Parents Perceptions of The Importance of Teaching Mathematics - A

Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive
Theses and Dissertations
2023-08-11
Parents' Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics:

A Q-Study
Ashlynn M. Holley
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

Holley, Ashlynn M., "Parents' Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics: A Q-Study" (2023).
Theses and Dissertations. 10106.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/10106
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please
contact ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
Parents’ Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics: A Q-Study
Ashlynn M. Holley
A thesis submitted to the faculty of

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Steve R. Williams, Chair

Daniel K. Siebert
Douglas L. Corey
Department of Mathematics Education
Copyright © 2023 Ashlynn M. Holley
All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT
Parents’ Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics: A Q-Study
Ashlynn M. Holley
Department of Mathematics Education, BYU
Master of Science
Mathematics education has gone through multiple reform efforts over the last century and
continues to be the target of improvement efforts. Past changes in curriculum and goals have
sometimes led to heated debates between various stakeholders. Knowing the views of different
stakeholders can help determine what common ground there is between these different groups
and where areas of disagreement might arise. Parents are especially important to understand
because they have been influential in past reform efforts. Despite the importance of parents’
opinions, little research has been conducted concerning their perspectives on the importance of
mathematics teaching. Using Q-methodology, I was able to discern major beliefs about
mathematics teaching held by parents including the most and least important reasons for teaching
mathematics, as well as the commonalities and differences in parents’ perspectives.
Keywords: teaching, mathematics, parents, perspectives, q-methodology, curriculum, reform

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank my amazing family, especially my parents, for all of their love
and support to get me where I am today. They have helped me value education in my life and
have encouraged me and cheered me on when I did not know if I could finish. I could not have
done it without them.
I would also like my advisor, Steve Williams, for being an amazing mentor as I have
worked on my thesis and for his incredible patience, guidance, and expertise. I would also like
to thank the others who served on my committee, including Dan Siebert, Doug Corey, and Kate
Johnson, for their insights on how my work could improve and for their confidence in me to
accomplish my goals.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the others who have helped me in my journey in the
graduate program at BYU. I enjoyed the time in my classes taught by Doug Corey, Steven
Jones, Keith Leatham, Blake Peterson, Dan Siebert, and Steve Williams, my hallway chats with
Tenille Cannon, Sharon Christensen, and Stephanie Brunner, as well as being mentored by Dawn
Teuscher during my time teaching College Algebra. I enjoyed learning next to and from my
fellow graduate students in the program, and I will forever remember the countless hours spent
working, laughing, and encouraging each other in our offices. I would also like to thank Kathy
Lee Garrett for keeping things organized and making sure I had everything done in order to
graduate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 4
History of U.S. Mathematics Education ..................................................................................... 4
Backlash Through History .......................................................................................................... 6
The Importance of Parents as Stakeholders ................................................................................ 8
Previous Studies in Valuing Mathematics Education ............................................................... 11
Views, Attitudes, Opinions, and Beliefs ................................................................................... 16
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 19
Q-Methodology Overview ........................................................................................................ 19
Q-Methodology Steps ............................................................................................................... 22
Concourse and Selection of Subset ........................................................................................... 23
Selection of Participants ........................................................................................................... 24
iv
Data Collection: Q-Sorting and Interview ................................................................................ 25
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 26
Factor Analysis as Applied to Q-Methodology .................................................................... 26
Choosing the Number of Factors .......................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 31
Consensus Statements ............................................................................................................... 31
Description of Factors ............................................................................................................... 34
Factor 1: Personal and Scientific Utility ............................................................................... 34
Factor 2: Training the Brain.................................................................................................. 39
Factor 3: Personally Meaningful ........................................................................................... 43
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 47
Follow-up Interviews ................................................................................................................ 48
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 51
Answering the Research Questions .......................................................................................... 51
Answering Research Question #1 ......................................................................................... 51
Answering Research Question #2 ......................................................................................... 52
Reflection on History ............................................................................................................ 52
Mathematics Education Today ............................................................................................. 53
Contributions............................................................................................................................. 53
Parents’ Perspectives ............................................................................................................ 53
v
Q-methodology ..................................................................................................................... 55
Implications............................................................................................................................... 55
Limitations and Direction for Future Research ........................................................................ 56
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 57
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 58
Appendix A: Statements ............................................................................................................... 63
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Factors and Loadings Following Rotation.….………………………………………. . 29
Table 2: Consensus Statements .................................................................................................... 32
Table 3: Statements with Ranks Greater Than 2 or Less Than -2 for Factor 1 ........................... 36
Table 4: Statements Ranked Higher/Lower in Factor 1 Than in Any Other Factor .................... 38
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Distribution Grid .......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2: Factor and Eigenvalue Scree Plot ............................................................................... 28
viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
For most of recorded history, mathematics has been a subject of formal instruction,
beginning with the scribes of ancient Egypt and Babylon over 4000 years ago, and continuing to
the present day. For much of that time, mathematics instruction focused on methods of solving
practical problems. Around 2000 years ago, the ancient Greeks began to reason more about
theoretical mathematical questions, but mathematics retained its focus on describing the real
world. Thus, calculus was developed and became an indispensable tool of science. Mathematics
continued to change in more abstract ways that led to different mathematical structures, some of
which include group theory, ring theory, and linear algebra (Baumslag, 2014). Despite current
mathematics’ dual nature as both practical and abstract, today as in the past, there is little doubt
that mathematics should be taught at least to some segment of the population for whom it would
be useful. For most of history, this has meant that arithmetic, some simple geometry involving
areas and volumes, and perhaps some mathematics of calendaring were taught to a select few
whose duties required such knowledge. Now, a much wider range of mathematical topics are
available.
Over time, societal changes such as industrialization, growth in scientific knowledge and
technology, and patterns of exploration and immigration have complicated the issues of what
mathematics should be taught and to whom. In the context of the United States, an influx of
immigrant students and the shift from an agricultural to an industrial economy changed the view
of who should be educated, the number of students able to attend school, and the perceived
importance of mathematical knowledge for society. In the last century, these factors have led to
various changes in the mathematics curriculum. Each of these changes was accompanied by
pushback and sometimes vitriolic arguments about the proposed changes (Herrera & Owens,
1
2001; Klein, 2007; Roitman, 1999; Schoenfeld, 2004; Wilson, 2003). Although there seems to
be a current lull in the public debate over mathematics curriculum, on the whole there have been
at best temporary agreements about what mathematics should be taught.
The history of these changes also illustrates the importance that various educational
stakeholders play in decisions about school mathematics. There are many different reasons for
caring about why mathematics should be taught in schools, which may vary with the relationship
people have with the school system. Each group of stakeholders may have quite different
reasons for believing that mathematics is important, and thus quite different views of why and
how it should be taught. These stakeholders include teachers, principals, mathematicians,
parents, students, politicians, researchers, etc. (Janmaat et al., 2016).
Hendrickson (1974), writing shortly after one effort to reform mathematics instruction
(the “New Math”) and during the first efforts of another (a renewed push beyond “Basic Skills”
to include problem solving), considered several responses to the question, “Why do we teach
mathematics?” In his brief article he considered potential answers from a range of different
stakeholders. For students, mathematics can bring increase access to further schooling, better
employment, as well as the enjoyment of solving personally relevant quantitative problems. It
can further enhance mental skills (e.g. abstract and critical reasoning), and for some can bring the
enjoyment of the beauty and the structure of the subject. For society as a whole, mathematics
can play a pivotal role in solving problems from “physical, social, and cultural situations” (p.
