains
suggestions for possible extensions of the study and questions to be considered by
researchers in mathematics education.
SUMMARIES
Summary of the Research Design
The main focus of this study was to obtain an inventory of attitudes toward
mathematics of secondary school students in Malaysia and to find possible
relationships between their attitudes and their achievement in mathematics. Attitudes
toward mathematics were measured by the scores on several scales, each of which
consisted of three to six Likert-type survey items. The scales measuring attitudes
toward mathematics were
(a) Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF),
(b) Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC),
(c) Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL),
112
(d) Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life (USEL),
(e) Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job
(USECJ), and
(f) Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND).
Also included were eight subscales on attribution of success and failure in
mathematics. The subscales were Success-Task (ST), Success-Ability (SA), Success-
Effort (SEF), Success-Environment (SEN), Failure-Task (FT), Failure-Ability (FA),
Failure-Effort (FEF), and Failure-Environment (FEN). The final group of scales
measured other factors related to the learning of mathematics. These were
(a) Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (TIME),
(b) Father's Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH),
(c) Mothers Support in Learning Mathematics (MOTH),
(d) Teachers Role on Attitude toward Mathematics (TEACHA), and
(e) Teachers Role in Success in Mathematics (TEACHS).
Briefly, the following methods were used. First, a draft Likert-type survey
consisting of statements that I wrote based on several studies such as the Second
International Mathematics Study (SIMS) (Crosswhite et al., 1986), Fennema-Sherman
Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976), and the Mathematics
Attribution Scale (MAS) (Fennema, Wolleat, & Pedro, 1979) was given to several
Malaysian students in Bloomington. Based on their responses, a revised questionnaire
was drafted and translated into the Malay language (the official language of students
in schools in Malaysia). This was then tested on a bigger group of Malaysian
113
students who were studying in Bloomington. The feedback from this survey and
comments by a Malaysian secondary school teacher who was on leave in
Bloomington, were used to draw up a final questionnaire consisting of 79 Likert-type
statements and several open-ended questions.
The questionnaire, which took 40 to 60 minutes to complete, was administered
with the help of teachers in four schools in the school administrative district of
Pekan/Rompin in the state of Pahang, in Malaysia. Five hundred and twenty-eight
students completed questionnaires well enough to be used for analysis.
Summary of the Data Analysis
Data analysis was done using the Statistical Package fo r the Social Sciences
(SPSS) (Norusis, 1986). For each scale, reliability coefficients were computed and
then analysis of variance was used to determine whether there were significant
differences in achievement scores by gender, urban-rural status, and school.
ANOVAs were also used to determine whether there were significant differences in
the scales studied by gender, urban-rural status, school, and achievement grades.
Next, correlation analysis was carried out to determine significant correlations
between achievement scores and all the attitude scales. This analysis was done for
the sample as a whole and for male and female students separately. Finally, multiple
regression analysis was done with achievement (PMR) as the dependent variable and
all the attitude scales as independent variables. Again, this analysis was done for all
students together and for male and female students separately.
114
FINDINGS
In this section, the results, as mentioned in Chapter 4, are elaborated and
compared with those from other studies. Speculations and recommendations on some
of the more interesting findings are also included. For example, the interrelationships
between achievement, confidence, attribution of failure to lack of ability, and the
amount of time spent on mathematics at home are discussed. A surprising result was
that while confidence was strongly correlated with achievement and there was a
significant difference in achievement between genders, the data showed that there was
no significant difference in confidence between genders. This finding was also true
for urban and rural students. A related surprising finding was that confidence among
students from school R was much lower than that o f students from the three other
schools although achievement of students from school R and school S was not
significantly different.
Another interesting finding was that although the students surveyed reported
awareness of the usefulness of mathematics in everyday life and for entry into college
or entry into a job, this awareness was not enough to motivate them to spend more
time at home on mathematics. Finally, gender stereotyping in mathematics, although
positive among female students, was not as desirable among male students. Gender
stereotyping was also significantly greater among students from school P, the fully
residential school for selected students who had good grades, than students from the
other three schools selected in this study. These findings are discussed further in the
following pages.
115
Reliability
The scale reliabilities were between .41 and .82 which compared favorably
with those reported for attitude scales in Borg and Gall (1989) where out of 18
reliability values reported, the lowest value was .47, the highest value was .98 and
the median was .79. However, the reliabilities of the scales used were all lower than
the split-half reliabilities o f equivalent scales computed for the Fennema-Sherman
Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976). This was probably due in
part to the fact that Fennema and Sherman had significantly more time and resources
for scale development and they were also able to use twelve items per scale.
Reliabilities o f the attribution scales in the current study varied from .41 for
Success-Task to .76 for Failure-Environment. When compared to the values of
Cronbachs alpha for the Mathematics Attribution Scale (MAS) as computed by
Fennema, Wolleat, and Pedro (1979), the attribution scales in this study had lower
reliability only in the scales Success-Ability (SA), Success-Effort (SEF), and Failure-
Ability (FA) (see Chapter 2, section on Instrument, subsection on Attributions). Of
these scales, only SEF ( a =.57) had reliability coefficient low enough to require
significant caution when interpreting the scale results. In both the scales SA and
SEF, there were only three items in the questionnaire used in this study compared to
four items for all scales in the original MAS. Furthermore, the difference in
reliability coefficients of the FA scale was very small. However, the scales Success-
Task (ST), Success-Environment (SEN), and Failure-Effort (FEF) in this study had
higher reliability coefficients than the equivalent scales in the MAS even with three
116
items in each scale, although ST and SEN had reliability coefficients below .6. In
brief, it is appropriate to say that, overall, the reliability coefficients o f the attribution
scales in this study were comparable to those in the MAS.
Attitudes
The highest mean per item score of all the attitude scales was 4.44 for the
scale Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job
(USECJ). This was an expected result because most students in Malaysia were aware
of the importance o f mathematics and were constantly reminded of this by teachers,
parents, politicians and peers. This finding also agrees with the statement made in
Chapter 1 that most universities and colleges in Malaysia required passing the national
examination at a certain level in the subject for admission into most courses at the
colleges or universities. Also, it was stated in Chapter 1 that many employers in
Malaysia required passing mathematics at a certain level as a prerequisite for
application to most jobs. In the report on the Second International Mathematics Study
(SIMS) for the United States (Crosswhite et al., 1986) an item in the scale
Mathematics and Society that was used in the USECJ scale, was "It is important to
know mathematics in order to get a good job." This statement had a mean of 4.0 for
eighth graders and 3.8 for twelfth graders. The same statement had a mean of 4.66
for the Malaysian students in the present study with 95.7 percent saying they agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement. The corresponding percentage for the
American population was 78 percent for eighth graders and 73 percent for twelfth
117
graders. This and the high score for the scale as a whole, indicated that the students
surveyed were very aware of the usefulness of mathematics for entry into college and
for getting a job in Malaysia.
The next highest mean score for the main category attitude scales was that of
Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL), with a mean per item of 4.17. This
meant that the students surveyed had very positive and desirable attitudes toward
failure in mathematics. As explained before, this scale has not been used in most
studies on attitudes toward mathematics and thus direct comparison with other studies
was not possible. Most of the students surveyed agreed to statements such as "I cant
afford to fail mathematics," "If I fail in a mathematics test I would be very much
ashamed," and "If I fail in a mathematics test I would feel very much dissatisfied."
They disagreed with statements such as "It doesnt bother me if I fail in
mathematics," and "I would not feel ashamed if I fail in mathematics." This result
was somewhat surprising and seems to refute the statements I made in Chapter 1, that
"many students in Malaysia may ignore the subject altogether after having several
unsuccessful experiences" and that "many students may be taking the mathematics
course without being interested to learn the subject but only because they have to
remain in class to satisfy the rules of schooling." Most students were reluctant to say
that they have given up on mathematics and that failing mathematics would not
surprise or worry them. The Covington and Omelich (1979) study dealt with
students affective reaction to hypothetical failures. One of the findings of that study
was that "a sense of personal dissatisfaction and feeling of public shame are greater
118
when individuals fail despite effort than when failure occurs in the absence of effort
(p. 174)." Thus, according to Covington and Omelich, many students reduce effort
to avoid the implication that they lack ability. This finding could not be compared
directly with the present study, which did not differentiate students by the effort they
put in studying. However, the results indicated that the students surveyed did feel
shame and dissatisfaction when they failed in mathematics. The relationship between
achievement, attribution of failure to lack of effort, and time students spent on
mathematics at home will be explored further in the analysis of correlations between
the TIME, Failure-Effort (FEF), and achievement (PMR) scales.
The scale Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life (TJSEL) also had a high
mean per item score of 4.00. This, and the high score in the USECJ scale, meant
that the students surveyed realized the usefulness of mathematics. In the Usefulness
of Mathematics scale of the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema
& Sherman, 1976), the mean per item score for all students in the tenth grade was
3.96. This was very close to that found in the current study for USEL but lower than
that for USECJ. In the SIMS for students in the United States (Crosswhite et al.,
1986), there were two statements in the scale Mathematics and Society that were
similar to those in the scale USEL. For the statement "Mathematics is useful in
solving everyday problems," the item mean reported was 3.8 for eighth graders and
4.0 for twelfth graders. The corresponding mean for the present study was 4.18.
For the negative statement "A knowledge of mathematics is not necessary in most
occupations," the corresponding means were 2.1 (which translates to a positive score
119
of 3.9) for eighth graders, 1.9 (translates to 4.1) for twelfth graders, and 4.07 in the
present study. This indicated that there was very little difference in the response of
the United States students in the SIMS and the Malaysian students in the present study
with regards to the scale USEL. However, the fact that the Malaysian students
surveyed had a higher score in USECJ, might be an indication that these students
were being bombarded with the idea that they needed mathematics for their entry into
colleges and into jobs, and thus they felt that mathematics must be useful for everyday
life without really knowing exactly why.
The mean per item score for the scale Attitude toward Success in Mathematics
(SUCC) was 3.82. A parallel subscale in the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude
Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976) had a score of 3.90 for all tenth-grade students.
Just as in the case of the students surveyed by Fennema and Sherman, the students
surveyed in this study, had positive attitudes toward success in mathematics. There
was no evidence o f any motive, in the students surveyed, to avoid success in
mathematics nor any fear of negative consequences o f success. Analysis of the
individual items in the scale SUCC showed that the slightly lower score in this scale,
when compared to the corresponding subscale in the Fennema-Sherman scale, was due
to the very low scores given by the Malaysian students surveyed to the statements "I
dont like people to think I am smart in mathematics," and "If I had good grades in
math, I would try to hide it." For the former statement, this study had a mean of
2.63 compared to 3.97 ( n = 1233) in the Fennema-Sherman study while for the latter,
the corresponding means were 3.07 and 4.33. These two statements showed a
120
significant cultural difference between the two populations studied. In many cases,
students in Malaysia do not like other people to think they are smart as this could be
construed as arrogance. Hiding a good grade would also be considered a virtue by
some students for the same reason. If these two statements were removed from the
SUCC scale, there would certainly be a very high score in the scale, exceeding even
those in the Fennema-Sherman study.
Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF) had a mean per item score of
3.70 in this study, compared to 3.68 for all tenth-grade students in the Fennema and
Sherman (1976) study. In the Mathematics and Myself scale of the SIMS report for
United States students (Crosswhite et al., 1986), there were only two statements
relating to confidence. These were "I could never be a good mathematician" with a
mean of 2.6 (which translates to a positive score of 3.4) for eighth graders and 2.3
(translates to 3.7) for twelfth graders, and "I am not so good at mathematics" with a
score of 2.7 (translates to 3.3) for eighth graders and 2.2 (translates to 3.8) for
twelfth graders. Comparing the means in the Fennema-Sherman study and the SIMS,
it seems that the level of confidence increased as the students got into a higher grade.
The Malaysian students surveyed fit this pattern as they would be in the equivalent of
tenth grade.
The scale Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND) had a mean per item
of 3.52, the lowest score, although still positive, among all the main attitude scales.
In the Fennema and Sherman (1976) study, the mean per item for the scale
Mathematics as a Male Domain was 4.22 for all tenth-grade students. An equivalent
121
scale in the SIMS for students in the United States was Mathematics and Gender with
four items. This scale had a mean per item of 3.9 for both eighth- and twelfth-
graders (Crosswhite et al., 1986). Comparing the three studies, the Malaysian
students had the lowest score indicating the least positive attitude toward the position
of female students in mathematics. The Malaysian students surveyed were, however,
still ambivalent about this question of whether males are better than females in
mathematics. This low score in the scale Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics will be
discussed further in the section on analysis by school, gender, urban-rural, and
achievement scores.
Attributions of Success and Failure
On the attributions of success subscales, the Malaysian students surveyed rated
environment (mean=3.88) and effort (3.83) as more important than task (3.65) or
ability (3.17). This meant that they believed that the unstable factors of their
teachers and friends help (environment) and their own efforts were important factors
in their success in mathematics. In their opinion, stable factors such as task, talent
and ability played less important roles in their success. A similar finding was
reported by Clarkson and Leder (1984) in their study of grade 10 female and male
students in Papua New Guinea and in Australia. All the groups studied "rated the
success subscales in the order of effort, environment, task, and ability" (p. 419).
The Malaysian students attribution of failure was rated in the order of effort
(mean per item=4.02), task (3.30), ability (3.09), and environment (2.64). In the
122
report by Clarkson and Leder (1984), all the groups studied placed effort as the most
important factor and environment as the least important factor for failure. The
students in the present study were similar to those in the Clarkson and Leder study in
being more likely to attribute their failure to the unstable and internal factor of lack of
effort than to the stable dimensions of ability and task or external factor of
environment (in this case, the teachers). This was, however, quite different from the
findings in the study by Wolleat, Pedro, Becker, and Fennema (1980) where the
students surveyed rated task rather than effort as the most important reason for
failure. However, in all these studies, the lowest attribution of failure score was for
environment.
Other Related Factors
Overall, the students surveyed perceived their parents support for their
learning o f mathematics in a very positive manner. Mean per item scores for the
scales Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH) and Mothers Support in
Learning Mathematics (MOTH) were 3.94 and 3.92 respectively and these were
slightly higher than those reported for equivalent scales in the Fennema-Sherman
Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976) which were 3.80 and 3.78
respectively for all students in the tenth grades. Similar results were found in the
Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS), where the students viewed their
parents as "extremely supportive of their study of mathematics" (Crosswhite et al.,
1986, p.389). Similar to the responses given by the American students in this study,
123
the Malaysian students surveyed also perceived their mothers and fathers as
encouraging, helpful, and interested in the students learning of mathematics. The
higher scores, when compared to those in the Fennema-Sherman study could,
however, be interpreted as a cultural factor in Malaysia where the students are often
uncomfortable saying anything that would be considered negative about their parents.
The Malaysian students surveyed in the present study also perceived that their
teachers played a big role in influencing their attitude toward mathematics. The mean
per item score for the scale Teachers Role on Attitude toward Mathematics
(TEACHA) was 3.70. This was higher than the Teacher scale in the Fennema-
Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976) which had a mean
per item score of 3.49. However, the latter scale was developed to assess the
students perception o f how their teachers feel about them as learners of mathematics
while the former was developed to assess the students perception of whether their
teachers influence their attitudes toward mathematics. Specifically, in the present
study, 77.4 percent o f the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their
teachers were responsible for making them less or more confident in mathematics
(mean=4.00). In the Fennema-Sherman scale, the equivalent question was "Math
teachers have made me feel I have the ability to go on in mathematics," (mean of
3.43 for female students and 3.54 for male students). The high score in the
TEACHA scale could also be the result of a cultural influence on the students in
Malaysia who would not say anything that reflected badly on their teachers and who
would give a lot of credit to teachers.
124
Because the scale Teachers Role in Success in Mathematics (TEACHS) had a
low reliability, only individual statements that originally made up the scale are
discussed here. The mean of the response to the statement "My mathematics teachers
have not been influential in my success (or lack of success) in mathematics" in the
scale TEACHS was 3.62 after the score was reversed. Only 12.5 percent of the
students agreed with this statement which indicated that most of the students said that
their teachers were influential in their success or lack o f success in mathematics.
This was not consistent with the scores in the attribution of failure in mathematics,
where students attributed their failure less to environment (teachers and friends) and
more to their lack of effort, but agreed that success was due more to environment
(teachers and friends) and effort than to ability and task. Perhaps the students agreed
that their teachers played an influential role in their success but did not put the blame
for their failure on their teachers.
The scale Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (TIME) had a comparatively
low mean per item score of 2.99. This indicated that the students surveyed were
reluctant to say that they spent a lot of their time on mathematics at home, when
compared to the time they spent on other subjects or other activities. This agrees
with the response to the question on the amount of time they spent at home on
mathematics. Two hundred and seventeen students (41.1 percent) said that they spent
less than one hour per week on mathematics at home during the previous year and the
same number said that they spent less than one hour per week on mathematics during
the current year. Two hundred and thirty-one other students (43.8 percent) said that
125
they spent between 1 hour and 5 hours at home on mathematics the previous year and
a similar number (234) said the same thing for the current year (see Appendix G).
The above showed that more than 80 percent of the students surveyed said that they
spent, on the average, less than five hours per week at home on mathematics. On its
own, this finding explains why the students did poorly in their mathematics
examinations. In order to do well in mathematics, students have to spend more time
at home doing mathematics problems.
In summary, the students surveyed had positive attitudes toward mathematics
as measured by the scales Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF), Attitude
toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC), Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics
(FAIL), Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life (USEL), Usefulness o f
Mathematics fo r Entry into a College and Entry into a Job (USECJ), and Gender
Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND). O f these attitude scales, GEND had the lowest
mean per item score but responses to this scale were still somewhat positive. The
students also perceived their parents as very supportive in their learning of
mathematics and perceived their teachers as influential in the formation of their
attitudes and success.
The only factor that required serious attention by teachers and parents was that
of time spent by the students on mathematics at home. Students might have spent too
little time on mathematics at home for several reasons. Teachers might have given
them too little work to do at home or were not giving them enough reward for
spending time on their homework. This could be an outcome of the system where the
126
only significant reward for high performance in mathematics a certificate earned
through the PMR, a national examination taken after the students have completed
three years in secondary school, and the SPM, taken at the end of five years. Grades
that teachers give at the end of every semester are seldom considered by potential
employers or college admission officers for consideration in job applications or
college admission. Also, it could be because parents were not adequately involved
with the education o f their children and did not supervise the time the children spent
on school work. Without adequate supervision by parents, these students could have
been spending very little time at home on school work or were doing other household
chores or spent most of their time loitering. Finally, students may be spending too
little time on mathematics at home because they did not like to leam mathematics as a
subject and preferred to spend their time on other school subjects or other chores at
home. This latter aspect was not studied in this survey.
Analysis by School. Gender. Urban-Rural, and Achievement Scores
Many studies have found significant differences in students attitudes toward
mathematics by gender (Clarkson & Leder, 1984; Fennema & Sherman, 1976;
Fennema, Wolleat, & Pedro, 1979; Tocci, 1991; Wolleat, Pedro, Becker, &
Fennema, 1980). In the following analysis, gender differences in attitude toward
mathematics of the Malaysian students surveyed were examined. Differences in the
attitudes between schools, urban-rural, and achievement scores were also explored.
School. The four schools chosen in this study had different characteristics.
127
School P was a fully residential school which admitted selected students, based on
academic merit, both from the rural and the urban areas around the state of Pahang.
This school was located in an urban area and had the best facilities and well qualified
teachers. School Q was located in an urban area and many parents of students in this
school were economically better off than parents of students in the rural schools.
This school was also established much earlier than the other three schools. Both
schools R and S were rural schools although there were differences between them.
School S was located in a government land development project where most of the
parents had moved from another rural area and were allocated land which the
government planted with palm oil trees. Most of the parents o f students in school R
had. also recently moved into the area where the school was located to take advantage
of the industrial development and rural housing projects in that area but there were a
number of parents from nearby villages. These parents were mostly poor farmers and
fishermen.
Analysis of the mathematics scores on the national examination (PMR) showed
that school P had a significantly higher average grade (4.39 out of 5.00) than all the
other three schools. Students from school Q also had significantly higher average
grade (2.74) than students from schools R (2.24) and S (2.36). There was no
significant difference between the achievement of students from school R and school
S. This was an expected result because of the nature of the schools chosen. Many
schools in Malaysia would fit into one of these categories. Thus, it was useful to
analyze the differences in attitudes toward mathematics between schools.
128
Significant differences were found between schools in the scales Confidence in
Learning Mathematics (CONF), Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL),
Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job (USECJ),
Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND), Success-Ability (SA), Failure-Ability
(FA), Failure-Effort (FEF), Failure-Environment (FEN), Time Spent on Mathematics
at Home (TIME), Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH), and Mothers
Support in Learning Mathematics (MOTH). School P had the highest mean score for
the scale CONF (19.76) while school R (16.99) had a mean that was significantly
lower than all the other schools in this scale. The significant difference between
school R and school S (18.75) in the CONF scale indicated that students from school
S were more confident of their ability to learn mathematics than students from school
R. This is interesting because both schools R and S were rural schools and the
achievement scores in mathematics of students in these two schools were not
significantly different. The difference in confidence could be the result of parental
influence and/or a combination o f positive school administration and teacher influence
in school S.
Gender stereotyping in mathematics was more prevalent in school P than in the
other three schools. This could be attributed to several factors. The first was that
school P had a higher proportion of male students over female students compared to
the other three schools, and as will be discussed, the female students had a more
positive attitude than male students toward gender stereotyping in mathematics. The
second factor was that gender stereotyping was also significantly different by
129
achievement scores - students with the higher achievement grades had lower scores on
the scale GEND - and school P had the highest mean achievement score among the
four schools. This will also be discussed later in this chapter. Finally, the male
students in school P might have had the wrong impression that male students perform
better than female students because in that school there were more male students than
female students and mathematics achievement was better than in other schools in the
district.
The other interesting difference between schools was on the Failure-Ability
attribution subscale. Students in school R had the highest score and were more likely
than students in the other three schools, to attribute their failures to their lack of
ability. This school had the lowest achievement score and also the lowest confidence
score. They also had the lowest score in the scale TIME indicating that they spent
the least time on mathematics at home compared to students in the other three
schools. Although students from this school attributed failure more to lack of effort
than to lack of ability, the fact that they had significantly higher scores on Failure-
Ability than students in the other three schools would be a cause for concern and
perhaps provide a lead in the teachers effort to find a solution to the poor
performance of the students. Specifically, teachers could try to bolster students
confidence and try to get them to spend more time at home on mathematics.
Gender. PMR grades for male students were found to be significantly higher
than those for female students (mean = 3.16 and 2.73, respectively). This indicated
that, contrary to what I originally believed, female students in secondary schools in
130
Malaysia are not performing as well as the male students. This is also an interesting
occurrence because there was no significant gender differences on the scales
Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF), Time Spent on Mathematics at Home
(TIME), Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH), and Mothers Support in
Learning Mathematics (MOTH), which were factors that I thought were closely
related to achievement. Further analysis on this curious occurrence will be made in
the correlation analysis section.
Significant differences between gender were found in the scales Attitude
toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC), Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics
(FAIL), Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life (USEL), Usefulness o f
Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job (USECJ), Gender
Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND), Success-Effort (SEF), and Failure-Effort
(FEF). In all these scales, female students had significantly higher scores than male
students. For example, female students had a significantly more positive attitude
toward the role and capabilities of females in the learning of mathematics than then-
male counterparts. This result agreed with that found in the Second International
Mathematics Study (SIMS) for students in the United States (Crosswhite et al., 1986)
and in the studies by Fennema and Sherman (1976, 1977, 1978). In the SIMS,
eighth- and twelfth-grade students generally held a positive view o f females ability in
mathematics (mean scores of 3.9 and 3.8 out o f 5.0, respectively) but male students
were much more likely than female students to stereotype mathematics as a male
domain (4.4 for females and 3.5 for males for eighth-grade students and 4.5 for
131
females and 3.4 for males for twelfth-grade students).
In the attributions of success and failure, the only significant differences
between genders were in their attribution of success to effort and attribution of failure
to lack o f effort. The per item mean for each o f the attribution subscales for all
students, female students, and male students are summarized in Table 5.1. However,
as shown in the table, there was a difference in the order of importance of the factors
in the attribution of success. Success-Effort had the highest score for female students
while for the male students and for all the students as a group Success-Environment
was highest. Also, the score in Success-Effort for female students was significantly
higher than that for male students (p< .01). The foregoing results indicated that
female students attribute their success to effort more strongly than do male students,
similar to the results found by Wolleat, Pedro, Becker, and Fennema (1980) and by
Clarkson and Leder (1984).
In the case of attribution of failure, although both female and male students put
effort as their number one attribution of failure, female students had a significantly
higher score than male students in Failure-Effort (p< .01). This indicated that female
students attributed their failure in mathematics to the unstable dimension of effort
more strongly than do male students. This difference was not significant in the other
two studies mentioned in the previous paragraph although significant differences were
found between male and female students attributions of failure to ability and task in
the study by Wolleat et al. (1980).
132
Table 5.1
Mean per item on the eight subscales o f attribution fo r all students and by gender
Subscale All8 Femaleb Malec F
Success-Task 3.65 3.70 3.59 4.32

Success-Ability 3.17 3.24 3.11 3.78
Success-Effort 3.83 3.99 3.68 30.07*
Success-Environment 3.88 3.92 3.84 2.51
Failure-Task 3.30 3.34 3.26 2.15

Failure-Ability 3.09 3.14 3.05 2.49
Failure-Effort 4.02 4.12 3.92 11.98*
Failure-Environment 2.64 2.62 2.66 0.35
Note-.
8 4 9 7 ^ Ate 522
b 238 <Ate 253
C257 ^N < 2 6 8
* p < .01
Urban-Rural status. Analysis by urban-rural status of students showed no
significant differences between urban and rural students except in the two scales
Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH) and M others Support in Learning
Mathematics (MOTH). In both cases, urban students had a higher mean than their
rural counterparts. The instrument designed for this study was not able to detect any
significant difference in any other scales between students in the urban areas and those
in the rural areas although there was a significant difference in their mathematics
achievement scores as measured by their PMR grades.
Achievement. Achievement in mathematics was determined by the
mathematics grades obtained by the students in the national examination (PMR) taken
133
in the previous year. Significant differences were found in three of the six attitude
scales when the results were analyzed by achievement scores. As expected, there
were significant differences between achievement levels for the scales Confidence in
Learning Mathematics (CONF) and Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL).
Students with higher grades had significantly higher scores than those with lower
grades in these two scales. However, the scores on the scale Gender Stereotyping in
Mathematics (GEND) were quite surprising. Students with grades of D had a
significantly higher score than those with grades A or B. In other words, students
stereotyping o f mathematics as a male domain seemed to be negatively correlated with
achievement. This relationship will be discussed further in the description of the
correlation analysis in the next section. This finding was also related to the
significant difference in achievement scores (PMR) between gender (female students
had significantly lower grades than male students), and the significant difference in
GEND between gender (female students had higher scores in GEND than male
students). Thus, although it appeared as if achievement score was negatively
correlated with the scale Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics, this relationship could
be more because o f the lower achievement scores of female students who were more
positive in the GEND scale. The relationship will be discussed further in the
correlation analysis section.
There were also significant differences between achievement grades in the
scales Fathers Support in Learning Mathematics (FATH), Mothers Support in
Learning Mathematics (MOTH) and Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (TIME).
134
Students with higher achievement grades had significantly higher scores than students
with lower achievement grades on the scales FATH, MOTH, and TIME. The latter
indicated that spending more time on mathematics at home was an important factor in
achievement in mathematics because students who reported grades of D had
significantly lower scores in the scale TIME than students who reported grades of A
and B. However, it could also be interpreted as the students who did not do well in
the national examination did not want to blame the poor result on lack of ability as
opposed to lack of effort, and thus reported that they spent less time on mathematics
at home than their peers who had better grades. The latter explanation agrees with
the self-worth theory of motivation put forward by Covington and Omelich (1979)
who argue that when students fail (in this case perform poorly), "students of both
sexes prefer being seen as able rather than unable and as expending less rather than
more time" (p. 176). This was, however, not supported by the lack of significant
difference by achievement grades in the Failure-Effort scale in this study. Also, the
significant difference by achievement grades in the scale Failure-Ability indicated the
reverse was true. Students who reported grades of B, C, and D had significantly
higher scores in the FA scale than students who reported a grade of A indicating that
they attributed their failure to their lack of ability more strongly than did students who
reported a grade o f A. Thus, while students were hesitant to blame lack of ability for
their failures, it is clear that those with the lowest achievement felt they had the least
ability.
The significant differences in the MOTH and FATH scales by achievement
135
grades indicated that students who did well in mathematics perceived their parents as
more supportive of their learning of mathematics than did students who did not do so
well. Parents and teachers could take note of this finding in their effort to improve
students achievement in mathematics.
Correlation Analysis
Bivariate correlation analysis was done for all students as a group as well as
for male and female students separately. It was not done for urban and rural students
separately because oneway analysis of variance by urban and rural status of the
students did not show significant differences in the scales except for the FATH and
MOTH scales.
As stated in Chapter 4, the bivariate correlation coefficients between
achievement score (PMR) and 10 of the attitude scales, were significant (p < . 01).
However, the highest correlation was with the scale CONF (r= .3 8 , p < .01). This
was consistent with most other studies. In a review of research on affect in
mathematics education, McLeod (1992) says, "Confidence correlates positively with
achievement in mathematics, and the relationship is generally quite strong, with
correlation coefficients of greater than .40 appearing in studies at the secondary
school level" (p. 583). Similar strong correlations between PMR and CONF were
also observed for male and female students taken separately (r= .45 and .31,
respectively). However, as noted before, there were no significant differences in the
CONF scale between male and female students and between urban and rural students,
136
although there were significant differences in their PMR grades. Also, there was a
significant difference in this scale between students from school R and school S
although there was no significant difference in their achievement scores. These
puzzling results meant that although achievement in mathematics was strongly
correlated with students confidence, confidence alone did not always lead to high
achievement. Students might have been unintentionally lulled into thinking that they
have high ability by teachers who did not challenge the students enough in their
schoolwork. Another explanation for this result was that female students, on the
average, expressed their feelings more positively than male students in all aspects.
This was evident from the scores in all the scales in this study except CONF and FA
(see Tables in Chapter 4). Thus, if the score for the scale CONF for female students
was adjusted for "female bias," it would show some significant difference from that
of the male students and reflect the difference in achievement grades between genders
and the strong correlation between PMR and CONF for both genders.
There were small but statistically significant negative correlations between
achievement scores (PMR) and Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND) for all
students (r= -.22, p < .01) and for male students (-.22) but the correlation was not
significant for female students. This could partially explain the phenomena discussed
in the previous section on analysis of the scale GEND by achievement where in the
scale GEND, students with better grades had lower scores than those with lower
grades. The results on correlation by gender showed that male students, whose PMR
scores were higher than female students, had lower scores in the GEND scale,
137
whereas female students had higher scores on this scale. For female students, there
was no difference on the GEND scale between achievement scores; they all had
positive views of their roles in mathematics. Thus, rather than achievement, the
differences in gender stereotyping in mathematics seemed to be related to a
combination of females higher scores in GEND than males and the female students
having lower achievement than their male counterparts. However, the significant
negative correlation between PMR and GEND for male students indicated that
although male students generally held neutral views on gender stereotyping, male
students with higher grades in mathematics had more negative perception of the role
of females in mathematics than those with lower grades.
Achievement score (PMR) was also significantly correlated with the time
students reported they spent on mathematics at home (TIME) ( r = .23 for all, .34 for
male, and .16 for female, p < .01). This and the high correlation between CONF and
TIME (r=.41 for all, .44 for male, and .38 for female) indicated that students who
were confident in their ability to do mathematics spent more time at home doing
mathematics and had higher grades in the national examination (PMR). Conversely,
students with low confidence spent less time at home and had lower grades. The
strong correlation between CONF and TIME could, however, be interpreted as
merely due to them being both correlated to PMR and that there was no causal
relationship between students confidence and the amount of time they spent on
mathematics at home or vice versa. However, it was also possible that students who
had more confidence would spend more time on mathematics at home or spending
138
more time on mathematics at home resulted in students gaining more confidence in
mathematics. This aspect needs to be explored further in future research so that if
there is strong evidence that confidence can affect time spent on a subject at home,
teachers and parents could work to increase students confidence while helping them
with their work.
Confidence was also significantly correlated with some attribution subscales.
The correlation coefficients for CONF with FA and SA were -.54 and .24 (p< .01)
respectively. Students who had high scores on the CONF scale were less likely to
attribute their failure to lack of ability but were also more likely to attribute their
success to their ability than students who had lower scores on the scale. Another way
of looking at this is that students who had low scores on the CONF scale were more
likely to attribute their failure to their lack of ability than students who had higher
scores in the scale. This also agreed with the significant negative correlation between
PMR and FA (-.21). Students who had lower achievement scores were less confident
and were more likely to attribute their failure to lack of ability than students who had
higher achievement scores and who were more confident of their ability to do
mathematics. These results are similar to those o f Kloosterman (1988). Students who
have high confidence often do attribute their success to ability.
The two usefulness of mathematics scales, USEL and USECJ, were highly
correlated with each other for all students, male students, and female students (r =
.60, .62, .53, p < .01). Students who perceived mathematics as useful for everyday
life also perceived it at as useful for entry into a college or entry into a job. The
139
study showed that there was no difference in students perception of the usefulness of
mathematics for everyday life and for entry into a college or into a job. Thus, the
two scales in usefulness of mathematics could be considered as one scale for future
reference in this study. Both the usefulness scales were also highly correlated with
the scales CONF and FAIL. However, the usefulness scales were not significantly
correlated with the scale Time Spent on Mathematics at Home (TIME). This indicated
that although the students were aware of the usefulness of mathematics for everyday
life and for entry into a college or entry into a job, this was not enough to motivate
them to spend more time on mathematics at home. Other ways of stressing the
usefulness o f mathematics that could increase motivation of the students to work
harder and spend more time on mathematics need to be explored by teachers and
policy makers.
There was a very strong correlation between students perception of fathers
support in learning mathematics (FATH) and mothers support in learning
mathematics (MOTH) (r= .7 6 for all, .78 for males, .73 for females, p < .01). It
appeared that the students gave similar responses to corresponding statements in the
questionnaire for both father and mother. The scales MOTH and FATH were also
correlated in similar manners with all other scales. In future studies, it is probably
appropriate to consider parents support as a single variable.
Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
The results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis (Table 4.23) indicated
140
that confidence (CONF), attitude toward failure (FAIL), gender stereotyping
(GEND), and perception of fathers support for learning (FATH) were significant
predictors of achievement. The scale CONF was the strongest predictor of students
achievement in mathematics for all students as well as for the male and female
subgroups. This was followed by GEND, FATH, and FAIL for all students and for
male students. For female students, the second most powerful predictor was ST
followed by FEF and FATH. The scale GEND was not a significant predictor of
achievement scores o f female students. This result confirmed McLeods (1992) claim
of strong relationship between the scale Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF)
and achievement.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Due to restrictions on time and resources, the findings of this study are limited
in several ways. The first limitation relates to the achievement measures.
Achievement data in mathematics consisted of self-reported grades in the national
examination taken during the previous year. It was assumed that all the students
remembered their grades because the national examination is considered one of the
major highlights of Malaysian schooling. It was also assumed that the students
reported their mathematics grades correctly. There was no benefit in the students
giving a false grade because all information given was treated confidentially.
The second limitation of this study is in the sample selected. The four schools
selected in this study were from one district in one state in Malaysia and were not as
141
representative as a sample taken from the entire country. However, a more
representative sample would have required more time and money and although it
would have provided more information, it would not necessarily have resulted in an
outcome that was different from that obtained in this study. Because there have not
been many published studies on attitude toward mathematics of Malaysian students,
this study, although limited in sample size and location, served as an initial effort and
a basis for more and larger studies to be conducted in Malaysia. It should also be
noted that recommendations for improving the achievement and attitudes of the
students might vary depending on the particular school or the particular location. In
such cases, a study of the country as a whole would probably not be able to determine
the particular problems associated with the school or location concerned. For
example, in the present study, it was found that confidence was significantly higher in
one rural school than in the other although achievement in the two schools was not
significantly different. Furthermore, students in the school with lower confidence
scores were more likely to attribute their failure to their lack of ability than students
in the other rural school. This suggests a school related problem which would not
show up on a more global study.
Another limitation of this study was the instrument used to measure students
attitudes. The Likert-type survey used in the study was a self-report scale. It was
assumed that the students responses were honest and that the data collected were truly
representative of their attitudes. The students who responded to this survey were all
willing and keen to participate in the survey that was administered with the help of
142
their teachers. They were told that they need not participate in the survey if they did
not want to and there would not be any penalty. In short, although it was possible
that some students responded in a dishonest fashion, I seriously doubt that this
occurred.
It was also assumed that the students understood the statements in the
questionnaire in the same way as the researcher had intended them to. Some
statements were taken from studies done in the United States and translated into the
Malay language. In the process of translation, the exact meaning of the statements
might have been lost. Some cultural differences between students in Malaysia and
those in the United States might also have caused the responses given by the
Malaysian students to differ from those given to the same questions by students in the
United States. For example, cultural differences probably affected responses to the
statements "I dont like people to think I am smart in mathematics," and "If I had
good grades in math, I would try to hide it," as explained earlier in this chapter.
Some students might also have responded to the statement in a way that they
felt was desirable or fashionable rather than expressing their true feelings about the
statement. For example, responses to similar statements in the Father and Mother
scales were almost similar and were all very positive.
Another cause for modest concern was the somewhat low reliability for the
scales. The reliabilities were mostly lower than those found in other studies but were
considered acceptable for analysis. The low reliabilities may have been caused by the
small number of items in each scale when compared to other studies. Some scales
143
consisted of only three statements but this was necessary in order to keep the survey
to an acceptable length. An alternative was to have less scales, each with more
statements than those found in this study. However, I decided to include most of the
attitudes that were measured by other major studies.
As mentioned previously, there were significant intercorrelations between
many of the scales used in this study. However, these intercorrelations are quite
typical of many attitude research and indicate that most key factors in mathematics
learning are related.
A final limitation o f this study centered on measurement of socioeconomic
status o f students. Urban-rural status and parents highest academic progress are
commonly used to determine socioeconomic status. The other measure of
socioeconomic status used for this study was a combination of items available in the