468). Including current problems involving the environment, economy, and social inequalities.
Finally, it is instrumental in training scientists and engineers (STEM workers), and producing
better informed and more involved citizens.
2
Collecting data about why different stakeholders value teaching and learning
mathematics can help us understand if groups of stakeholders value mathematical knowledge for
different reasons and thus understand the perceived goals of teaching mathematics. In order to
agree on what mathematics curriculum should be taught, we must understand what people
believe the purpose of teaching mathematics is. Knowing different stakeholder’s values will
help determine if there is a common ground between the groups, and such common ground can
act as a starting point for curricular decisions. If there is no common ground, then knowing what
different stakeholders value can act as a starting point to further discussion and negotiation about
how much mathematics and what kinds of mathematics should be taught in schools.
In the following chapter I will review the recent history of mathematics teaching reforms
in the United States as well as the resulting conflicts that have occurred over the issue of what
mathematics should be taught. I will then review what is known about the importance of
stakeholders in general and parents in particular, as well as look over the relatively sparse
literature on opinions of why school mathematics is important. The chapter will end with my
research questions.
3
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND
History of U.S. Mathematics Education
In order to better understand the complexity of the question of what mathematics should
be taught, it helps to review the history of mathematics being taught in the United States over the
past hundred years or so. Up through the end of the 19th century, high school and college was for
the elite, with the vast majority of people receiving a basic elementary school education at best
(Schoenfeld, 2004). By the beginning of World War II, more and more students were attending
school, with the number of students attending high school in 1940 being almost 20 times the
number of students attending high school in 1890, where almost 75% of 14-17 year-olds in
America attending (Stanic, 1986). However, with this influx of more students, the curriculum
did not change from earlier and the more diverse student population was not adequately prepared
to successfully engage in the curriculum meant for the elite.
The next substantial change in the mathematics curriculum happened in the late 1950s.
In 1957, the USSR successfully launched Sputnik into space. This caused Americans to worry
that they were falling behind in the scientific field, so more of an emphasis was placed on the
sciences and mathematics in school. This led to the creating of a new mathematics curriculum,
called New Math (Schoenfeld, 2004). However, New Math ended up not finding success in
schools. One reason is that the teachers were not trained and prepared to teach it, so they were
uncomfortable trying to implement it in their classrooms and additionally did not really buy into
its vision. Additionally, parents did not recognize the mathematics that their students were being
taught and ultimately rejected the change because they did not see the value of it. These two
examples show the importance of considering the viewpoints of various stakeholders, in this case
the teachers and the parents. The importance of stakeholders will be discussed in more detail
4
later. Ultimately, by the early 1970s, New Math stopped being used in schools, and school
mathematics returned to being focused on skills and procedures as it used to be, which became
known as the Back to Basics movement (Schoenfeld, 2004).
In reaction, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published An
Agenda for Action in 1980 with eight recommendations for school mathematics, including
making problem solving a basic skill. The recommendations were the catalyst for further efforts
to reform mathematics classrooms, including the 1985 California Mathematics Framework
written by the California State Education Department, and eventually, NCTM’s Curriculum and
Evaluation Standards in 1989 (Schoenfeld, 2004). The goal of the Standards was to create a
vision of what mathematically literacy should include, what mathematics should be valued, and
guide in the revision of mathematics curriculum in schools. The Standards included topics that
should receive less attention in school, several of these include rote memorization and complex
computations by hand. However, the Standards were written at a level of generality, which left a
great room for different interpretations from schools, teachers, and curriculum creators and
consequently led to different material being taught, all claiming to be following the Standards
(Schoenfeld, 2004).
In 1995, NCTM published the Assessment Standards for School Mathematics to help
promote the development of new assessment strategies that would assist teachers to evaluate
their students’ performance that reflects the reformed vision of mathematics that NCTM held
(NCTM, n.d.). Five years later, in 2000, NCTM published Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics, which was a new version of standards for rigorous college and career readiness. It
also emphasized the importance of having well-prepared and well-supported teachers to lead to a
high-quality mathematics education program.
5
Most recently, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) were
established by a consortium of states in 2010 (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). CCSSM includes learning goals
regarding the mathematical content that should be covered, as well as mathematical practices
students should engage in. NCTM states that the goal of the CCSSM is “to ensure that all
students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in
college, career, and life, regardless of where they live” (NCTM, n.d.). It is helpful because it
specifies what students should know at the end of each grade and brings more continuity for
mathematics education throughout the states, seeing that 41 states initially adopted the CCSSM.
Despite the good intentions of the standards, they have been faced with backlash from some.
Backlash Through History
Schoenfeld (2004) discusses the time of debates after the Standards (NCTM, 1989) were
released, with one of the fronts in California. The California Mathematics Framework (CSED,
1985) encompassed a vision of what should be included in mathematics instruction and shared
much of the general philosophy of the 1989 NCTM Standards document. With this came new
change in material and practices, which raised concern among some parents, who started forming
organizations against the reform. For example, a sample of a test was released, which had
questions that asked students to calculate an answer and then write a memo justifying their
answer, but there was backlash because students who gave incorrect answers, but good
explanation were graded higher than students who got the correct answer but gave insufficient
explanation. In 1995 and 1996, there were public hearings held regarding the Framework to
promote dialogue about the standards. Eventually, the math wars grew to a national scale by
6
1998 and various anti-reform movements were held across the nation, with pro-reformers often
unable to effectively counter the attacks on the reform movement.
The debates and disagreements continue today. In February 2021, California tried to
approve new guidelines regarding mathematics education in public schools, “but ever since a
draft was opened for public comment in February, the recommendations have set off a fierce
debate” (Fortin, 2021, para. 2). Because of the public debate and outrage that was proposed,
these new guidelines were not approved. The backlash of reform is not uncommon in
mathematics education, as is seen with the overthrow of the New Math and debate over the
Common Core standards. This latest debate in California reminds us that, “the battle over math
pedagogy is a tale as old as multiplication tables” (Fortin, 2021, para. 5).
From this brief overview of mathematics in school for a little over the past century, we
see that there has been much conflict and disagreement as different curricula reforms have been
set in place. “There has been constant reform rhetoric but little actual reform of the school
mathematics curriculum” (Stanic & Kilpatrick, 1992, p. 407). Problems continue to remain with
the mathematical education of US students. Very little has actually happened in the way of
reforming the mathematics that is taught and the focus of the teaching. The previous attempts at
reforming the mathematics curricula have either been rejected or have been too vague as to
actually bring uniformity. The teaching of mathematics needs to continue to be scrutinized until
disagreements are resolved and a more permanent solution is agreed upon. Understanding the
subjective judgements underlying these disagreements is important to resolving them. And, as
Schoenfeld (2004) points out, “resolution is essential, because the math wars, like all wars,
involve casualties to innocent parties” (p. 254), the nation’s children.
7
The Importance of Parents as Stakeholders
Of the many stakeholders, one important group is the parents of children in the school
system. Parents are one of the largest stakeholder groups. The use of parents includes
guardians, caretakers, or anyone that has responsibility of the students away from school.