parents homes. These indicators have potential shortcomings. For example, some
rural students have better facilities in their homes than some urban students even
though they have less wealth.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis of the data collected, several conclusions can be drawn
that would answer the questions put forward in Chapter 1.
Question 1
What are the attitudes toward mathematics of students in secondary schools in
144
Malaysia?
Students in secondary schools in Malaysia had generally positive attitudes
toward mathematics, with the most positive being those measured by the scale
Usefulness o f Mathematics fo r Entry into a College or Entry into a Job (mean per
item = 4.44 on a scale of 1 to 5). The students did not have a negative attitude
toward failure and responded in a desirable manner to statements such as "It doesnt
bother me if I fail in mathematics," and "I would not feel ashamed if I fail in
mathematics." Scores in the scales Usefulness o f Mathematics in Everyday Life
(4.00), Confidence in Learning Mathematics (3.70), and Attitude toward Success in
Mathematics (3.82) were also fairly high indicating positive attitudes. However, the
score on the scale Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (3.52) was rather low and
reflected a less than positive attitude. The students also perceived their parents as
very supportive in their learning of mathematics and felt that their teachers played an
important role in the formation of their attitude toward mathematics and in their
success in mathematics.
When attributions were considered, the students felt success was due more to
the unstable factors of effort and environment (teachers and friends) than to the stable
factors o f task and ability. However, students attributed failure, most to the internal
factor of lack of effort and least to the external factor of environment.
The score on the scale Time Spent on Mathematics a t Home (mean per item =
2.99) was quite low meaning that a large number of the students did not feel that they
145
spent much time at home doing mathematics. Similar to findings in the United States
(e.g., Fennema & Sherman, 1978), these students perceived that their parents were
supportive of their learning of mathematics.
Finally, it was observed that although these students realized that their lack of
success in mathematics was due to the lack of effort and that mathematics was a
useful subject, they still did not spend the time required at home on mathematics to
improve their performance. Also, although their performance in the national
examination was quite modest, their confidence level was quite high.
Question 2
Are the students attitudes toward mathematics related to their achievement in
mathematics?
2(a) Is students perception of their ability in mathematics related to their
2(b) Is the perception of the usefulness of mathematics for everyday life
related to students achievement in mathematics?
2(c) Is the perception of the usefulness of mathematics for college admission
and job opportunities related to students achievement in mathematics?
2(d) Are the students attitude toward success or failure in mathematics
related to their achievement in mathematics?
2(e) Are there any relationships between the students gender stereotyping in
mathematics and their achievement in mathematics?
146
2(f) What are the relationships, if any, of the students attributions of
success or failure in mathematics to their achievement in mathematics?
2(g) Is there a relationship between the time the students say that they spend
on mathematics at home or attending private tutorial sessions in
mathematics, and their achievement in mathematics?
2(h) Is students perception of parental support related to the students
2(i) To what extent do students perceive their teachers as influential in
developing their attitudes toward mathematics and their achievements in
mathematics?
Some o f the attitude scales revealed significant differences when analyzed by
achievement while some did not reveal any such differences. Oneway analysis of
variance, correlation analysis, and multiple regression analysis showed that, of the
variables measured, the scale Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF) had the
strongest positive correlation with achievement. Other scales that had statistically
significant positive correlation with achievement were Attitude toward Failure in
Mathematics, Time Spent on Mathematics at Home, Father Support in Learning
Mathematics, and Mother Support in Learning Mathematics. A significant negative
relationship between achievement and Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics was also
found. Students attitude toward success in mathematics (SUCC) and their perception
of the usefulness of mathematics (USEL and USECJ) were not significantly different
147
between different achievement levels in mathematics (PMR). Although there were
significant correlations between the two usefulness scales and achievement, the
coefficients were small. Also, students perceptions of their teachers influence on
their attitudes toward mathematics were not related to their achievement. Students
attribution of their success or failure was not related to their achievement except in
the scale Failure-Ability where students with higher achievement scores were less
likely to attribute their failure to their lack of ability than students with lower
achievement scores.
Question 3
Are there differences in attitudes toward mathematics and their relationships to
achievement according to gender, socioeconomic status, or school?
Gender. Confidence in learning mathematics was not significantly different by
gender although achievement was. The significant correlation between confidence and
achievement, for all students as a group, was also held for male students and female
students when analyzed separately. This was an anomaly of some sort because if
achievement and confidence was closely related for both male and female students,
one might expect that a significant difference in achievement would be matched by a
significant difference in confidence. In the case of gender stereotyping, it was found
that the scale was negatively correlated with achievement for male students.
However, this relationship was not found to be significant for female students. The
148
less than positive perception o f the role and achievement of females in mathematics
was most prominent among the highest achieving male students.
The correlations between achievement and the two usefulness scales were
significant for male students but not for female students. Male students who achieved
higher grades in the mathematics examination have higher scores on statements in the
usefulness scales than those who had lower grades. Most female students, whether
they performed well or not in the previous years national examination, perceived
mathematics as a very useful subject both for everyday life and for entry into a job or
into a college. The scores of female students in the two usefulness of mathematics
scales were higher than the corresponding scores for male students. In the Attitude
toward Success in Mathematics scale, females scored significantly higher than males.
There was, however, no significant correlation between this scale and achievement for
either gender.
The Malaysian secondary school students attributed their success more to
effort and environment than to ability or task. However, female students attributed
their success to effort more strongly than did male students. Also, male students
attributed their success more strongly to environment than to effort. Lack of effort
was regarded as most important reason for failure and environment was considered as
least influential by both male and female students. Attribution of failure to ability
was correlated with achievement for both male students and female students.
Specifically, students who had lower achievement scores attributed their failure to
lack of ability more than students who had higher grades. This finding parallels the
149
correlation between confidence and attribution of failure to ability. Students who
were less confident attributed their failure to a lack of ability more than students who
were more confident.
Socioeconomic status. Three different criterion for determining socioeconomic
status were used in this study. They were urban-rural, parents highest academic
attainments, and items available in parents homes. Because socioeconomic status
was determined using students self report and not through detailed investigation of
students and parents background, these three criterion were thought to be most
appropriate in determining the socioeconomic status of students. Students with higher
socioeconomic status (urban, parents had higher academic attainment, and had more
luxury items in their parents homes) perceived their parents as more supportive in
their learning of mathematics than students with lower socioeconomic status. No
other attitudes were shown to be significantly different when analyzed by
socioeconomic status using the three criterion. However, achievement was
significantly higher for students with "higher" socioeconomic status.
School. There were significant differences in achievement and several attitude
scales when analysis was done by school. Students from school P had the highest
average grade followed by students from school Q, school S, and school R. All the
differences in achievement scores between schools were significant except that
between school R and school S.
School R that had students with the worst grades had significantly lower scores
(p< .05) than schools P, Q, and S in the scale Confidence in Learning Mathematics
150
(CONF). Meanwhile, students from school P had significantly lower scores than
students from all the other schools on the scale Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics
(GEND). The other interesting difference between school was on the scale TIME.
Students from school R reported they spent significantly less time on mathematics at
home than students from the other three schools. In the attribution of failure, students
from school R were more likely than students from the other three schools to attribute
their failure to their lack of ability. In summary, the students from school R reported
that they spent the least amount of time at home on mathematics, had the lowest level
of confidence, and reported they scored the lowest in the national examination. These
same students were also most likely to attribute their failure to their lack of ability.
The only departure from this pattern of relationships was that there was no significant
difference in the achievement scores of students from school R and those from school
S.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
For Practice
Malaysian secondary school students compared favorably to the rest o f the
world in their attitudes toward mathematics. For example, confidence was as high in
the Malaysian students as in students in the other studies and its positive correlation
with achievement was similar to that found by other researchers. Attributions of
failure and success also followed patterns found in other studies. In brief, the data
from this study complement the available literature on attitudes toward mathematics
151
and indicate that many attitudinal patterns exist across different cultures. These data
could also serve as reference by future researchers.
Although some changes have to be made to improve achievement in
mathematics o f Malaysian students, care must be taken so as not to lose the positive
attitudes that the students have toward mathematics. Teachers and parents have to
work together to increase students confidence in learning mathematics and not to
think of failure as a sign of their lack of ability. Students could be frequently told
that they all can do mathematics and that, when they work hard, they can achieve.
Malaysian students obviously feel that math is useful, so getting them to believe that
they can do it is the next logical step. Students confidence could also be enhanced
through efforts by the school administration. School principals and teachers could
work together to raise students confidence and to motivate them to spend more time
at home on mathematics.
The amount of time that students spend on mathematics at home must be
significantly increased. This could be accomplished by teachers if they give more
assignments to be done at home and spend more time to make sure that the students
do them. Students could be given assignments that require them to discuss solution
paths in groups before giving their own answers. Parents could spend more time
supervising their childrens work at home and make sure they spend more time on
mathematics.
Students need to be led to believe, by teachers and parents, that they can do
mathematics and that effort is important in order to succeed in mathematics. From
152
the responses to the statements in the scales on attribution of success and failure, it
could be inferred that they already know this latter fact. Mathematics should be made
more interesting and the tasks given be made more fun in order to entice students to
spend more time on them at home.
On the other hand, teachers must also be constantly reminded that students
learn and process information in different ways. What works for some students might
not work for others who have a different background. Alternative teaching
approaches might motivate some students who found difficulties with traditional
teaching format to work harder. In other words, teachers should look for new ways
to present material as a means of motivating those students who are not achieving.
For Future Research
The data collected for this study have been analyzed using a variety of
statistical techniques. However, data were not analyzed, in more details, separately
for different socioeconomic groups because it was not possible to get accurate data on
students socioeconomic status and initial analysis by the socioeconomic groupings
determined in this study did not reveal significant differences in the attitudes. A
study by socioeconomic status, with more accurate data, might help explain and
provide more understanding why there was very little difference in the attitude scales
between students of different socioeconomic status while there was a significant
difference in the achievement scores.
Also, better reliability for the scales could be obtained by adding a few more
153
statements to some of the scales. It would then be necessary to reduce the number of
scales studied in order to reduce the number o f statements that the students are asked
to respond to. Further study needs to be done on the validity of the statements for
measuring the attitudes of students toward mathematics. Some statements that are
culturally biased would have to be replaced by other statements. A more accurate
scale for measuring students attitudes toward mathematics specifically for Malaysian
students could be developed and tested for validity and reliability. The accuracy of
achievement data could also be improved by using official school records instead of
students self reports. A better measure o f achievement could be obtained by giving
the students appropriate tasks to do in the class. This study might be able to provide
the solution to better mathematics achievement in schools by looking at other factors
that might have caused the difference in achievement.
It is also important that we understand the attitudes and beliefs of parents and
teachers toward the students learning of mathematics. Such studies could determine
how teachers and parents attitudes might be detrimental or beneficial to the
achievement and motivation of students in mathematics.
Finally, a qualitative study that includes extensive interviews with a smaller
group of students is necessary to complement the findings of this study. Students
could be asked to explain more about what they do at home and how their home
environment enhances or detracts their learning of mathematics. They could also be
asked what their teachers say to them about their ability to do mathematics and how
they use mathematics outside school. For example, how do students help their
154
parents in ways that use mathematics on a regular basis? Such study might be able to
shed light on findings such as the high level of confidence among students in school S
where many students may have been using mathematics to help their parents manage
their daily businesses. It could also help to identify factors that motivate students to
work harder on this subject.
The qualitative study would also be able to probe deeper into what the students
meant by their responses to some o f the statements in this quantitative study. From
such qualitative study it might be possible to modify the instrument to obtain more
accurate responses from the students and to increase the validity of the instrument in
measuring students attitudes toward mathematics.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I am very glad that I was given the opportunity to do this study in Malaysia
where concern on mathematics performance in the schools was prevalent. Before this
study was conducted, I had a vague idea of the problems in mathematics education in
the schools in Malaysia. I was concerned that we were not getting sufficient number
of applicants who were adequately prepared in mathematics at the college where I was
teaching. While conducting the study, I discovered that concern over mathematics
achievement in schools had even prompted the Prime Minister to suggest solutions for
improving the performance in school mathematics.
Mathematics is a very important school subject in the world today and has
been a concern of researchers all over the world. It is necessary for the population in
155
any country to be competent in mathematics in order for the country to be
competitive. In order for Malaysia to become a developed country, Malaysian
students must improve their achievement in mathematics. I was also disturbed at the
lack of published research done in Malaysia on the subject o f mathematics education.
It is thus hoped that this study will contribute toward improvement in mathematics
education in Malaysia through research.
I have not been able to study the extent to which Malaysian students take more
advanced mathematics courses while in school. I consider it necessary that more
students be encouraged to take more advanced mathematics courses while in
secondary schools and this might have some bearings on the improvement in some
aspects o f their attitudes toward mathematics. Perhaps, the idea of usefulness of
mathematics should be extended to usefulness for advanced mathematics courses also,
and not only for basic mathematics. As it was, many students in this study, who
considered mathematics as useful, were not taking courses in more advanced
mathematics.
156
References
Ahmad Zanzali, N. A. (1987). The Malaysian mathematics program: A case study

of the difference between design intention and classroom implementation
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1987). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 48/08. 1966A.
Aiken, L. R., Jr. (1970). Attitudes toward mathematics. Review of Educational

Research. 40, 551-596.
Aiken, L. R., Jr. (1976). Update on attitudes and other affective variables in
learning mathematics. Review of Educational Research. 46, 293-311.
Aiken, L. R., Jr., & Dreger, R. M. (1961). The effect of attitude on performance
in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology. 52, 19-24.
Allport, G. W. (1935). A handbook of social psychology. Chicago: Clark

University Press.
Allport, G. W. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory

and measurement (pp. 1-13). New York: John Wiley & Son.
Ames, R. E., & Ames, C. (Eds.). (1984). Research on motivation in education:

Volume 1. Student motivation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Armstrong, J. M. (1980). Achievement and participation of women in mathematics:

An overview. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Armstrong, J. M ., & Price, R. A. (1982). Correlates and predictors of womens

mathematics participation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 13,
99-109.
Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan Malaysia (Educational Planning

and Research Division, Malaysia). (1993). Perangkaan Pendidikan 1991
(Education Statistics 1991). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Banks, J. H. (1964). Learning and teaching arithmetic (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Bassarear, T. J. (1991). An examination of the influence of attitudes and beliefs on

achievements in a college developmental course. Research on Teaching in
Developmental Education. 7(2), 43-56.
157
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th
ed.). Longman: New York.
Clarkson, P., & Leder, G. C. (1984). Causal attributions for success and failure in
mathematics: A cross cultural perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics.
15, 413-422.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort: The double-edged sword in

school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 71. 169-182.
Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A ., Swafford, J. 0 ., McKnight, C. C., Cooney, T.

J., Downs, F. L., Grouws, D. A., & Weinzweig, A. I. (1986). Second
International Mathematics Study: Detailed report for the United States.
Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
Dick, T. (1985, April). laten t variable causal models for affective variables related
to mathematics achievement. Paper presented at the meeting o f the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Dossey, J. A ., Mullis, I. V. S., Lindquist, M. M ., & Chambers, D. L. (1988).

Mathematics report card, are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based
on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
(Report No: 17-M-01)
Eccles [Parsons], J., Adler, T. F ., Futterman, R., Goff, S., Kaczala, C., Meece, J.
L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J.
Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and
performance. Signs. 11, 367-380.
Ethington, C. A., & Wolfe, L. M. (1984). Sex differences in a causal model of

mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 15,
361-377.
Fennema, E ., & Hart, L. E. (1994). Gender and the JRME. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education. 25, 648-659.
Fennema, E., & Leder, G. C. (Eds.). (1990). Mathematics and gender. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fennema, E. ,& Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude

Scales. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. 6(1), 31.
158
Fennema, E ., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics
achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational
Research Journal. 14, 51-71.
Fennema, E ., & Sherman, J. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics

achievement and related factors: A further study. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education. 2. 189-203.
Fennema, E ., Wolleat, P ., & Pedro, J. D. (1979). Mathematics attribution scale.

JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. 9(5), 26.
Gliner, G. S. (1987). The relationship between mathematics anxiety and

achievement variables. School Science and Mathematics. 87. 81-87.
Hackett, G ., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration o f the mathematics self

efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education. 20. 261-273.
Hadfield, O. D. (1986). Cognitive style and mathematics anxiety among high school
students (Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Arizona University). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 46, 1590A.
Haladyna, T., Shaughnessy, J., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1983). A causal analysis of

attitude toward mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 14.
19-29.
Hart, L. E. (1989). Describing the affective domain: Saying what we mean. In D.

B. McLeod, & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving
(pp. 37-45). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hendel, D. D. (1980). Experiential and affective correlates of math anxiety in adult

women. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 5, 219-230.
Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1978). How to measure

attitudes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hess, R. D ., Chang, C. M ., & McDevitt, T. M. (1987). Cultural variations in

family beliefs about childrens performance in mathematics: Comparisons among
Peoples Republic of China, Chinese-American, and Caucasian-American
families. Journal of Educational Psychology. 79, 179-188.
Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the United
States. Review of Educational Research. 58, 327-345.
159
Holloway, S. D., Kashiwagi, K., Hess, R. D., & Azuma, H. (1986). Causal
attributions by Japanese and American mothers and children about performance in
mathematics. International Journal of Psychology. 21, 269-286.
Horn, A., & Walberg, H. J. (1984). Achievement and interest as functions of

quantity and level of instruction. Journal o f Educational Research. 77. 227-232.
Homer, M. S. (1968). Sex difference in achievement motivation and performance in

competitive and non-competitive situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Hunsley, J. (1987). Cognitive processes in mathematics anxiety and test anxiety:

The role of appraisals, internal dialogue, and attributions. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 79, 388-392.
Hum, C. J. (1993). The limits and possibilities of schooling: An introduction to the

sociology of education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kloosterman, P. (1988). Self-confidence and motivation in mathematics. Journal of

Educational Psychology. 80, 345-351.
Kloosterman, P. (in press). Students belief about knowing and learning

mathematics: Implications for motivation. In M. Carr (Ed.), Motivation in
mathematics. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kloosterman, P. & Cougan, M. C. (1994). Students beliefs about school

mathematics. Elementary School Journal. 94, 375-388.
Kulm, G. (1980). Research on mathematics attitude. In R. J. Shumway (Ed.),

Research in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Leder, G. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics: A n overview. In E. Fennema

& G. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 10-26). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Leder, G. (1992). Mathematics and gender: changing perspectives. In D. A.

Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
597-622). New York: Macmillan.
Lee, S., Ichikawa, V., & Stevenson, H. W. (1989). Beliefs and achievement in
mathematics and reading: A cross-national study of Chinese, Japanese, and
American children and their mothers. In M. Maher (Ed.), Advances in
achievement motivation.
160
Leong, Y. C. (1982). The objectives of schooling: Perceptions of secondary school
leavers, teachers, principals and parents of Kuala Langat District. Selangor.
Paper presented at the National Symposium on Youths in Malaysia, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D. L. (1989). Self-confidence, interest, beliefs
and metacognition: Key influences on problem-solving behavior. In D. B.
McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A
new perspective (pp.75-88). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Maple, S. A., & Stage, F. K. (1991). Influences on the choice of math/science

major by gender and ethnicity. American Educational Research Journal. 28, 37-
60.
Marsh, H. W ., Byrne, B. N., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic

self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 80, 366-380.
Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional self-concepts:

Relations with sex and academic achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 77, 581-596.
McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J ., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O.,

Travers, K. J., & Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum:
Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective.
Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
McLeod, D. B. (1989). The role of affect in mathematical problem solving. In D.

B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A
new perspective (pp. 20-36). New York: Springer-Verlag.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A

reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575-596). New York: Macmillan.
McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (Eds.). (1989). Affect and mathematical problem
solving: A new perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Mukheijee, H. & Singh, J. S. (1985). Education and social policy. Prospects:

Quarterly Review of Education. 15(2), 289-300.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). The state of mathematics

achievement: NAEPs 1990 assessment of the nation and the trial assessment of
the states.
161
Ng, S. N. (1983). Pengajaran dan pembelajaran matematik menengah di Malaysia
[Teaching and learning secondary mathematics in Malaysia]. In K. P. Sai, L. Y.
Ching, & K. B. Boon (Eds.), Fikiran-fikiran mengenai pendidikan di Malaysia
[Thoughts on education in Malaysia] (pp. 183-192). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:
Utusan Publication & Distributors SDN. BHD.
Ng, S. N. (1972). Socio-economic status as related to achievement and some non-

conitive variable. Jumal Pendidikan. 82-92.
Norusis, M. J. (1986). The SPSS guide to data analysis. Chicago: SPSS.
Norwich, B. (1987). Self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: A study of their

relation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 79. 384-387.
Pederson, K ., Bleyer, D., & Elmore, P. (1986). Parent attitudes and student career
interests in junior high school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
17, 49-59.
Pedro, J. D ., Wolleat, P., Fennema, E., & Becker, A. (1981). Election of high
school mathematics by females and males: Attributions and attitudes.
American Educational Research Journal. 18, 207-218.
Perl, T. H. (1979). Discriminating factors and sex differences in electing

mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Rajecki, D. W. (1990). Attitudes (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinaur Associates

Inc.
Reyes, L. H. (1984). Affective variables and mathematics education. The

Elementary School Journal. 84, 558-581.
Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A process model of mathematics

achievement and attitude. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 23.
306-328.
Robitaille, D. F. (1990). Achievement comparison between the first and second IEA
studies o f mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 21, 395-419.
Robitaille, D. F., & Donn, J. S. (1992). The third international mathematics and
science study (TIMSS): A brief introduction. Educational Studies in
Mathematics. 23, 203-210.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
162
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students mathematical beliefs and
behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 20, 338-355.
Sepie, A. C ., & Keeling, B. (1978). The relationship between types of anxiety and
under-achievement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research. 72, 15-19.
Sherman, J. & Fennema, E. (1977). The study of mathematics among high school
girls: Related factors. American Educational Research Journal. 14, 159-168.
Stage, F. K ., & Kloosterman, P. (in press). Gender, beliefs, and achievement in

remedial college level mathematics. Journal of Higher Education.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of

Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science. 231. 693-699.
Stigler, J. W. & Perry, M. (1988). Mathematics learning in Japanese, Chinese, and

American classrooms. New Directions for Child Development. 41, 27-54.
Swafford, J. O., & Brown, C. A. (1989). Attitudes. In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.),

Results from the fourth mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (pp. 106-116). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Swetz, F. J ., Langgulung, H., & Johar, A. R. (1983). Attitudes toward mathematics

and school learning in Malaysia and Indonesia: Urban-rural and male-female
dichotomies. Comparative Education Review. 27, 394-402.
Tocci, C. M . (1991). Attitudes toward mathematics related to gender, achievement,

and parental support of adolescents from different social classes in the United
States and Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, Emory University, 1991).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 52/04. 1244A.
Tsai, S. L., & Walberg, H. J. (1983). Mathematics achievement and attitude

productivity in junior high school. Journal of Educational Research. 76, 267-
272.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown,

NJ: General Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal

of Educational Psychology. 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review. 92, 548-573.
163
Wigfield, A ., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Math anxiety in elementary and secondary
school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80, 210-216.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook o f research on teaching (pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.
Wolfe, R. G. (1987). Training manual for the use of the databank of the
longitudinal, classroom process surveys for population A in the IEA Second
International Mathematics Study. Toronto, Canada: The Ontario Institute of
Studies in Education.
Wolleat, P. L., Pedro, J. D ., Becker, A. D ., Fennema, E. (1980). Sex differences

in high school students causal attributions of performance in mathematics.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 11, 356-366.
164
APPENDIX A
Application Form to do Research in the Schools

in Malaysia with English Translation
165
BPPP 1
Pengarah,
Bahagian Perancangan dan (Untuk d iis i dalen
Penyelidikan Pendidikan, dua sa lin a n )
Kementerian Pendidikan,
Paras 2, 3 & 5, Biok J , ,
Fusat Bandar Damansara,
50604 Kuala Lumpur.
Permohonan Untuk Menjalankan Penyelidikan

Di 3ekolah-Seifolah, Haktab-ffaktab Perguruan,
Jabatan-Jabatar. Pendidikan dan Bahagian-
Bahagian Di Bawah Kementerian Pendidikan.
Bahagian A : BUTIR-BUTIR HBNG3JAI P3NYELIDIK

dan psnyblidikan.
1. Nama P enyelidik (Tuan/Sncik/Puan/Cik)
2. Varganegara: No. KP/Pasport:...........
3. Alamat Tetap: ..................................................................................
.................................................................................No. T e l . : ...........
4. P ekerjaan sekarang: .......................................................................
5. Maklumat mengenai i n s t itu s i tempat anda b e la ja r/b e k e rja :
i) Nama I n s titu s i:
ii) Alamat: ............
No. T el.: ........................................
iii) F a k u lti/ J aba tan Penga jian/Tahun Pengajian:
iv ) Tempat bekerja*: ...............................................
v) Alamat*: ....................................................................
.................................................................... No. Tel.

v i) L ain -la in keterangan : .........................................
/ 2 ..
166
- 2 -
6. P eringkat penyelidikan (Diploma/B.i/K.i/K. Id /ri.S c ./P h .d /d ll.)
7. Tajuk Fsnyelidikan:
8. Sampel Penyelidikan: Senaraikan nama sekolah dan tin g k atan /d '.r jah/
i n s t i t u s i pendidikan/Bahagian di to s h Kementerian Pendidikan dan
bilangan nurid a ta u pegavai dan la in - la in kakitangon yang dicadang-
kan aebagai sampel dalam k ajian in i.
( S ila lampirkan dua sa lin a n senarai te rse b u t dengan permohonan in i)
9. Tarikh k a jia n p e r in tis : d ari: bingga........................
10. T arikh'penyelidikan : d ari: hingga........................ .
11. Tarikh la p o ra n /te sis dijangka aiap: ............................................................
Dengan i n i saya ................ ...............................................

oengakui bahawa saya akan menatuhi segala sy n rat yang ditetapkan oleh
Kementerian Pendidikan. Saya menberi janinan bahawa sa tu naskhah
d is e r ta s i/te s is /la p o r a n yang berkenaan akan d ih en tar kepada
Kementerian Pendidikan m elalui Ketua J a b a ta n /p a k u lti saya sebaik
sa h a ja ianya sia p .
Tarikh: ......................................... ................................................