Behind every student are parents who want the best for their child. Parents play a critical role in
their children’s development because they are the first educators of their children (Rockliffe,
2001). Parents are often around their children more than any other group of stakeholders and
have the power to influence their children because of their close relationship with them
(Albersamann & Rolka, 2012). Because of this, they likely are the ones who have the greatest
influence on their children’s views of mathematics. Parents are also behind the front line of
education and have the power to bring change into the schooling systems if there is enough
parental support and outrage against some policy or curriculum. The following section outlines
why parents’ views matter, how parents’ views may differ from each other, and the power that
parents have to bring change.
Graue and Smith (1996) evaluated how parents interpreted their student’s scores on
assessments after a new mathematics program focusing on activity-oriented learning was
introduced at a Middle School in the Midwest. The students in the class came from all levels of
mathematical ability rather than being grouped. One parent from the study found from the
assessment that her daughter was behind the other students. Because of this, the parent
distrusted the program and instead wanted her daughter to just be taught the basics. On the other
hand, a different parent saw from the assessment that her son was above average. She felt like
her was not challenged enough in the new program and was bored, so she wished for something
different from the new mathematics program in order for her son to be pushed to his full
8
potential and to show that he was capable of doing a higher-level of mathematics than his peers.
Both of these examples show how parents views of their child’s education can affect the
implementation of school reforms. When changes are made, parents need to see how that change
will be in the best interest of their child and will help their child progress.
Graue and Smith (1996) also note how parents often see the status and social standing of
their children connected to their competence in mathematics. Students’ performance on
mathematics assessments located them at different places in the academic hierarchy, which may
drastically effect opportunities available to them further on in their academic career and life.
Thus, parent’s perceptions of the effects of a reform on their children’s academic status will
affect how parents react to the change. In order for new reform not to be seen as a failure in the
eyes of the parents, they need to see how the change fits the needs of and benefits their child. I
argue that an important aspect in having parents react positively to change is knowing what they
value in that education in the first place. For instance, for a positive change in mathematics
education, we must first know why parents value the teaching of mathematics and then use that
knowledge while reforming mathematics curriculum. Then parents can see why they value the
teaching of mathematics reflected in the mathematics taught to their children.
A study by Rockliffe (2001) investigated parental involvement in mathematics education
at an elementary school in Canada, where data were collected through interviews. They noted
that there was a range of involvement in parents as far as engaging their children in mathematics
outside of school. The older the children got, the less involved parents were in school
mathematics. She also found that experiences from early on in the lives of the parents had a
great effect on their attitudes towards mathematics. Parents had a variety of positive and
negative feelings towards mathematics. After the interviews, Rockliffe categorized the parents
9
into three groups: math evaders, math achiever, and math advocates. Math evaders were those
who had anxiety about mathematics, had had negative experiences with mathematics early on,
lacked confidence in their mathematical abilities, had a deep dislike for mathematics, and lacked
confidence to help their students learn mathematics. However, they recognized the importance
of mathematics and did not want their children to have the same attitudes towards mathematics
that they had. Math achievers were those who loved mathematics, had had positive experiences
with mathematics early on, and felt highly confident in using mathematics in their daily lives and
helping their children learn mathematics. They were not afraid to teach their children
mathematics outside of school and sometimes questioned how teachers taught their students
mathematics. Math advocates were those who valued mathematics and its importance but had a
variety of experiences early on that influenced their attitudes toward mathematics. They felt
moderately comfortable in using mathematics in their daily lives and helping their children learn
mathematics, but they did not want to confuse their children by teaching concepts differently
than how the teachers were teaching their children. From this, we can see that parents see the
value of mathematics in their children’s education, but also that they value the teaching of
mathematics for a variety of different reasons.
As discussed earlier, the New Math was ultimately rejected and stopped being used in
schools not long after it was introduced. One large factor in this was the parents rejecting the
mathematics because they did not recognize the value of it (Schoenfeld, 2004). The following
back to basics movement was meant to eliminate conflict that parents, and others, had with the
previous reform movement and implement programs that parents were comfortable with. So as
to not run into the same mistakes made when trying to implement the New Math, the NCTM
decided to emphasize informing parents and the public about proposed changes. However, in
10
various documents released in following years, such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission
on Excellence in Education, 1983) that was released in the 1980s, parents were actually
portrayed as potential barriers and stumbling blocks in the efforts to implement reform in
mathematics education (Peressini, 1998). This shows that parents are important in the successful
implementation of reform and how protests from parents can cause reforms to stagnate. Thus,
parents do have power when it comes to the material being taught to their children. Schoenfeld
(2004) and Wilson (1999) both discuss the powerful role parent organizations played in the
conflicts of the 1990s.
When considering reform in mathematics instruction, researchers most commonly
investigate the experiences that mathematics teachers have and often neglect to explore parents’
perspectives of the mathematics instruction of their children (Graue & Smith, 1996). Thus, there
is not much research about parents’ beliefs about mathematics and mathematics education
(Albersamann & Rolka, 2012). Graue and Smith also note how they believe that the degree to
which parents accept and embrace changes in the schooling of their children affects the success
of reform efforts. Thus, parents need to be on board with any curriculum changes and the first
step of getting parents on board is understanding their perspective of the purpose of schooling,
and why they value the teaching of mathematics in the first place. In my research, I look at the
question of why parents value instruction in mathematics.
Previous Studies in Valuing Mathematics Education
Investigating values in mathematics education has not been a topic that has received a lot
of research before the early 2000s (Fan, 2021). The following outlines a few studies that have
been conducted in recent years to evaluate what students find important in their mathematics
education.
11
Hill et al. (2021), noting that many students have negative emotions and poor attitudes
towards mathematics, conducted research on 119 8th grade students from Australia. The students
took a survey in which they replied to a few questions, primarily about what was important to
them when learning mathematics. They found that the most common theme that these students
valued was cognitive aspects, meaning general mathematical understanding and skills.
Following this was the value of accomplishment, meaning general success, obtaining good
grades, maintaining accuracy, and obtaining confidence. Other themes the students valued
included creating supportive relationships, engaging in interesting material, eliciting positive
emotions, cultivating perseverance, and meaningful mathematical contexts.
A similar study was conducted looking at the mathematics educational values of Pāsifika
students in years 7 and 8 in New Zealand (Hunter, 2021). Data were collected through students
selecting their three most and least important mathematics education value statements on a
survey. The most common values that students ranked as most important were practice to
achieve improvement, family support to get help, respect between teacher and students, and
persistence to keep working on difficult problems. The most common values that were ranked as
least important were accuracy and utility, meaning doing mathematics that is useful for life
outside of school.
Similar studies were conducted in Korea and Eastern China, where students were also
given surveys to respond to. It was found that the students in Korea valued understanding,
connections, fun, accuracy, and efficiency in their mathematics education (Pang & Seah, 2021).
The students from Eastern China valued culture (mathematics history and seeing mathematics as
a powerful tool to improve human civilization), memorization, technology, objectism (reifying
things), practice, understanding, and control (Tang et al., 2021).
12
These studies show how there are many themes that students may value in their
mathematics education. The students surveyed valued different aspects from one another.
Regardless of why these differences are seen, this study shows that differences exist and that not
everyone may value mathematics education for the same reasons. Thus people, in this case
students, can value different things about learning mathematics.
The findings from these studies may help improve a student’s experience in the
classroom, but not necessarily improve the mathematics curricula being taught. Thus, studies
need to be conducted that specifically look at why mathematics is valued. Knowing why it is
valued will help curriculum creators to know how to improve and create a curriculum that is
reflective of the beliefs of the importance of mathematics.
These studies also do not shed light as to why people in the United States may value the
learning and teaching of mathematics. It is also limited to only students’ perspectives.
Understanding how mathematics is valued by students is important in order to provide quality
mathematics instruction that is engaging to the students. By understanding how mathematics is
valued, mathematics can be modeled and taught in schools in a way that aligns more with how
the students value it. This study is important, because students’ perspectives are important, but
are not the only views that should be looked at. In addition, it is important to evaluate how
teachers, curriculum developers, educational policy makers, government leaders, parents, and the
general public value mathematics teaching and learning because each of these different groups
are a critical part of the education process, and what is taught in schools has an effect on virtually
all people and on the future.
My study addresses the views of a different group of people, namely parents. Parents
have been alive longer than their students and have more experiences in life, thus they may see
13
the benefits and different uses of mathematics in more and different ways than students. To limit
possibilities of cultural differences accounting for differences between the same type of
stakeholders, my study also focuses solely on perspectives from those living in the United States
of America. In addition, I look at why people value mathematics education because knowing
why people value the teaching of mathematics can lead to effective and lasting curricula change.
Knowing what is valued in mathematics education will help shape what mathematics should be
taught in the classrooms.
West (2020) looked over a variety of sources to capture statements about why people
may value the teaching of mathematics. West found the following general categories of reasons
people value mathematics being taught in schools:
Tradition: West (2020) notes that mathematics may be of value because it has been
taught throughout history and has always found a place in classical liberal education
Gaining Valuable Skills: Baumslag (2014) notes that many people believe that their
mathematics background will help them to be able to reason logically in different
situations and help them to analyze different information presented to them in order to
deduce what information is reliable or not.
Usefulness in Daily Life: Baumslag (2014) notes that mathematics is used in a variety of
daily activities, including calculating change after making a purchase with cash, making
measurements for house projects, telling time, creating a budget, and evaluating the
temperature.
Usefulness in Particular Vocations: Baumslag (2014) notes that mathematics is used in
everyday lives by those in STEM fields, such as mathematicians, scientists, and
engineers. For example, mathematics can help engineers build functional planes.
14
Training Future Mathematicians: West (2020) notes how school mathematics helps
produce future mathematicians which will further advance the field of mathematics.
Benefits for Schooling: Freudenthal (1968) argues that mathematics is unique over other
school topics because it has great flexibility, and this flexibility allows it to apply to a
greater variety of situations than most other topics taught in school. Additionally, Lee
(2012) found that there is a strong correlation between mathematics success in high
school and completion of four years of college. It has also been considered the gate that
helps people get into college. With a college education comes access to better paying
jobs.
Vehicle Towards Social Awareness: West (2020) notes how mathematical literacy helps
to open doors to social mobility and how school mathematics can help students think
about social justice issues and equality.
Important to Society: Baumslag (2014) notes how school mathematics may give
students knowledge to help them become well-educated so they can be contributing
citizens in their country.
Mathematical Beauty: West (2020) notes that some people value mathematics because
of its pure beauty.
Background and Contributions of Mathematics: West (2020) notes that some people
value mathematics in order to recognize its role in developing our modern society and
culture.
Not surprisingly, teaching mathematics can be considered of value for a variety of
reasons. However, there still remains a question as to what specific groups of stakeholders value
15
in mathematics and mathematics education, and consequently what mathematics they belief
should be taught in schools.
Views, Attitudes, Opinions, and Beliefs
In the words of Schoenfeld (2004), conflicts over mathematics curricula and pedagogy in
general, and those of the Math Wars in particular, amount to “war in the absence of real
ammunition” (p. 269) in the same sense that there are little or no data that can definitively
answer the question of which curricular standards or instructional methods are best. Roitman
(1999) questions whether such data could exist, when she claims that “the notion that there is a
way to find out which pedagogical method or curriculum works” is a “delusion” (p. 129). Her
argument is based both on the difficulty of conducting such research and on her conviction that
good teaching is better seen as a day-by-day experiment in which teachers use ideas from both
old and new perspectives to reach individual students.
Whether, like Roitman, we believe in the near impossibility of settling curricular disputes
through empirical means, or like Schoenfeld we believe progress is being made in that direction,
many or most of the disagreements are not about objective facts. They depend on the subjective
judgments of the stakeholders involved – things we might informally call beliefs, attitudes,
views, values, opinions, or perceptions. Leder and Forgasz (2002) point out that “in everyday
language, the term ‘belief’ is often used loosely and synonymously with terms such as attitude,
disposition, opinion, perception, philosophy, and value” (p. 96). We could easily add other terms
to this list, some more emotional or affective (sentiments, feelings), some more rational or
cognitive (thoughts, ideas).
As the study of beliefs has become more important in psychology and education, various
attempts have been made to provide frameworks distinguishing among these closely related
16
terms and providing definitions. These have not resulted in anything close to agreement. As one
example, we can look at attempts to distinguish between beliefs and attitudes. Rokeach (1972)
defines an attitude as an organized collection of beliefs, whereas Cooper & McGaugh (1970)
suggest that belief is a special kind of attitude, and Aiken (1980) asserts that attitudes have
beliefs as one of many components. More recently, Goldin et al. (2009) noted: “One thing that
has not changed in the past few years is the absence of universal acceptance by mathematics
education researchers of a definition of beliefs…” (p. 2).
Given this state of affairs, it seems reasonable to follow the lead of Halloran (1970) and
Leder and Forgasz (2002) who suggest that despite the lack of agreement about a precise
definition, most researchers in this area can understand each other, and much useful work can
still be done. Later, I will discuss how belief is defined in terms of the theory of operant
subjectivity, which underlies in part the methodology of my proposed research. For the time
being, nothing will be lost by using the term belief with its everyday meaning.
Research Questions
The research I conducted is based in two suppositions: a) that various important
educational stakeholders, including parents, teachers, mathematicians, students, business leaders,
and politicians, likely have different ideas about why it is important to teach and learn
mathematics; and b) that knowing these varying ideas would provide a possible starting point
toward finding agreement, or at least help us better understand the nature of the stalemate in
moving mathematics instruction forward. This is the problem I addressed. In particular, this
study investigates the following research questions: 1) What are parents of secondary
mathematics students’ perspectives of the most and least important reasons about the importance
17
of teaching mathematics? 2) What are the differences in beliefs among parents of secondary
mathematics students about the importance of teaching mathematics?
18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Q-Methodology Overview
Q-methodology was developed by William Stephenson, a British psychologist who first
obtained degrees in physics before his interest in research methodology led him to psychology.
He was a contemporary of B. F. Skinner and shared with him a strong belief in the scientific
study of human behavior, patterned after the study of the physical world. Also, like Skinner, he
believed in the importance of observed behavior, rather than theorized inner traits or conceptions
that were inferred from behavior. Thus he adopted the notion of humans operating on their
environment as the fundamental observable fact of human behavior.