Pandatangnn Panvelidik
* Untuk d i i s i oleh Penyelidik-Panyelidik

yang sedang b ek e rja/b e k erja so n d iri.
167
I
- 3-
P erin eatan :
1. T iap-tiap pemohonan hendaklah nonggunakan dua s a lin a n Borang

Penyelidikan BPPP 1 in i.
2. Dua salinan cadangan penyelidikan yang lengkep hendaklah jug a

disertakan.
3. Dua salinan inatrunen ka.iian dan dua salin an se n arai sampel hondak-
la h juga dilam pirkan sekiranya cadangan penyelidikan tid a k mengan-
dungi porkara-perkara te rse b u t. (Nota: Sampel k a jia n tid a k boleh
melibatkan kolas-k elas pepcriksaan).
4-. Satu naskhah d is a r ta s i/te s is /la p o r a n k a jia n in i hendaklah d ih an tar

kopada Pengarah Persncangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan, sebaik
sahaja ianya sia p n elalu i Ketua Ja b a ta n /P a k u lti.
5. Kementerian Pondidikan berhak r.enolak sebarnng pernohonan untuk

menjalankan penyelidikan di sekolah-sekolah, i n s t i t u s i pondidikan,
Bahagian-bahagian di bavah Kementerian Pendidikan dan oenbatalkan
kDbenaran yang te la h d ib e ri tanpa menberi apa-apa sebab.
BAHAOIAN B: UNTDK K5GUNAAN K5TUA JABATAR/FAKULTI PMTSLIDIK
Penyelidikan in i *diaotong/tidak disokong kerana: ....................... .
Penyolidik te la h membuat pengakuan bahawa s a tu s a lin a n d i s e r t a s i / t e s i s /

laporan akan d ih a n tar kepada Kementerian Pondidikan a p a b ila ianya sia p
n e la lu i Ketua Ja b ata n /P ak u lti.
Tarikh: ......................................... ..........................................................

Tandatangan Ketua Jabatan /
P a k u lti
* S ila potong mana yang tidak Nana:................................................

berkenaan.
Cop Rasni:
/rf
141088
168
Director BPPP 1
Educational Planning and Research Division (To be submitted
Ministry of Education in two copies)
Levels 2, 3, & 5, Block J,
Damansara City Center,
50604 Kuala Lumpur.
Application to conduct research in schools,

teacher training colleges, education departments
and divisions under the Ministry of Education.
Section A: DETAILS ABOUT RESEARCHER AND RESEARCH
1. Name of Researcher (M r/M rs/M s)....................................................

2. N ationality:...............................Id. Card/Passport Number: . . . .
3. Permanent A ddress: Tel. . . .
4. Current Occupation:............................................................................
5. Information about the institution where you are studying/working:
i) Name of Institution:.........................................................
ii) A ddress: Tel. . . .
iii) Faculty/Department/Year of S tudy:.....................................
iv) Place of Employment*:.........................................................
v) A ddress*:......................................................................Tel. . .
vi) Other inform ation:.................................................................
6. Level of research (Diploma/BA/MA/MEd/MS/PhD/Others)
7. Title of R esearch:................................................................................................
8. Sample: List names of schools and grade/training institutions/division under
Ministry of Education and number of students or officers and other staff
suggested as sample in study. (Please attach two copies of the list with this
application)
9. Date of Pilot study: F ro m :............................. T o : ...................................
10. Date of Study: F ro m :...................................... T o : ...................................
11. Date Report/Thesis will be completed:...................................
I hereby agree to abide by the

conditions stipulated by the Ministry of Education. I promise that I will submit a
copy of the dissertation/thesis/report concerning this study through my Head of
Department/Faculty as soon as it is completed.
D a te :................. ................................................
Researchers signature
* To be filled in by researchers who are employed/self employed.
169
Note:
1. Every application must be made by submitting two copies of this BPPP 1

form.
2. Two copies of the complete research proposal must also be submitted together
with the application.
3. Two copies of the instrument used in the research and two copies of the
sample list must be attached if the research proposal does not contain the said
items. (Note: Research sample must not include students who are involved in
national examinations).
4. One copy of the dissertation/thesis/report based on this study must be
submitted through your Head of Department/Faculty, to the Director,
Educational Planning and Research Division, as soon as it is completed.
5. The Ministry of Education reserves the right to refuse any application to do
research in schools, educational institutions, or divisions under the Ministry of
Education and to cancel any permission that has already been given without
giving any reason whatsoever.
SECTION B: FOR THE USE OF RESEARCHERS HEAD OF

DEPARTMENT/FACULTY
This study is *approved/not approved because:
The researcher has promised to submit one copy of the dissertation/thesis/report to the
Ministry of Education through the Head of Department/Faculty as soon as it is
completed.
D a te :............................ .......................................................................
Signature of Head of Department/Faculty
N am e:.........................................................
Official Stamp:
(Translation of the application form to do research in the schools in Malaysia)
170
APPENDIX B
Permission to do Research from Ministry of Education

with English Translation
171
KP (BPPP)13/15
Jld.42( 1X1)
16 Mei 1994
En. Mohd. Ali bin Hassan,

811, Tulip Tree, Bloomington,
INDIANA 47406.
Tuan,
Kebenaran Bagi Menjalankan Kajian Ke S e k o la h -S e k i

J a b a t a n - J a b a t a n Dan I n s t i t u s i - I n s t i t u s i Di Bawah
Kementerian P e n d i d i k a n M a l a y si a
A d a l a h s a y a d i a r a h u n t u k memaklumkan bahawa per mohona n t u a n u n t u k

m e n j a l a n k a n k a j i a n me n g e n a i
" A t t i t u d e Towar d M a t h e m a t i c s Of S e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t s In
Malaysia: C u r r e n t S t a t u s , De v e l o p m e n t And Some
R e l a t i o n s h i p s To Achievement . "
telah diluluskan.
2. K e l u l u s a n i n i a d a l a h b e r d a s a r k a n k e p a d a h a n y a apa yang
t e r k a n d u n g di dal am c a d a n g a n p e n y e l i d i k a n y a n g t u a n kemukakan ke
Bahagian i n i . K e b e n a r a n b a g i menqgunakan s a mp e l k a j i a n p e r l u
d i p e r o l e h i d a r i p a d a Ket ua B a h a q i a n / P e n q a r a h P e n d i d i k a n N e g e r i y a ng
berkenaan.
3. Tuan j u g a d i k e h e n d a k i m e n g h a n t a r s e n a s k h a h h a s i l k a j i a n t u a n
k.e Ba h a g i a n i n i s e b a i k s a h a j a s e l e s a . i k e l a k .
Sek i a n .
"RFRKHTTIMAT UNTlTK NEGARA"
CTNTATT.AH BARAS A KTTA"
l aya yang me n u r u t p e r i n t a h ,
(1 JAH FATTMAji^BTr^MOH.AMED)
b . Peftg^rfahPerancangan dan P e n y e l i d i k a n Pe nd id ik an ,
b . p . P e n d a f t a r B e s a r S e k o l a h - S e k o l a h d a n G u r u - Gu r u ,
Kern e n f e r i a n P e n d i d i k a n .
172
Dekan,
K a j i a n S a i n s , M a t e m a t i k d a n Komput er,
ITM,
Shah Al a m.
Pengarah P en d id ik an ,
J a b a t a n P e n d i d i k a n N e g e r i Pahang.
173
KP(BPPP)13/15
Jld.42(123)
16 May 1994
Mohd. Ali bin Hassan

811 Tulip Tree, Bloomington,
Indiana 47406
Dear Sir,
Permission to Conduct Research in Schools, Departments, and Institutions under

the Ministry of Education, Malaysia
I am directed to inform you that your application to do research entitled:
"Attitude Toward Mathematics of Secondary Students in Malaysia: Current

Status, Development and Some Relationaships to Achievement"
has been approved.
2. This approval is based only on what is included in the proposal that you put
forward to this Division. Permission to use sample for study will have to be further
obtained from the appropriate Head of Division or State Director of Education.
3. You are also required to send a copy of the dissertation based on this research
to this Division as soon as your study is completed.
Yours Sincerely,
(HAJAH FATIMAH BT. MOHAMED)

for: Director, Educational Planning and Research Division,
Chief Registrar of Schools and Teachers,
Ministry of Education.
cc: Dean,
School of Mathematical Sciences and Computing,
ITM,
Shah Alam.
Director of Education
Pahang State Department of Education.
174
APPENDIX C
Permission to do Research by State Director of Education

with English Translation
175
* jlii 4j \JL
PEJABAT PENGARAH Telefon Pejabat: 09-520497
JABATAN PENDIDIKAN PAHANG 09-520531
Fax: 09-524257
ALOR AKAR
25604 KUANTAN
Ruj. Tuan:
Ruj. Kami: J B P . 0 t y 0 l / 0 2 l 8 / J l d . l l / [ 9 2 ]
Tarikh: 2 3 Jun V&K

E ncik Mohd A ll b i n H assan
K a jia n S a in s M atem atik & Kom puter
I n s t i t u t T ek n o lo g i MARA
1*01*50 Shah Alam,
S e la n g o r
Tuan,
K ebenaran B agi M enjalankan K a jia n Ke S e k o la h -S e k o la h ,

J a b a ta n - J a b a ta n dan I n s t i t u s i - I n s t i t u s i Di Bawah K e m e n te ria n
P e n d id ik a n M a la y sia .
Dengan horm atnya s a y a m erujuk kepada s u r a t K P [B P P P ]l3 /l5 J ld .l* 2 / [ 123 ]

b e r t a r i k h 1 6 Mei 199^ berhubung dengan p e r k a r a d i a t a s .
2. J a b a ta n i n i t i a d a h a la n g a n berhubung d en g an h a s r a t tu a n
u n tu k m en jalan k an k a j i a n k e s e k o la h - s e k o la h menengah d i N e g e ri
Pahang i n i .
3. Tuan b o le h berhubung dengan P e n g e tu a s e k o la h b e rk e n a a n

u n tu k m endapatkan p e r s e t u ju a n dan k e rja s a m a s e t e r u s n y a . K ebenaran
i n i d i b e r i dengan s y a r a t P e n g e tu a s e k o la h b e r s e t u j u dengan k a jia n
i n i dan t i d a k mengganggu p e n g a ja ra n dan p e m b e la ja ra n d i s e k o l a h -
se k o la h b e r k a i ta n .
S e k ia n , te rim a k a s i h .
'BERKHIDmILt UNTUK NEGARA'
//
SayaSva n d menurut perintah,
[HAJI IB R A H I^ IN YAHAYA]
P engarah P e n d id ik a n
Pahang. J
/ 176
JPNP.04/01/0218/Jld .11/ [92]
23 July 1994
Mohd Ali bin Hassan

School of Mathematical Sciences and Computing
MARA Institute of Technology
40450 Shah Alam,
Selangor
Dear Sir,
Permission to do Research in Schools, Departments, and Institutions under the

Ministry of Education, Malaysia
I refer to your letter KP[BPPP] 13/15 Jld.42/[123] dated 16 May 1994 concerning the
above topic.
2. This Department does not have any objection on your intention to conduct
research in secondary schools in the state of Pahang.
3. You can contact the Principals of the schools concerned to seek their approval
and cooperation. This permission is given on condition that the Principals of the
schools concerned agree with the study and it does not disrupt teaching and learning
in the schools.
Yours Sincerely,
[HAJI IBRAHIM BIN YAHYA]

Director of Education
Pahang
177
APPENDIX D
IUB Information Sheet with Malay Translation
178
IUB STUDY INFORMATION SHEET
[A ttitudes tow ard m ath em atics of secondary stu d e n ts in Malaysia: C urrent sta tu s,
developm ent, and som e relationships to achievem ent!
You are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to to identify
the attitudes tow ard m athem atics of Form Four stu d en ts from four secondary schools in
Pekan. Pahang. The study hope to also find out w hether there is any relationship betw een
attitu d es of stu d e n ts and their achievem ent in m athem atics. Another purpose of theis study
is to identify factors w hich could have contributed to the formation of th e attitu d es in th e se
stu d en ts.
INFORMATION
1. You will be given a questionnaire consisting of three sections. S ection A contains

several sta te m e n ts about attitu d es to w ard m athem atics, Section B contains several
open-ended questions about attitu d es to w ard m athom atics, and Section C contains a
list of questions about your personal background. Please give your resp o n ses to all
the sta te m e n ts and questions. A fter you have com pleted all th e responses please
give them back to m e. I will th en check th e your grades w ith th e school
administration using the identification num ber th a t you give on th e front page. A fter
that I will d etach th e front page from th e rest of the questionnaire and destroy them .
In this w ay all your responses are anonym ous.
2. The estim ated tim e required for you to respond to this questionnaire is 35 m inutes.
3. When com pleted, th is study will provide a much clearer picture of Malaysian
stu d e n ts' attitu d es to w ard m ath em atics and how those attitu d es relate to
achievem ent in th e subject. Findings from this study will help policy m akers in their
search for a solution to th e deteriorating achievem ent in m ath em atics in M alaysian
schools especially th o se in th e rural areas.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The information in th e study records will be kept confidential. Data will be stored securely
and will be m ade available only to persons conducting th e study unless you specifically give
perm ission in writing to do otherw ise. No reference will be m ade in verbal or w ritten reports
which could link you to th e study.
CONTACT
If you have questions a t any tim e about th e stu d y or the procedures, you m ay co n tac t th e
researcher,
[Mohamad Ali bin H assanl . at [8 1 1 Tulip Tree. Bloomington. IN 47406. U.S.A.l . or _
[(812) 857-51851 . If you have questions about your rights as a subject, co n tact th e office
for the Human Subjects C om m ittee, Bryan Hall 10, Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN 47405, 8 1 2 /8 5 5 -3 0 6 7 .
PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary, you m ay decline to participate w ithout penalty or
loss of benefits. If you decide to participate, you m ay w ithdraw from th e stu d y a t anytim e
w ithout penalty and w ithout loss of benefits. If you w ithdraw from th e stu d y prior to its
completion your d ata will be returned to you or destroyed.
(This information will be presented orally J

1 0 /1 /9 3 -14-
179
IUB STUDY INFORMATION SHEET
fSikap pelaiar sekolah meneneah di Malaysia terhadap matematik: Status semasa.
pcrkembangan. dan hubungannva dengan pencapaianl
Anda dijemput untuk menyertai kajiselidik ini. Tujuan kajian ini ialah untuk
meneenalpasti sikap terhadap matematik dikalangan pelaiar Tingkatan Emnat dari
empat buah sekolah di daerah Pekan. Pahang. Kaiian ini berharap akan dapat
menentukan iika ada ana-apa hubungan di antara sikap pelaiar terhadap matematik
dengan pencapaian mereka dalam matapelaiaran berkenaan. Satu lagi tuiuan kaiian ini
ialah untuk mengenalpasti faktor-faktor vang mungkin menvumbang kepada
penumbuhan sikap ini di kalangan pelaiar-pelaiar.
MAKLUMAT
1. Anda akan diberikan satu borang soalselidik yang mengandungi tiga bahagian.
Bahagian A mengandungi beberapa kenyataan berkenaan sikap terhadap
matematik, Bahagian B pula mengandungi beberapa soalan terbuka berkenaan
sikap terhadap matematik, dan Bahagian C mengandungi satu senarai soalan
berkenaan latarbelakang peribadi anda. Sila berikan jawapan anda kepada
semua soalan dan kenyataan. Selepas anda selesai memberikan semua jawapan
sila kembalikan borang soalselidik itu kepada saya. Saya akan menyemak gred
anda dalam matapelajaran matematik melalui pihak pentadbiran sekolah dengan
menggunakan nombor pengenalan yang anda berikan di muka hadapan borang
tersebut. Selepas itu saya akan ceraikan muka depan ini dari muka-muka lain
dan musnahkannya. Dengan cara ini semua respons anda akan dirahsiakan.
2. Anggaran masa yang anda perlukan untuk memberikan respons kepada borang
soalselidik ini ialah 35 minit.
3. Apabila siap, kajian ini akan dapat memberikan gambaran yang lebih jelas
kepada sikap terhadap matematik bagi pelajar-pelajar di Malaysia dan
bagaimana sikap ini berhubungkait dengan pencapaian. Hasil dari kajian ini
juga akan dapat membantu pembuat dasar dalam usaha mereka mencari
penyelesaian kepada masalah kemerosotan pencapaian matematik di sekolah-
sekolah di Malaysia terutamanya di kawasan luar bandar.
KERAHSIAAN
Maklumat yang diberikan dalam kajian ini akan dirahsiakan. Data akan disimpan
dengan selamat dan akan boleh digunakan hanya oleh orang yang membuat kajian ini
kecuali jika anda memberi kebenaran secara bertulis untuk ianya dilihat dan diguna
oleh orang lain. Dalam mana-mana laporan iisan atau bertulis tiada rujukan akan
dibuat yang boleh mengaitkan anda dengan kajian ini.
180
HUBUNGAN
Jika anda mempunyai soalan pada bila-bila masa sahaja berkenaan dengan kajian ini,
anda boleh menghubungi penyelidik ini. fMohamad Ali bin Hassanl . di alamat _
f811 Tulip Tree. Bloomington. IN47406. U.S.A.l . atau telefon T(8121 857-51851 .
Jika anda ada soalan berkenaan hak anda sebagai subjek kajian, sila hubungi pejabat
Human Subjects Committee, Bryan Hall 10, Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN47405, 812/855-3067.
PENYERTAAN
Penyertaan anda dalam kajian ini adalah secara sukarela, anda boleh menolak dari
menyertai kajian ini pada bila-bila masa sahaja tanpa apa-apa penalti dan tanpa
kehilangan mana-mana faedah. Jika anda menarik diri dari kajian ini sebelum ianya
disiapkan, data berkenaan diri anda akan dimusnahkan atau dipulangkan kepada anda.
(This information will be presented orally .)
181
APPENDIX E
Research Questionnaire
182
Sikap terhadap matematik
SOALSELIDIK PENYELIDIKAN
ARAHAN KEPADA PELAJAR:
1. Borang kajiselidik in TIDAK merupakan ujian bagi mana-mana matapelajaran anda.

Anda tidak akan diberi gred kepada jawapan anda dalam soalselidik ini.
2. Soalselidik ini mengandungi tiea bahaeian. A, B, dan C. Bahagian A mengandungi
beberapa kenyataan sementara Bahagian B mengandungi beberapa soalan. Bahagian C
pula terdiri daripada soalan untuk maklumat peribadi.
3. Kenyataan-kenyataan dalam Bahagian A tersebut bertujuan untuk kami memahami

pandangan, sikap dan perasaan anda terhadap matematik dan pembelajaran matematik.
Sila berikan pendapat anda yang sebenamya tentang kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut
dengan membulatkan pilihan jawapan anda yang berkenaan.
4. Soalan-soalan dalam Bahagian B adalah soalan-soalan terbuka yang bertujuan untuk

mendapatkan gambaran yang lebih jelas serta mendalam berkenaan perasaan, sikap
dan pandangan anda terhadap perkara yang berkaitan dengan pembelajaran dan
pengajaran matematik. Sila berikan jawapan kepada soalan-soalan tersebut mengikut
apa yang anda rasa paling tepat.
5. Sila beri jawapan kepada semua kenyataan dan soalan mengikut apa yang anda
rasakan. Tidak ada jawapan yang "betul" atau "salah" di dalam soalselidik ini.
Jawapan vans "betul" ialah jawapan yang benar kepada diri anda sendiri.
6. Jawapan yang anda berikan semuanya akan dirahsiakan. Saya cuma memerlukan
nombor kad pengenalan anda di muka depan soalselidik ini supaya saya boleh
menyemak gred matematik anda dari rekod sekolah. Gred matematik anda akan
diambil dari pihak pentadbiran sekolah melalui nombor kad pengenalan ini. Selepas
saya merekodkan gred anda pada buku jawapan anda, saya akan ceraikan muka depan
ini dari muka-muka yang lain dan musnahkannya. Dengan ini tiada sesiapa (termasuk
saya sendiri) akan dapat mengaitkan nombor kad pengenalan anda dengan jawapan
yang anda berikan.
Nombor Kad Pengenalan Anda
183
7. Saya ingin ucapkan terima kasih di atas kerjasama yang anda berikan. Jika anda
mempunyai soalan pada bila-bila masa sahaja berkenaan dengan kajian ini, sila
hubungi saya, Mohamad Ali bin Hassan. di alamat 811 Tulip Tree. Bloomington.
Indiana 47406. U .S.A .. atau telefon (8121 857-5185. Alamat tetap saya di Malaysia
ialah B-44 Kampune Jambu. Laneear. 26600 Pekan. Pahang P.M.
BAHAGIAN A: Untuk bahagian ini sila bulatkan salah satu dari pa da pilihan jawapan
kepada setiap kenyataan.
Jika anda Amat Bersetuju dengan kenyataan yang diberikan bulatkan AB

Jika anda Bersetuju dengan kenyataan yang diberikan bulatkan B
Jika anda Tidak Pasti dengan kenyataan yang diberikan bulatkan TP
Jika anda Tidak Bersetuju dengan kenyataan yang diberikan bulatkan TB
Jika anda Amat Tidak Bersetuju dengan kenyataan yang diberikan bulatkan ATB
CONTOH:
Jika anda bersetuju dengan kenyataan berikut tetapi ada beberapa hal di mana anda tidak
begitu yakin atau tidak bersetuju sepenuhnya dengan kenyataan itu, bulatkan pilihan B seperti
berikut:
1. Saya lebih suka belajar bersama kawan AB B TP TB ATB

daripada berseorangan
Anda tak perlu menjawab mana-mana soalan yang bertanda (*) jika anda tidak lagi tinggal
bersama ibu atau bapa anda. Umpamanya jika bapa anda telah meninggal dunia dan ibu anda
belum berkahwin lagi, atau jika perceraian telah berlaku dan anda tinggal bersama ibu anda
yang belum berkahwin lagi, jawab soalan yang berkaitan dengan ibu sahaja dan tinggalkan
soalan berkenaan dengan bapa. Ibu dan bapa angkat atau ibu dan bapa tiri boleh dikira
sebagai ibu dan bapa dalam hal ini.
184
1. Apabila saya mendapat gred yang baik dalam AB B TP TB ATB

matematik ini ialah kerana bakat saya dalam
matematik.
2. Saya pasti saya boleh mempelajari matematik. AB B TP TB ATB
3. Berbanding dengan matapelajaran yang lain saya AB B TP TB ATB

meluangkan masa yang banyak di rumah untuk
belajar matematik.
Saya akan merasa gembira jika mendapat gred A AB B TP TB ATB

dalam matematik.
5. Bapa (*) saya tidak ambil peduli tentang gred AB B TP TB ATB

matematik saya.
6. Ibu (*) saya tidak ambil peduli tentang gred AB B TP TB ATB

matematik saya.
7. Guru matematik saya bertanggungjawab AB B TP TB ATB

membuatkan saya suka (atau tidak suka) kepada
matematik.
8. Kegagalan dalam matematik tidak akan AB B TP TB ATB

menjejaskan rancangan masa depan saya.
9. Guru matematik saya tidak mempengaruhi AB B TP TB ATB

kejayaan (atau kurangnya kejayaan) saya dalam
matematik.
10. Apabila saya dapat menyelesaikan kerja rumah AB B TP TB ATB

matematik, ini ialah kerana saya seorang pelajar
matematik yang berkebolehan.
11. Apabila saya mendapat gred yang rendah dalam AB B TP TB ATB

matematik ini ialah kerana guru mengelirukan
saya.
12. Apabila saya tidak dapat markah yang tinggi AB B TP TB ATB

dalam matematik, ini ialah kerana guru
meluangkan sedikit sahaja masa untuk
membincangkan topik yang berkenaan dalam
kelas.
185
13. Saya boleh dapat gred yang baik dalam matematik. AB B TP TB ATB
14. Berbanding dengan matapelajaran lain, saya AB B TP TB ATB

meluangkan masa yang paling kurang (di rumah)
dalam matapelajaran matematik.
15. Saya rasa saya tidak akan menggunakan matematik AB B TP TB ATB

yang saya pelajari di sekolah, dalam pekerjaan
saya di masa akan datang.
16. Saya tidak runsing kalau gagal dalam matematik. AB B TP TB ATB
17. Bapa (*) saya sentiasa menggalakkan saya supaya AB B TP TB ATB

berjaya dalam matematik.
18. Adalah penting untuk mengetahui matematik jika AB B TP TB ATB

kita ingin mendapatkan pekerjaan yang baik.
19. Apabila saya tidak mendapat gred yang baik dalam AB B TP TB ATB
matematik, ini ialah kerana saya tidak mendapat
pertolongan yang mencukupi daripada guru.
20. Saya bukan dari jenis orang yang boleh berjaya AB B TP TB ATB
dalam matematik.
21. Matematik di sekolah adalah berguna kepada saya AB B TP TB ATB

supaya saya boleh meneruskan pelajaran saya.
22. Saya tidak suka kalau orang lain fikir yang saya ini AB B TP TB ATB
pelajar yang bijak dalam matematik.
23. Apabila saya dapat menyelesaikan kerja rumah AB B TP TB ATB

matematik, ini ialah kerana saya meluangkan masa
yang banyak setiap hari belajar matematik.
186
matematik ini ialah kerana saya tidak mempunyai
bakat semula jadi.
25. Kalau saya gagal dalam sesuatu ujian matematik, AB B TP TB ATB

saya akan berasa amat tidak puas hati.
26. Pelajar lelaki mempunyai kebolehan semulajadi AB B TP TB ATB

dalam matematik yang lebih daripada pelajar
perempuan.
27. Matematik berguna untuk menyelesaikan masalah AB B TP TB ATB

dalam penghidupan seharian.
28. Ibu saya (*) tidak suka kalau dia terpaksa AB B TP TB ATB
menolong saya menyelesaikan masalah matematik.
29. Bapa saya (*) tidak suka kalau dia terpaksa AB B TP TB ATB
menolong saya menyelesaikan masalah matematik.
30. Selalunya, apabila saya dapat menyelesaikan AB B TP TB ATB

sesuatu masalah matematik, ini ialah kerana
masalah tersebut terdapat di awal bab dan dengan
itu lebih mudah daripada soalan lain.
31. Apabila saya tidak berjaya dalam sesuatu ujian AB B TP TB ATB

matematik, ini ialah kerana gum tidak
menerangkan topik berkenaan dengan baik.
32. Kalau saya gagal dalam matematik saya akan AB B TP TB ATB

berasa amat malu.
33. Apabila saya boleh menyelesaikan masalah AB B TP TB ATB

matematik ini ialah k. vrana saya mempunyai
kebolehan semulajadi.
34. Gum matematik saya tidak bertanggungjawab AB B TP TB ATB

membuatkan saya suka (atau tidak suka) kepada
matematik.
35. Kalau saya mendapat gred yang baik dalam AB B TP TB ATB

matematik, saya akan cuba merahsiaknnya.
187

matematik, ini ialah kerana saya berkerja kuat
membuat semua kerja rumah yang diberikan.
37. Kebanyakan orang tidak menggunakan matematik AB B TP TB ATB

apabila mereka keluar dari sekolah.
38. Matematik merupakan satu matapelajaran yang AB B TP TB ATB

amat sukar bagi saya.
39. Saya rasa saya boleh mendapatkan pekerjaan yang AB B TP TB ATB

baik tanpa perlu mempelajari matematik di
sekolah.
40. Apabila saya mendapat gred yang tidak baik dalam AB B TP TB ATB
matematik, ini ialah kerana ujian yang diberikan
terlalu sukar.
41. Pelajar perempuan boleh berjaya dalam matematik AB B TP TB ATB

sama seperti pelajar lelaki.
42. Ibu (*) saya sentiasa menggalakkan saya supaya AB B TP TB ATB

berjaya dalam matematik.
43. Apabila saya tidak dapat menyelesaikan sesuatu AB B TP TB ATB

masalah matematik, ini ialah kerana masalah itu
tidak biasa saya lihat.
44. Saya tidak perlukan matematik untuk berjaya AB B TP TB ATB

dalam pekerjaan saya kelak.

matematik ini ialah kerana saya seorang pelajar
yang lemah dalam matematik.
46. Ibu (*) saya sentiasa membantu saya dalam AB B TP TB ATB

mempelajari matematik.
47. Apabila saya mendapati susah untuk menyelesaikan AB B TP TB ATB

masalah matematik ini ialah kerana saya tidak
boleh berfikir secara logik seperti yang diperlukan
dalam matematik.
188
48. Saya tidak sanggup untuk gagal dalam matematik. AB B TP TB ATB
49. Saya akan berbangga jika menjadi seorang yang AB B TP TB ATB

pintar dalam matematik.
matematik, ini ialah kerana saya tidak meluangkan
masa yang banyak kepada matapelajaran ini.
51. Pengetahuan tentang matematik tidak diperlukan AB B TP TB ATB

dalam kebanyakan pekerjaan.
52. Bapa saya (*) tidak mempedulikan sangat tentang AB B TP TB ATB

matematik yang saya pelajari di sekolah.
53. Guru matematik saya bertanggungjawab AB B TP TB ATB

membuatkan saya bertambah yakin (atau tidak
yakin) dalam matematik.