Despite his affinity for behaviorism, Stephenson set himself apart from others in that
camp by insisting that aspects of our mental and social life that we have usually referred to as
being subjective – emotions, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, and so forth, could be systematically
studied through observations of behavior. Stephenson came to call his viewpoint operant
subjectivity. Q-methodology was developed to serve that purpose.
Because of its roots in behaviorism, Q-methodology does not depend on any theory of
mental states or activity – what Stephenson referred to as “the mentalistic fictions of
psychologists” (Stephenson, 1953, p. 113). Although Stephenson does use terms that we
associate with mental content, such as opinion, attitude, and belief, they do not imply an inner
mental state or process, but rather the result of observable interactions of subjects with
communicative statements. In this sense, they are operationally defined by parts of the data
collection and analysis process.
Briefly, Q methodology captures subjectivity by presenting people with a set of
statements that express a range of opinions about a particular topic (in this case, why teaching
19
mathematics is important). By sorting these statements according to the degree to which they
agree or disagree, the person provides a ranking by agreement on each statement. These
rankings are an observable record of the person’s judgements of the topic at hand, and constitute
a measure of that judgement. These rankings can then be correlated to other people’s rankings
and factor analyzed to produce common clusters of judgements that are present in the selection
of people studied. Stephenson (1953) referred to these factors as attitudes, but it is important to
remember that the terms used at this level are not referring to theoretical mental states, but to
empirical relationships discovered from the data. Of course, theories may enter into the process
of interpretation, and there is nothing in the methodology that insists on a behavioral theoretical
stance. Indeed, it has been suggested that Q-methodology is a mixed methodology that is
compatible with other methods of qualitative inquiry (e.g. Brown, 1996).
One way to think of what is being measured by the data collected in a Q Study is how
people react to statements about a certain topic, in terms of agreement or disagreement. This
more or less operational definition of what Brown (1996) called attitudes and what was referred
to above as judgements is consistent with the roots of Q-methodology, but in the spirit of Leder
and Forgasz (2002) and Halloran (1970) discussed in the last chapter, gives us a way to discuss
how parents react to various reasons for teaching mathematics, and therefore how they may react
in the future to similar statements in the media, from political speeches, from conversations with
neighbors, teachers, and their own children. This seems a reasonable interpretation of what
might be called their attitudes or beliefs about why teaching mathematics is important. It
moreover gives us a way of predicting likely conflicts or resistance to efforts to change
mathematics instruction.
20
Q-methodology is regarded as widely applicable to situations where understanding the
viewpoints of groups is required. The methodology helps researchers discover participants’
perspectives on the topic being researched as well as the relations among differing perspectives.
Raadgever et al. (2008) state that, “Q-Methodology is intended to systematically elicit individual
perspectives, and to group them into shared perspectives using quantitative factor analysis” (p.
1099). It is particularly appropriate for my purposes because of the subjective nature of why
people value mathematics teaching. Raadgever et al. (2008) found that Q-Methodology “proved
to be a good method for eliciting and analyzing stakeholder perspectives in a structured and
unbiased way” (p. 1097). Jacobsen and Linell (2016) also suggest that “Q methodology provides
a tool for systematically investigating the perceptions of stakeholders …. It is a data reduction
technique that identifies shared views across a population, producing distinct narratives that each
describes a viewpoint” (p. 199). They go on to suggest that it is also “suited to studying strongly
contentious issues … in which case Q methodology can help with finding mutually acceptable
policies” (p. 199).
There are some potential advantages with using Q methodology, especially in cases
where the research question involves finding attitudes that are shared by or distinguish among
members of groups. As a first approach it is likely less time consuming that analyzing a series of
in-depth qualitative interviews. Zabala et al. (2018) note that it “allows researchers to
acknowledge views that are marginalized” (p. 1192) and can also reveal hidden views that “do
not necessarily emerge through other methods because these views are controversial, and
respondents are not vocal about them or do not articulate them explicitly otherwise” (p. 1192).
21
Q-Methodology Steps
Brown and Rhoades (2919) explain that most Q-methodology studies can be conceived as
including four parts: development of the concourse, the Q-set, the Q-sort into the distribution
grid, and the factor analysis process. The following list describes each of these parts. The list is
followed by an in-depth explanation of what this looked like in my study.
The concourse consists of a wide range of statements regarding the research topic, in this
case, why it is important to teach mathematics. The concourse is meant to capture the breadth of
possible perspectives and opinions on the topic. Concourses are generally large, containing
several hundred separate statements, gleaned from surveys, reviews of literature or media,
interviews, and other similar sources. For my study, I used the concourse developed by West
(2020) as a starting point.
The Q-set is a much smaller, yet representative subset of statements taken from the
concourse. Q-methodology does not specify how the Q-set is chosen from the concourse. In
some studies, the statements are chosen randomly. In others, preliminary categories are used to
guarantee some degree of representation among major themes in the concourse. These
categories can emerge from an analysis of the concourse itself (an inductive approach) or can be
based on predetermined theoretical categories into which statements are placed. (Paige & Morin,
2016). I have chosen the inductive option, as I describe in more detail below. There is no hard-
and-fast rule regarding the size for a Q-set, but typical Q-sets range in size between 20 and 60
items.
A Q-sort is the activity of participants sorting items from the Q-set according to how
much they agree or disagree with the statements. In this way, the sorting is like ranking the
statements on a Likert-type scale, from (for example) -4 for strongly disagree to +4 for strongly
22
agree. However, in a Q-sort, participants are asked to attend to the number of items ranked at
each scale point. Fewer items are allowed to be ranked at the extremes (e.g. +4 or -4) and more
are allowed to be ranked in the middle (e.g. -1, 0, or 1), thus causing the rankings to fall into a
predetermined distribution grid, which provides some uniformity across participants. The
distribution grid is constructed to be an approximation to a normal distribution, and thus takes
the appearance of a triangle (or inverted triangle).
Once a distribution grid is created by each participant, the rankings on each item across
all part all participants can be subjected to exploratory factor analysis. Unlike traditional
methods in which the items being ranked (the Q-set) would be reduced to a few common factors,
Q-methodology seeks to find factors common among the participants. The same general factor
analytic methods, including the formation of a correlation matrix, the extraction of factors,
rotation to clarify factors, and using factor loadings to interpret factors, are used in Q-
methodology. Three are also some analytic methods, to be discussed below, that are specific to
Q and that help us build understanding of commonalities and differences among the factors.
Concourse and Selection of Subset
I took the concourse developed by West (2020) as my starting point and used it to create
the subset of 42 statements that I used in the Q-set. The statements were first examined to see if
any seemed miscategorized and whether the categories themselves seemed well-defined.
Statements that seemed miscategorized were then put into appropriate categories. I then
examined statements within each of the categories developed by West to develop subcategories
within each general category. Just over 80 subcategories were developed across all the original
categories, some of which were combined with similar subcategories. As this process was
23
carried out, it amounted to a complete revisiting of West’s original categorizations, some of
which survived and some of which did not.
The process used amounted in the end to a fairly standard qualitative coding procedure,
in which statements were reanalyzed and recoded as necessary, and categories were combined.