matematik, ini ialah kerana masalah yang diberikan
itu lebih mudah daripada biasa.
55. Matematik akan membantu saya apabila saya AB B TP TB ATB

berkerja.
56. Saya seorang pelajar yang tidak bagus dalam AB B TP TB ATB

matematik.
57. Apabila saya mendapat gred yang tinggi dalam AB B TP TB ATB

matematik ini ialah kerana gum membuatkan topik
itu menarik.
58. Saya menggunakan masa yang amat sedikit di AB B TP TB ATB

rumah untuk mempelajari matematik.
59. Apabila saya tidak berjaya menyelesaikan masalah AB B TP TB ATB

dalam kerja rumah matematik, ini ialah kerana
masalah itu terlalu sukar.
189

matematik ini ialah kerana saya mengambil masa
yang lebih daripada biasa mengulangkaji untuk
ujian itu.
61. Saya menggunakan masa yang banyak untuk AB B TP TB ATB

belajar matematik di rumah.
62. Walaupun saya diajar oleh guru matematik yang AB B TP TB ATB

lain ini tidak akan memberi kesan kepada prestasi
matematik saya.
63. Orang perempuan memerlukan kerjaya yang sama AB B TP TB ATB

seperti orang laki-laki.
64. Ibu (*) saya sentiasa mengambil berat tentang AB B TP TB ATB

kemajuan saya dalam matematik.
65. Bapa (*) saya sentiasa mengambil berat tentang AB B TP TB ATB

kemajuan saya dalam matematik.
66. Apabila saya berjaya dalam sesuatu ujian AB B TP TB ATB

matematik, ini ialah kerana masalah yang diberikan
itu lebih menarik minat saya.

matematik ini ialah kerana saya kurang belajar.
68. Apabila saya mendapat gred yang baik dalam ujian AB B TP TB ATB
matematik, ini ialah kerana guru menerangkan
topik itu dengan baik.

matematik ini ialah kerana rakan saya membantu
saya memahami topik yang diajar.
70. Saya akan merasa gembira jika saya dikenali AB B TP TB ATB

sebagai seorang pelajar yang cemerlang dalam
matematik.
190
71. Apabila saya membuat kesilapan dalam matematik AB B TP TB ATB

ini ialah kerana saya tidak cukup bagus dalam
matematik.
72. Orang laki-laki adalah lebih baik sebagai saintis AB B TP TB ATB

dan jurutera daripada orang perempuan.
ujian matematik ini ialah kerana masalah yang
diberi terlalu sukar.
74. Bapa (*) saya selalu membantu saya dalam AB B TP TB ATB

mempelajari matematik.
75. Ibu (*) saya tidak mempedulikan sangat tentang AB B TP TB ATB

matematik yang saya pelajari di sekolah.
76. Guru saya bukanlah orang yang bertanggungjawab AB B TP TB ATB

membuatkan saya mahu mempelajari matematik
dengan lebih (atau kurang).
matematik ini ialah kerana saya tidak
mengulangkaji dengan secukupnya.
78. Saya tidak akan merasa malu jika saya gagal dalam AB B TP TB ATB
matematik.
79. Saya rasa saya boleh mendapat gred yang lebih AB B TP TB ATB
baik dalam matematik kalau saya diberikan guru
yang lebih baik.
191
BAH AG IAN B: Sila berikan jawapan anda kepada soalan-soalan berikut dalam
ruangan yang disediakan untuk soalan berkenaan.
1. Bagaimanakah guru anda boleh membantu anda mendapat gred yang lebih baik
dalam matematik?
2. Adakah anda rasa yang prestasi anda dalam matematik itu baik? Kenapa anda
berperasaan begitu?
3. Semasa persekolahan biasa, berapa banyakkah masa yang anda gunakan setiap
minggu. di rumah, untuk belajar matematik (termasuk kerja rumah tetapi tidak
termasuk masa untuk menghadiri tuisyen persendirian - sila lihat soalan 4 di
bawah)?
Tahun lepas:
kurang daripada satu jam

antara satu jam dan lima jam
antara lima jam dan sepuluh jam
lebih daripada sepuluh jam
lain-lain (sila nyatakan)______________
Tahun ini:

antara satu jam dan lima jam
antara lima jam dan sepuluh jam
lebih daripada sepuluh jam
lain-lain (sila nyatakan)_________________
192
4. Semasa persekolahan biasa berapa banyakkah masa yang anda gunakan setiap
minggu untuk menghadiri tuisyen persendirian dalam matematik?
Tahun lepas:
tiada langsung
antara satu jam dan tiga jam
lebih daripada tiga jam
lain-lain (sila nyatakan)_______________
Tahun ini:
tiada langsung
antara satu jam dan tiga jam
lebih daripada tiga jam
lain-lain (sila nyatakan)_______________
5. Bagaimanakah perasaan anda jika anda tidak mendapat gred yang baik dalam
peperiksaan matematik?
6. Mengikut pendapat anda kenapakah anda diperlukan mengambil matapelajaran

matematik di sekolah?
7. Kenapakah anda belajar matematik?
193
BAHAGIAN C: Sila berikan maklumat peribadi tentang diri anda mengikut apa yang
anda tahu.
1. Gred Matematik: _______(PMR) _________ (Peperiksaan Semester Lepas)
2. Adakah anda mengambil matapelajaran matematik tambahan?___Y a Tidak
3. Jantina:_____ Lelaki Perempuan
4. Bangsa:______ M elayu C in a India Lain-lain (Sila

nyatakan)__________
5. Lokasi ru m ah :_____ Bandar______ Desa
6. Kelulusan akademik tertinggi ibu bapa:
Bapa Ibu
_______________ ___ Kurang daripada SPM
_______________ ___ SPM atau yang setaraf
_______________ ___ STPM atau Diploma selepas SPM tetapi kurang

daripada ijazah universiti
_______________ ___ Ijazah universiti atau kelulusan profesyenel yang

setaraf
_______________ ___ Tak pasti (berikan maklumat yang anda tahu)
7. Sepanjang tahun lepas, semasa menghadiri sekolah saya tinggal:
bersama ibu atau bapa,

bersama saudara lain atau kawan (berikan butir-butir lanjut
),
di asrama, atau
cara lain (berikan butir-butir lanjut__________________________ ).
194
8. Sepanjang tahun lepas, semasa cuti sekolah dan tidak melancung, saya tinggal:
bersama ibu atau bapa,

bersama saudara lain atau kawan (berikan butir-butir lanjut
),
di asrama, atau
cara lain (berikan butir-butir lanjut_________________________ ).
9. Tandakan ( /) jika benda-benda berikut ada di rumah ibu bapa anda dan ( x )
jika tiada:
M otokar, M otorsikai, Televisyen, Peti sejuk,

Ensaiklopedia, Kom puter, Piano.
10. Akhbar apakah yang dilanggan di rumah ibu bapa anda?__________________
11. Majalah apakah yang dilanggan di rumah ibu bapa anda?___________________
12. Kursus apakah yang anda ingin ambil selepas tamat sekolah menengah?
13. Apakah cita-cita anda?
14. Gred Matematik yang saya jangkakan saya akan dapat dalam peperiksaan SPM
akan datang ialah _____________________
195
APPENDIX F
English Translation of Research Questionnaire
196
Research Questionaire
INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS:
1. This questionnaire is NOT a test for any of the courses you are taking. You
will not be given any grade for your response to this questionnaire.
2. This questionnaire consists of three sections, A, B, and C. Section A contains

several statements while Section B contains several questions. Section C
consists of several questions about you personally.
3. The statements in Section A are designed so that we would be able to

understand what your ideas are and how you feel about mathematics and about
learning mathematics. Please give your opinion on each of the statements by
circling the appropriate letters that agree with your choice of response.
4. The questions in Section B are open-ended questions intended to get a clearer

and deeper picture o f your feelings and idea about teaching and learning of
mathematics. Please give your response to each question according to your
real feeling.
5. Please give your answers to all statements and questions according to how you
feel. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers in this questionnaire. The
only correct answers are those that are true for you.
6. Your answers are completely anonymous. I will need your ID number on this
front page so that I can check your mathematics grades from the school
record. The mathematics grades will be obtained from the school
administration using ID numbers only1. I will immediately destroy this front
page of the questionnaire after I am able to record your grades on the response
booklets. In this way no one (including the researcher) will be able to connect
your ID number with your responses.
7. Thank you very much for your cooperation. If you have any questions at any
time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher,
Mohamad Ali Hassan. at 811 Tulip Tree. Bloomington. Indiana IN47406.
U .S.A .. or telephone (8121 857-5185. My permanent address in Malaysia is
B-44 Kampong Jambu. Langgar. 26600 Pekan. Pahang P .M .
ID Number
1 This was not carried out due to concerns over confidentiality
197
SECTION A: For this section please circle your choice of response to each
statement.
If you strongly agree with the statement given circle AB

If you agree with the statement given circle B
If you are uncertain about the statement given circle TP
If you disagree with the statement given circle TB
If you strongly disagree with the statement given circle ATB
EXAMPLE: If you agree with the following statement but have a few cases where
you are not certain or you do not completely agree with the statement, circle B as
shown below:
1. I prefer to study with my friends than to AB B TP TB ATB

study on my own.
You do not have to answer questions marked with (*) if you no longer stay with your
father or mother. For example, if your father is deceased and you are staying with
your unmarried mother, or if there is a divorce and you are staying with your
unmarried mother, answer only the questions concerning mother and leave all the
questions concerning father. Step mother or step father or adopted mother or adopted
father can be considered as father or mother.
1. When I did well in math it was because of my talent in math.
2. I am sure that I can learn mathematics.
3. I spend a lot of my study time on mathematics when compared to other

subjects.
4. Id be happy to get an A in mathematics.
5. My father(*) doesnt care about my mathematics grades.
6. My mother(*) doesnt care about my mathematics grades.
7. My mathematics teachers have been influential in making me like or dislike

mathematics.
8. Failing mathematics will not affect my future plans.
9. My mathematics teachers have not been influential in my success (or lack of
198
success) in mathematics.
10. When I was able to do my math homework successfully, it was because I am a

very able math student.
11. When I did not do well in mathematics it was because the teacher
confused me.
12. When I did not do well in math it was because the teacher spent too little time
in class discussing the topics concerned.
13. I can get good grade in mathematics.
14. Compared to other subjects, I spend the least time on mathematics at home.
15. I dont think I will be using the mathematics I learn in school in my job.
16. It doesnt bother me if I fail in mathematics.
17. My father(*) has strongly encouraged me to do well in mathematics.
18. It is important to know mathematics to get a good job.
19. When I did not do well in math it was because I could not get enough help
from the teacher.
20. Im not the type to do well in math
21. School mathematics is useful for me so that I can continue my studies.
22. I dont like people to think I am smart in mathematics.
23. When I was able to do my math homework successfully, it was because I spent
a lot of time each day studying mathematics.
24. When I did not do well in mathematics it was because I dont have the ability.
25. If I fail in a mathematics test I would feel very much dissatisfied.
26. Boys have more natural ability in mathematics than girls.
27. Mathematics is useful for solving problems in everyday life.
28. My mother(*) hates to help me in math.
199
29. My father(*) hates to help me in math.
30. When I could do the math problems, it was usually because the problems were
from the beginning of the chapters and were therefore easier.
31. When I did not do well in mathematics it was because the teacher did not
explain the topic very well.
32. If I fail in a mathematics test I would be very much ashamed.
33. When I was able to solve problems in mathematics it was becauseof my

natural ability.
34. My mathematics teacher does not do anything to make me like or dislike

mathematics.
35. If I had good grades in math, I would try to hide it.
36. When I did well in mathematics it was because I worked hard doing the
homeworks assigned.
37. Most people do not use mathematics when they go out of school.
38. Math seems to be unusually hard for me.
39. I think I can get a good job without learning school mathematics.
40. When I did not do well in mathematics it was because the test was too
difficult.
41. Girls can do as well in mathematics as boys can.
42. My mother(*) has strongly encouraged me to do well in mathematics.
43. When I was not able to solve a problem it was because the problem did not
seem familiar to me.
44. I do not need mathematics to become successful in my future job.
45. When I received low grade in mathematics it was because I was a poor math
student.
46. My motherf*) regularly helps me in my math.
200
47. When I had difficulty doing math problems it was because I did not think in a
logical way that math requires.
48. I cant afford to fail mathematics.
49. I d be proud to be an outstanding student in mathematics.
50. When I did not do well in mathematics it was because I spent toolittle time on
the subject.
51. A knowledge of mathematics is not necessary in most occupations.
52. My father(*) cares very little about the math that I learn in school.
53. My mathematics teachers are responsible for making me less (or more
confident) in mathematics.
54. When I did well in mathematics it was because the problems were easier than
usual.
55. Mathematics will help me when I am doing my job.
56. I am no good in mathematics.
57. When I did well in math it was because the teacher made the topic interesting.
58. I spend very little time on mathematics at home.
59. When I was not able to solve my math homework problem, it was because the
problem was too difficult.
60. When I did well in mathematics it was because I spent more time than normal
studying for the exam.
61. I spend a lot of my time at home on mathematics.
62. Even if I have had different mathematics teachers this would not have affected
my performance in mathematics.
63. A woman needs a career just as much as a man does.
64. My mother(*) has always been interested in my progress in math.
65. My father(*) has always been interested in my progress in math.
201
66. When I did well in mathematics it was because the problems were more
interesting.
67. When I did not do well in mathematics it was because I did not work hard
enough.
68. When I did well in mathematics it was because the teacher explained the topic
real well.
69. When I did well in mathematics it was because my friends helped me

understand the topics taught.
70. It would make me happy to be recognized as an excellent student in math.
71. When I made a mistake in mathematics, it was because I was not good
enough.
72. Men make better scientists and engineers than women.
73. When I did not do well in a test it was because the problems were too
difficult.
74. My father(*) regularly helps me in my math.
75. My mother(*) cares very little about the math that I learn in school.
76. My mathematics teachers are not the ones responsible for making me want to
learn more (or less) mathematics.
77. When I did not do well in math it was because I did not put enough effort over
my work.
78. I would not feel ashamed if I fail in mathematics.
79. I think I would have done better in mathematics if I have had better
mathematics teachers.
202
SECTION B: Please give your answers to the following questions in the spaces
provided.
1. How can your teacher help you obtain better grades in mathematics?
2. Do you think you are doing well or badly in mathematics? Why do you think
you do well or badly in the subject?
3. During a regular school week how much time on average do you spend on
mathematics at home per week (not including private tutorial sessions, see
question 4 below)?
Last year:
(a) less than 1 hour

(b) between 1 hour and 5 hours
(c) between 5 hours and 10 hours
(d) more than 10 hours
(e) others (please specify)
This year:
(a) less than 1 hour

(b) between 1 hour and 5 hours
(c) between 5 hours and 10 hours
203
4. During a regular school week how much time on average do you spend
attending private tutorial sessions in mathematics outside school hours?
Last year:
(a) not at all

(b) 1 hour o r less
(c) between 1 hour and 3 hours
This year:
(a) not at all

(b) 1 hour or less
(c) between 1 hour and 3 hours
5. When you dont do well in mathematics how do you feel about it?
6. Why do you think that you are required to take mathematics in school?
7. 'Why do you study math?
204
SECTION C: Please give the following information on yourself to the best o f your
knowledge.
1. Mathematics Grade: _______ (PMR) _________ (Last semester exam)
2. Are you taking the additional mathematics course? Y es No
3. Gender:_____ Male Female
4. Ethnicity:______M alay_______Chinese______ Indian______ Others (please

specify)________________
5. Location of house:_____ Urban ______ Rural
6. Parents highest academic qualification
Father Mother
__________________ Lower than SPM
__________________ SPM or equivalent
__________________ STPM or post SPM diploma but lower than

University degree
___ University degree or equivalent professional

qualification
___ Not sure (give any information you know)
7. During the whole of the last school year, I lived
with my father o r mother,

with other relatives or friends (please specify),
in the hostel, or
have other arrangements (please specify)?
205
8. During the school holidays of last year, I lived
with my father or mother,

with other relatives or friends (please specify),
in the hostel, or
have other arrangements (please specify)?
9. Do you have the following items at home:
C a r, M otorcycle, Television, Refrigerator,