This resulted in a stable list of 42 categories. Statements representative of the 42 stable
categories were chosen to be a part of my Q-set of 42 statements. Statements were reworded for
clarity such that the language used in the statements would be clear and familiar to the
participants (Sæbjørnsen et al., 2016). The list of the 42 statements can be found in the
Appendix. Finally, I performed a brief pilot study with this Q-set, to ensure that the selection of
statements was clear and understandable to participants. The pilot study gave me more
information about how long the sorting would take. I found that participants took 15-20 minutes
to complete.
Selection of Participants
Watts and Stenner (2014) discuss that some important characteristics to consider when
selecting participants is to consider participants who have a clear viewpoint to express,
participants whose viewpoint of the subject matters, and participants who are not all
homogeneous to one another.
I solicited Q-sorts from 12 parents who currently have students enrolled in, or recently
graduated from, public schools in Utah. I choose the participants from among parents I
personally know, and I used the snowball technique to find more participants from their
recommendations. I asked them to recommend parents that might think differently than they do,
in order to promote a more diverse sample of parents.
24
Data Collection: Q-Sorting and Interview
The data collected comprises information collected from a) the participants sorting the
statements from the Q-set and b) a brief follow-up interview with five of the participants in order
to see whether they think my results capture their attitudes about the topic.
For the Q-sorting, participants first categorized the statements from the Q-Set into three
categories: agree, disagree, and no strong feelings either way. I emphasized that there were no
correct or incorrect answers, and that I just wanted to know their true opinions. They then sorted
the statements from each of the categories based on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with
the statements, placing the statements in the distribution grid. The distribution grid (Figure 1)
consists of 9 columns, which are labeled in the following order: -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4. I
directed participants to place two statements in the -4 and +4 columns, four statements in the -3
and +3 columns, five statements in the -2 and +2 columns, six statements in the -1 and +1
columns, and eight statements in the 0 column. I showed them an empty distribution grid for
reference. I let participants choose whether to start with organizing the statements they
disagreed most with or agreed most with into the distribution grid. If they chose to start with the
statements they agreed most with, they started placing the statements they agreed with most in
the +4 column and continue to place them in the consecutive “+” columns until their agree with
statements were all sorted. They likewise did the same with the statements they disagreed with
most by placing them in the “-” columns. They finish by placing the statements from the no
strong feelings either way pile into the remaining spaces, with those they agreed with more on
the right and less on the left. I then recorded the position of the cards relative to each other in the
blank distribution grid.
25
Figure 1
Distribution Grid
The brief follow-up interview was conducted a couple of months after the initial card
sorting by parents once the data had been analyzed. During this interview, I first reminded
parents about the card sort that they had performed earlier, then I asked them to name the first
reasons that came to mind about why teaching mathematics is important. I then briefly
summarized the three factors (using group instead of factor) and asked what group of parents
they thought they fell into.
Data Analysis
Factor Analysis as Applied to Q-Methodology
Factor analysis is a means of reducing a number of variables by “looking for variables
that correlate highly with a group of other variables, but correlate very badly with variables
outside of that group” (Field, 2000, p. 424). In this case the variables are individual parents and
their Q-sorts, which each represent a viewpoint about the teaching of mathematics. The
viewpoints with high intercorrelations may be thought of more or less as a single viewpoint,
which is the factor that is found by factor analysis. As Field (2000) points out, the factor can be
considered a new dimension “that can be visualized as classification axes along which
26
measurement variables can be plotted,” (p. 424) the measurement variable in our case being Q-
sorts that represent viewpoints of parents.
When using factor analysis methods, a few more or less standard decisions need to be
made by the researchers; these are discussed at length in the literature on factor analysis. One is
the number of factors to extract, which is discussed briefly below. Others deal with extraction
methods (e.g. principal components analysis versus other methods of looking at variance
reduction) and rotation methods (e.g. varimax versus manual rotation). Researchers using Q-
methodology have by no means standardized these decisions, but little evidence suggests that
they make a significant difference in the final analysis of Q-sorts.
Most standard software packages for statistical analysis perform factor analysis, and there
exist some designed specifically for Q-methodology. In this project a software package called
Ken-Q Analysis (Banasick, 2019) was used, and the defaults of principle components analysis
and varimax rotation were accepted as being widely recognized methods of factor analysis in Q-
method studies (Akhtar-Danesh, 2016).
Choosing the Number of Factors
A principal component analysis on the 12 Q-sorts yielded three factors whose associated
eigenvalues were larger than 1, a very common rule of thumb in determining the number of
factors to extract. Although somewhat subjective, the scree plot of factors and eigenvalues is
often used to determine an appropriate number of factors as well. The curve in figure 2 seems to
flatten after 3 factors, so the decision was made to keep three factors for rotation. Collectively
they accounted for 67% of the variance in the data set.
27
Figure 2
Factor and Eigenvalue Scree Plot
A varimax rotation was performed, resulting in the factors and loadings shown in table 1. To be
significant at the ρ < 0.01level, a factor loading needed to exceed 2.58 times the standard error,
2.58
or = 0.389. We note first that Q-sort 4 loads significantly on all three factors. It is said to
√42
be confounded, and is typically eliminated from the next phase of analysis.
At this point in the analysis, certain Q-sorts are “flagged” based on their factor loadings,
so they represent major or defining Q-sorts for a given factor. In making these decisions, Watts
and Stenner (2014) suggest that the factor loadings should be more than just significant, with
factor loadings of greater than 0.60 on the relevant factor (see Jordan et al., 2005, Morea, 2022;).
These “flagged” loadings are marked with an asterisk in Table 1.
28
Table 1
Factors and Loadings Following Rotation
Q-Sort Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

1 0.8262* -0.1429 -0.0156
2 0.0769 0.7938* 0.0644
3 0.8188* 0.1906 -0.0308
4 0.5660 0.4776 -0.4599
5 0.7315* 0.2096 0.3868
6 0.6711* 0.4844 -0.0711
7 0.3619 0.7102* 0.0174
8 0.6051* 0.3584 0.1335
9 0.0725 0.8675* 0.1636
10 0.3177 0.6246* 0.2749
11 0.0292 0.2507 0.8523*
12 0.6403* 0.3592 -0.1058
Note. Defining or “flagged” loadings are marked with an asterisk (*).
It is worth pausing to remember that the three factors represent groups of Q-sorts from
parents with common viewpoints of the topic. The factor analysis has reduced the 12 different
viewpoints represented by the 12 Q-sorts to three general viewpoints. It remains to describe
these three composite viewpoints by examining what the statements contribute to each. This is
accomplished by creating a factor array for each factor. This is essentially a ranking of each
statement in a way that represents the viewpoint of the factor as a whole, just as an individual Q-
sort represents the viewpoint of an individual parent. This is accomplished by a series of
calculations:
1. A factor estimate for each factor is constructed from a weighted averaging of the
individual Q-sorts that load significantly on that factor (and only that factor). The weight
measures the degree to which that Q-sort contributes to the factor. Given a Q-sort with
29
𝑓𝑓
loading f on a factor A, its weight is determined by dividing (1−𝑓𝑓2) by the maximum value
of that ratio for all Q-sorts loading on factor A.
2. The rank of each statement in a given Q-sort is multiplied by its weight in the factor and
the sum of those products across all Q-sorts loading on the factor is computed. The
higher the sum for a given statement, the more a given factor (parent group) agrees with
that statement.
3. In order to make cross-factor comparison, these sums of weighted ranks need to be
standardized (since different numbers of Q-sorts were used for different factors) into z-
scores. The associated z-scores can be compared across factors.
Finally, a factor array can be computed by rank ordering the z-scores and from all the statements
and assigning ranks to the statements according to the constraints from the original Q-sorts
gathered from the participants. Thus, the statement with the top two z-scores in this study would
be given ranks of +4, the next three given ranks of +3, and so on down to the lowest two z-
scores, that would be given ranks of -4.
The cross-factor comparison allowed by factor arrays gives rise to other analytic tools for
interpreting factors. Two used in this research include:
Distinguishing statements are those that members of a particular factor group have ranked
significantly differently from those in all the other factors (in our case, both of the other
factors).
Consensus statements are those whose rankings by the factor groups do not distinguish
between any pair of factors. In our case, this means that all three parent groups have
ranked or valued those statements in nearly the same way.
30
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Consensus Statements
One of the purposes of this research is to determine if there is some common ground
among stakeholders. Consensus statements, which are those that are rated in essentially the same
way in all three factors, give us some insights into this question. These statements do not
distinguish between any pair of factors, meaning the ranks of these statements in the three factors
have z-scores that do not differ from each other at a p < 0.01 level of significance. Thus these
statements do not distinguish between any pair of factors; and there is general agreement about
them across the 12 participants. There are 14 consensus statements in the data set, namely
statements 1, 4, 8, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, and 34, as shown in Table 2; thus, there
is general agreement across the factors about these statements. In the table and elsewhere in this
section, when I refer to where a statement was ranked, that refers to the column in the
distribution grid where it is found, not the overall rank out of the 42 statements.
31
Table 2
Consensus Statements
Statements Rank in Average Average

Distribution Z-Score Rank in
Grid of Grid
Ranks
Teaching mathematics is important… F1 F2 F3
31 …because doing mathematics develops and quickens the 2 3 3 1.23 2.67
mind.
14 …to produce people to work in STEM fields (science, 4 1 1 0.806 2.00
technology, engineering, mathematics).
22 …to help students realize and gain an appreciation for the 2 1 3 0.999 2.00
role it plays in the development of science, technology, and
our civilization.
34 …because it trains students to think critically and 1 3 1 0.852 1.67
analytically.
4 …because learning mathematics helps students interpret, 1 2 1 0.728 1.33
analyze, and question data for validity.
8 …because it trains students to give effort to rigorous work. 0 1 2 0.408 1.00
15 …because it is a body of knowledge that is true everywhere 0 1 0 0.268 0.333
and forever.
1 …because of the permanence of mathematics in the world. 0 0 -1 -0.001 -0.333
26 …because mathematical knowledge leads to a higher 0 -1 -2 -0.574 -1.00
socioeconomic status.
28 …because jobs that provide economic self-sufficiency -1 -1 -2 -0.769 -1.33
require mathematics.
19 …to teach, learn, and help students engage in social justice. -3 -2 -1 -0.847 -2.00
20 …because it can transform students’ awareness of society. -2 -3 -1 -0.962 -2.00
25 …because it is part of the traditional school curriculum. -2 -2 -3 -1.18 -2.33
23 …because it is a valuable and indispensable part of a human -3 -4 -4 -1.73 -3.67
being’s identity.
Of the consensus statements, six statements (31, 14, 22, 34, 4, and 8) have positive
rankings from each factor, indicating a degree of agreement across the factors as some of the
more important reasons for teaching mathematics. The highest mean rank was given to
statement 31, dealing with mathematics developing the minds of students, which means that all
three factors agree that this is an important reason to teach mathematics. Two other statements
(14 and 22) deal with the role of mathematics in advancing work in the STEM fields. The
32
remaining three (34, 4, and 8) also relate to mathematics having a positive effect on mental
processes, in this case critical and analytical thinking, fluency in interpreting data, and working
hard. All of these statements were agreed upon by the parents in all three factors that these were
more important reasons to teach mathematics. Thus, our group of parents seem to agree on the
importance of teaching mathematics in support of preparing students for STEM fields, data
fluency, and for developing the mind in general, particularly in developing critical and analytical
thinking.
There were also six statements (23, 25, 20, 19, 28, and 26) that were given negative
rankings of essentially the same levels by all three factors, indicating a uniform sense that these
reasons for teaching mathematics were not very important to the group of parents. Statement 23,
dealing with mathematical knowing being a part of human identity, had the lowest negative
ranking, with statement 25, referring to mathematics being a traditional part of the school
curriculum, having the second lowest average rank (among the consensus statements). The next
lowest average rankings were given to statements 19 and 20, dealing with mathematics aiding
students in seeing and dealing with societal problems. Finally, statements 26 and 28, with the
third lowest negative rankings, dealt with the role of mathematics in the future economic status
of students. All of these statements were agreed upon by the parents in all three factors that
these were less important reasons to teach mathematics.
There were two statements (1 and 15) that were given fairly neutral rankings by all three
factors, meaning that the groups expressed neither strong agreement nor strong disagreement
with these reasons for teaching mathematics. Both of these statements relate to the nature of
mathematics, particularly that it is a true body of knowledge and that it is everywhere.
33
To summarize these findings, it seems that the consensus statements ranked negatively,
or as least important, relate to humanities, tradition, societal issues, and social economic status.
Ranked more neutrally, or as neither the least nor most important, is the nature of mathematics.
The consensus statements ranked positively, or the most important reasons to teach mathematics,
relate to habits of mind, critical thinking, STEM fields, and developing the mind.
Description of Factors
Having discussed common opinions across all three identified groups/factors in the
previous section, I turn now to descriptions of the three groups themselves.
Factor 1: Personal and Scientific Utility
Table 3 below shows the two highest (F1++) and lowest (F1--) ranked statements for the
group of parents identified as Factor 1, and marks both distinguishing (D) and consensus (C)
statements, as well as those statements ranked higher (F1+) or lower (F1-) by Factor 1
participants than those identified with the other two factors.
As can be seen, participants identified with Factor 1 ranks statements about the
importance of mathematics for personal finances and for training in STEM fields as being most
important to them. Their strong view of mathematics supporting the management of personal
finances distinguishes this group from the other two—the opinion is both strong and (among our
participants) unique in its strength. This group also shares with the other groups the view that
mathematics is important in the training of experts in the STEM fields. These views are
suggestive of support for mathematics being a useful tool to accomplish certain ends, whether
financial or scientific/technological.
Examining the other statements ranking highly in Factor 1 supports the assertion that the
utility of mathematics is valued by this group, whether that utility is manifested in daily life
34
(statement 2), careers (statements 9 and 27), or education (statement 42). It seems clear that the
group associated with Factor 1 appreciates mathematics for its usefulness in science, work, and
daily life. For this reason, I chose to call this group of parents the Personal and Scientific Utility
group.
By contrast, this group gives aspects of mathematical training based on its intrinsic
beauty or feelings of satisfaction for students its lowest rankings. They also give their next
lowest ratings to aspects of mathematics that contribute to students assuming roles that improve
society as a whole (statements 11 and 19) and students’ personal interest (statement 17). This
again suggests a focus on utility—things that are useful personally to the students in their lives.