Encyclopedia, Com puter, Piano?
10. What newspaper(s) is(are) subscribed to in your hom e?____________
11. What magazine(s) is(are) subscribed to in your hom e?______________
12. What course would you like to take after you finish secondary school?
13. What career are you considering in the future?
14. What mathematics grade do you expect to get in the upcoming SPM
examination.
The responses to these questions were not analyzed in this study.
206
APPENDIX G
Number of Cases, Means, and

Percentage Agreed, Undecided, and Disagreed
for Each Statement in the Questionnaire, Arranged by Scales
Note: Throughout Appendix G, "Agreed" includes responses of Strongly

Agreed and Agreed-, "Disagreed" includes responses of Strongly
Disagreed and Disagreed
207
Appendix G
Number Percentage
+ /- Statements
o f Cases Mean Agreed Undecided Disagreed
Confidence in Learning Mathematics (CONF) - Mean per item = 3.70
+ I am sure that I can learn mathematics 528 4.30 89.6 10.0 0.4
+ I can get good grade in mathematics 524 4.16 78.9 0.4 0.4
- I am no good in mathematics 526 3.29 19.4 37.8 42.8
- Math seems to be unusually hard for me 504 2.82 42.3 27.0 30.8
- Im not the type to do well in math 524 3.95 5.7 24.0 70.2
oo
Attitude toward Success in Mathematics (SUCC) - Mean per item = 3.82
+ Id be happy to get an A in mathematics 528 4.84 98.3 0.9 0.8

+ Id be proud to be an outstanding student
in mathematics 527 4.43 89.2 7.2 3.6
- I dont like people to think I am smart in
mathematics 520 2.63 47.9 33.7 18.4
- If I had good grades in math, I would try to hide it 510 3.07 27.5 36.9 35.7
+ It would make me happy to be recognized as an
excellent student in math 524 4.10 76.8 15.1 8.2
Appendix G (Continued)
Number Percentage
+ /- Statements
of Cases Mean Agreed Undecided Disagreed
Attitude toward Failure in Mathematics (FAIL) - Mean per item 4.17
Failing mathematics will not affect my future plans 528 3.74 16.9 20.6 62.5
+ I cant afford to fail mathematics 528 4.50 93.2 5.3 1.6
It doesnt bother me if I fail in mathematics 521 4.48 4.0 4.2 91.8
I would not feel ashamed if I fail in mathematics 527 4.15 8.6 11.6 79.9
+ If I fail in a mathematics test I would be very much
ashamed 508 3.93 75.6 13.6 10.8
+ If I fail in a mathematics test I would feel very
much dissatisfied 510 4.28 89.4 5.3 5.2
Usefulness in Everyday Life (USEL) - Mean per item = 4.00
I dont think I will be using the mathematics I learn

in school in my job 522 4.12 3.4 22.6 73.9
A knowledge o f mathematics is not necessary in
most occupations 528 4.07 5.3 17.2 77.5
+ Mathematics will help me when I am doing my job 526 4.27 85.7 12.4 1.9
+ Mathematics is useful for solving problems in
everyday life 510 4.18 82.7 14.3 3.0
Most people do not use mathematics when they go
out of school 505 3.34 19.0 39.6 41.4
Number Percentage
+ /- Statements ----------------------------------------------
Usefulness for Entry into a College or Entry into a Job (USECD - Mean per item = 4.44
+ It is important to know mathematics to get a good job 521 4.66 95.7 2.9 1.4
+ School mathematics is useful for me so that I can
continue my studies 524 4.56 95.0 4.2 0.8
- I think I can get a good job without learning school
mathematics 506 4.21 2.6 17.4 80.1
- I do not need mathematics to become successful in
my future job 505 4.35 1.8 12.1 86.1
Gender Stereotyping in Mathematics (GEND) - Mean Der item = 3.52
_ Boys have more natural ability in mathematics than girls 509 3.25 21.0 40.9 38.1
- Men make better scientists and engineers than women 527 3.00 33.2 31.1 35.6
+ Girls can do as well in mathematics as boys can 506 4.19 81.0 16.6 2.4
+ A woman needs a career just as much as a man does 523 3.66 59.8 28.5 11.7
Number Percentage
Statements
Attribution o f Success
Success-Task (ST) - Mean per item = 3.65
When I did well in mathematics it was because the

problems were more interesting 522 3.84 70.3 24.7 5.0
problems were easier than usual 527 3.54 54.7 32.6 12.7
Usually when I could do the math problems it was because the problems
were from the beginning o f the chapters and were therefore easier 510 3.58 57.7 28.2 14.2
Success-Ability fSA) - Mean per item = 3.17

to
When I did well in math it was because o f my talent in math 524 3.24 43.5 32.3 24.2
When I was able to solve problems in mathematics it
was because o f my natural ability 505 2.99 25.2 47.9 27.0
When I was able to do my math homework successfully,
it was because I am a very able math student 527 3.28 40.4 42.1 17.4
Success-Effort CSEF1 - Mean per item = 3.83
When I did well in mathematics it was because I spent

more time than normal studying for the exam 524 3.92 73.5 22.9 3.7
When I did well in mathematics it was because I
worked hard doing the homework assigned 506 4.03 78.6 15.0 6.3
When I was able to do my math homework successfully,it was
because I spent a lot o f time each day studying mathematics 523 3.52 52.8 33.7 13.6
Number Percentage
Statements
Success-Environment (SEN) - Mean per item = 3.88
When I did well in mathematics it was because my

friends helped me understand the topics taught 524 3.77 68.6 25.4 6.1
teacher explained the topic real well 522 4.03 79.9 17.0 3.1
When I did well in math it was because the teacher
made the topic interesting 528 3.82 68.5 24.1 7.4
Attribution o f Failure
Failure-Task (FT) - Mean per item = 3.30
When I did not do well in mathematics it was because

the test was too difficult 505 2.96 28.7 35.8 35.5
When I did not do well in a test it was because the
problems were too difficult 525 3.30 47.1 33.9 19.1
When I was not able to solve my math homework problem,
it was because the problem was too difficult 528 3.64 64.2 26.3 9.5
When I was not able to solve a problem it was because
the problem did not seem familiar to me 505 3.35 47.3 32.5 20.2
Appendix G ( Continued)
Number Percentage
Statements
Failure-Abilitv (FA") - Mean per item = 3.09
When I made a mistake in mathematics, it was because I was not

good enough 526 3.23 43.2 30.6 26.2
I dont have the ability 509 2.42 11.0 30.6 58.4
When I received low grade in mathematics it was
because I was a poor math student 505 3.12 42.4 24.0 33.6
When I had difficulty doing math problems it was because
I cannot think in a logical way that math requires 505 3.59 58.1 30.5 11.5
Failure-Effort (FEF) - Mean per item = 4.02

I spent too little time on the subject 527 4.06 81.7 12.1 6.1
I did not work hard enough 522 3.97 80.5 11.7 7.9
When I did not do well in math it was because I did not
put enough effort over my work 526 4.04 83.3 11.0 5.8
Number Percentage
Statements_____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________
Failure-Environment (FEN) - Mean per item = 2.64

the teacher did not explain the topic very well 510 2.75 22.8 29.2 48.1
When I did not do well in mathematics it was because the
teacher confused me 527 2.39 14.2 24.3 61.5
When I did not do well in math it was because I could
not get enough help from the teachers 523 2.99 29.0 37.3 33.7
When I did not do well in math it was because the teacher spent too
little time in class discussing the topics concerned 526 2.47 15.9 25.7 58.4
+ /- Time SDent on Mathematics at Home (TIME) - Mean ner item = 2.99
I spend very little time on mathematics at home 526 2.75 46.0 26.6 27.4
+ I spend a lot o f my study time on mathematics when
compared to other subjects 520 3.11 35.0 36.5 28.5
- Compared to other subjects, I spend the least time
on mathematics at home 522 3.01 35.3 27.4 37.3
+ I spend a lot o f my time at home on mathematics 524 3.05 30.7 41.0 28.2
During a regular school week how much time on average do you spend on mathematics at home per week (not including private
tutorial sessions, see question 6 below)?
Number of
Cases Percentage
Last year:
(a) less than 1 hour 217 4i .1

(b) between 1 hour and 5 hours 231 43.8
(c) between 5 hours and 10 hours 53 10.0
(d) more than 10 hours 16 3.0
(e) others (please specify) 4 0.8
This year:
to
t> l
(a) less than 1 hour 217 41.1
(b) between 1 hour and 5 hours 234 44.3
(c) between 5 hours and 10 hours 48 9.1
How much time per week do you spend attending private tutorial sessions in mathematics outside school hours?
Number of
Cases Percentage
Last year:
(a) not at all 294 55.7

(b) 1 hour or less 61 11.6
(c) between 1 hour and 3hours 129 24.4
This year:
(a) not at all 366 69.3

(b) 1 hour or less 76 14.4
(c) between 1 hour and 3hours 55 10.4
Appendix G ( Continued)
Number Percentage
+ /- Statements
Fathers SuDDort in Learning Mathematics (FATHt - Mean ner item = 3.94
+ My father has always encouraged me to do well in mathematics 480 4.20 81.1 13.3 5.7
- My father hates it if he has to help me in mathematics 467 3.77 6.2 32.3 61.5
+ My father has always been interested in my progress in math 480 4.08 79.0 16.3 4.8
- My father doesnt care about my mathematics grades 482 4.14 8.3 14.9 76.8
+ My father regularly helps me in my math 480 3.45 52.0 29.2 18.8
My father cares very little about the math that I learn in school 481 3.98 7.4 20.4 72.1
N> Mothers Support in Learning Mathematics (MOTH) - Mean per item = 3.92

*
+ My mother has always encouraged me to do well in mathematics 481 4.32 87.8 9.4 2.9
- My mother hates it if she has to help me in mathematics 482 3.74 5.8 34.0 60.2
+ My mother has always been interested in my progress in math 496 4.03 77.9 16.5 5.6
- My mother doesnt care about my mathematics grades 502 4.17 6.2 16.5 77.3
+ My mother regularly helps me in my math 480 3.33 44.4 35.4 20.2
- My mother cares very little about the math that I learn in school 500 3.84 9.0 22.2 68.8
Number Percentage
+ /- Statements ____________________
Teachers Role in Attitude Toward Mathematics (TEACHAi - Mean per item = 3.70
My mathematics teachers are not the ones responsible for making me

want to learn more or less mathematics 525 3.55 15.8 24.6 59.6
My mathematics teachers have been influential in making me like
or dislike mathematics 520 3.80 66.4 21.7 11.9
My mathematics teachers are responsible for making me less or more
confident in mathematics 527 4.00 77.4 19.0 3.6
My mathematics teacher does not do anything to make me like or
dislike mathematics 508 3.47 17.9 26.4 55.7
K>
>-*
oo
Teachers role in Success in Mathematics (TEACHS) - Mean per item = 3.42
+ I think I would have done better in mathematics if I have had better

mathematics teachers 527 3.55 47.8 37.4 14.8
Even if I have had different mathematics teachers this would not have
affected my performance in mathematics 523 3.08 25.8 40.7 33.5
My mathematics teachers have not been influential in my success
(or lack o f success) in mathematics 520 3.62 12.5 29.8 57.7
VITA
Mohamad Ali Bin Hassan1 was bom in Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia on 10

December 1948. He attended the first four years of his primary school in a small
fishermans village called Serandu in Pekan before moving to an English school in
Kuantan, Pahang. He graduated from the Sultan Abu Bakar Secondary School in
Kuantan in 1966 and was awarded a scholarship by the government of Malaysia to
study for a mathematics degree at the University of Aston in Birmingham.
After returning home with a B.Sc. in technological mathematics in 1971, he

immediately joined the teaching staff of the MARA Institute of Technology (ITM). In
1973 he was awarded a scholarship by ITM to study for an M.Sc. degree in industrial
mathematics and statistics at the University of Aston which he completed in one year.
Upon returning home to Malaysia, he was appointed to several administrative

positions at the Institute (ITM) including Course Tutor (Head of Department) for the
actuarial science program, Deputy Principal of the Institutes Sabah branch campus,
and Principal of the Sarawak branch campus. In 1981 he was again awarded a
scholarship by the Institute to study for an M.A. degree in actuarial science at the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. While studying for this degree he passed five
associateship examinations of the Society of Actuaries.
After completing the actuarial science degree he was again appointed, in

succession, to the Institutes administrative positions of Deputy Dean of Academic
Affairs, Dean of Academic Affairs, and Deputy Director for Academic and Students
Affairs. The last two administrative positions involved the supervision of the joint
academic program between the Institute (ITM) and Indiana University in Malaysia.
In 1991 he was awarded another scholarship by ITM and a fellowship by Indiana
University to study for a doctoral degree in mathematics education. Upon completion
of the Ph.D. in 1995, he returned to his position as an academic staff of the MARA
Institute of Technology.
1 Official name used in this disertation and for other academic publications is Bin Hassan
Mohamad-Ali

BM Tosra

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

BM Tosra

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon th e quality of the

In th e unlikely event th at the author did n o t send U M I a com plete

O versize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

University M icrofilm s International

Bin Hassan Mohamad-Ali

Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School

UMI Microform 9531482

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

Frank K. Lester, Jr., Ph.D.

Harbans Bhola, Ph.D.

Bin Hassan Mohamad-Ali

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful.

servant and messenger. O my Lord! Advance me in knowledge.

continue giving me guidance for the rest of my life.

This dissertation is also dedicated to all members of my family. Each has

necessary leading to this degree.

To my wife, Fadilah, I have much to thank for her continuous encouragement

times and provided me with continuous reminders to work conscientiously throughout.

States while all this was going on.

blessings to both of you.

that eventually made all this possible.

My thanks also goes to the faculty at Indiana University, Bloomington who

were so helpful to me as I muddled through the graduate program in education.

Professor Harbans Bhola has been instrumental in giving me suggestions in the

provided me with a lot of advice concerning the issues and fundamentals of

mathematics education as well as suggestions for improving the writing of the

Attitudes toward Mathematics of

Bin Hassan Mohamad-Ali

Attitudes are often measured in educational research because of their possible

those found among students in the United States.

were administered attitude measures. Data were analyzed by gender, school,

positive attitudes in the attitude scales designed to measure confidence, usefulness,

more to lack of effort than to lack of ability.

was confidence, while gender stereotyping correlated negatively with achievement.

by gender stereotyping (negative), and perception of fathers support. For female

students, confidence was also the strongest predictor of achievement.

2. REVIEW O F RELATED L IT E R A T U R E ......................................................... 14

4. ANALYSIS O F DATA ..................................................................................... 61

5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSION ..................................... 112

Analysis by Gender, Urban-Rural, and

APPENDIX A: Application Form to do Research in the Schools in

APPENDIX B: Permission to do Research from Ministry of

APPENDIX C: Permission to do Research by State Director

APPENDIX D: IUB Information Sheet with Malay T ra n s la tio n ......................... 178

APPENDIX E: Research Questionnaire ....................................................................182

APPENDIX F: English Translation o f Research Questionnaire........................... 196

APPENDIX G: Number of Cases, Means, and Percentage Agreed,

Table 3.1 Sample by School ind Gender .............................................................. 56

Table 3.2 Sample by School and Urban-Rural Status .......................................... 56

Table 3.3 Sample by School and Achievement (PMRGrades) ............................ 57

Table 4.1 Reliability Coefficients (Cronbachs a), Means,

Table 4.2 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for

Table 4.3 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for

Table 4.4 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for

Table 4.5 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for

Table 4.6 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Usefulness of

Table 4.7 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Usefulness of

Table 4.9 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Success-Task"

Table 4.10 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Success-Ability"

Table 4.11 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for "Success-Effort"