35
Table 3
Statements with Ranks Greater Than 2 or Less Than -2 for Factor 1
Statement Statements Ranks in

Number and Type Factors
Teaching mathematics is important … F1 F2 F3
Highest Ranked
3 D ++ …to help students learn about personal finances (budget, 4 2 0
save, taxes, interest, etc.)
14 C ++ …to produce people to work in STEM fields (science, 4 1 1
2 + …because mathematics can be applied in many areas of 3 0 2
daily life.
9 D + …because it is a useful skill in many careers. 3 -1 0
27 + …because it gives one access to a wider variety of career 3 0 1
options.
42 D + …because mathematics is used in many other school 3 -2 0
subjects.
Lowest Ranked
17 - …because it is interesting and intriguing. -3 -3 2
11 - …because it allows students to become productive citizens -3 0 -1
19 C - …to teach, learn, and help students engage in social -3 -2 -1
justice.
23 C …because it is a valuable and indispensable part of a -3 -4 -4
human being’s identity.
18 -- …because it creates feelings of pleasure, joy, and -4 -3 1
satisfaction.
16 -- …because of its intrinsic beauty. -4 -4 0
Notes. D marks a distinguishing statement that Factor 1 participants have ranked significantly
differently than those in other factors; C marks a consensus statement; ++ and -- mark the two
highest ranking statements and two lowest ranking statements, respectively, for Factor 1; + and –
mark statements that are ranked higher and lower (respectively) in Factor 1 than in the other
factors.
Turning from the extremes to the more moderate views (see Table 4) we find that this
group, more than the others, has moderate support for mathematics’ usefulness in furthering
college opportunities (statements 40 and 41), and producing knowledge that fills the economic
and other needs of society (statements 12 and 13). That they are also moderately more likely to
see mathematics as important for producing mathematicians is consistent with the value they put
on STEM fields. They are somewhat less supportive than the other two groups of teaching
36
mathematics in order to provide students with mental skills or habits of mind (statements 6, 7, 8,
30, 32, and 35) or because they feel mathematical knowledge can provide a more meaningful life
(statement 5).
37
Table 4
Statements Ranked Higher/Lower in Factor 1 Than in Any Other Factor

Other Positive Statements Ranked Higher in Factor 1
13 …because it is necessary for the economy. 2 0 1
39 D* …because it is a universal language that is understood 2 0 -1
everywhere.
40 D* …to help students be ready for college. 1 -1 -3
29 …to produce/train future mathematicians. 1 -1 0
41 D* …because it allows students to meet college entrance 1 -1 -3
requirements, which allows students to reach higher
education and degrees.
12 …because our civilization would collapse without it. 1 -2 0
1 C …because of the permanence of mathematics in the 0 0 -1
world.
26 C* …because mathematical knowledge leads to a higher 0 -1 -2
Other Negative Statements Ranked Lower in Factor 1

15 C* …because it is a body of knowledge that is true 0 1 0
everywhere and forever.
8 C …because it trains students to give effort to rigorous 0 1 2
work.
6 …to teach students how to tackle difficult tasks and cope 0 2 0
with failure.
30 D* …because it encourages creative logic, reasoning, and -1 4 4
discovery.
7 D* …to help students grow persistence and confidence. -1 2 2
5 …because it allows students to better understand the -1 0 4
world and live more meaningfully in it.
38 …because it is a powerful means of communication. -2 -2 3
35 D* …to enhance imagination and build creativity. -2 1 3
32 D* …to help students reason abstractly. -2 2 2
Notes. D marks a distinguishing statement for Factor 1 at the p < 0.05 level; D* marks a
distinguishing statement for Factor 1 at the p < 0.01 level; C marks a consensus statement that
fails to distinguish between factors at the p < 0.01 level; C* marks a consensus statement that
fails to distinguish between factors at the p < 0.05 level.
38
Factor 2: Training the Brain
Table 5 below shows the highest (F2++) and lowest (F2--) ranked statements for the
groups of parents identified as Factor 2, and marks both distinguishing (D) and consensus (C)
statements, as well as those statements ranked higher (F2+) or lower (F2-) by Factor 2
participants than those identified with the other two factors.
As can be seen, participants identified with Factor 2 rank statements about the importance
of mathematical training to encourage creative logic, reasoning, and discovery and to produce
critically and quantitatively literate citizens as being most important to them. Their strong view
of mathematics education helping students to engage in creative logic, reasoning, and discovery
is shared by participants identified with Factor 3, thus it is not unique in its strength. However,
this group’s view of mathematics education helping to produce critically and quantitatively
literate people distinguishes this group from the other two—the opinion is both strong and,
among these participants, unique in its strength.
Examining the other statements ranking highly in Factor 2 suggest that teaching
mathematics to enhance mental skills is values by this group, whether the development of mental
skills is through developing the mind (statement 31), through critical and analytical thinking
(statement 34), or processing and approaching different situations (statements 33 and 36). It
seems clear that the group associated with Factor 2 appreciates mathematics education for its
ability to train the brain how to process different situations, even those not directly associated
with mathematics. For this reason, I chose to call this group of parents the Training the Brain
group.
By contrast, this group gives aspects of mathematical training based on its indispensable
part of a human being’s identity and its intrinsic beauty its lowest rankings. They also give their
39
next lowest rankings to aspects of mathematics that relate to school (statement 42), personal
feelings of intrigue and satisfaction (statements 17 and 18), or social heritage and communication
(statements 20, 21, and 38). This again suggests a focus on training the brain—things that can be
used to help develop the mind to engage in various situations.
Table 5
Statement Number Statement Ranks in

and Type Factors
Highest Ranked
30 F2++ …because it encourages creative logic, reasoning, and 4 -1 4
discovery.
10 D F2++ …because it produces critically and quantitatively literate 4 0 -2
citizens.
31 C F2+ …because doing mathematics develops and quickens the 3 2 3
mind.
34 C F2+ …because it trains students to think critically and 3 1 1
analytically.
33 D F2+ …to help students think about quantitative situations and 3 0 -2
how to process them.
36 F2+ …to develop problem solving skills 3 2 -1
Lowest Ranked
42 D F2- …because mathematics is used in many other school -2 3 0
subjects.
38 F2- …because it is a powerful means of communication. -2 -2 3
17 F2- …because it is interesting and intriguing. -3 -3 2
20 C F2- …because it can transform students’ awareness of society. -3 -2 -1
18 …because it creates feelings of pleasure, joy, and -3 -4 1
satisfaction.
21 …because it is a vital part of our Western cultural -3 -1 -4
heritage.
16 F2-- …because of its intrinsic beauty. -4 -4 0
23 C F2-- …because it is a valuable and indispensable part of a -4 -3 -4
factors.
40
group, more than the others, continues to have support for mathematics education to develop the
mental skills and, additionally, because of mathematics’ presence, truth, and ability to make one
wise. They are somewhat less supportive than the other two groups of teaching mathematics for
use in careers or to better society as a whole.
41
Table 6

Teaching mathematics is important…. F2 F1 F3
6 D …to teach students how to tackle difficult tasks and 2 0 0
cope with failure.
4 C* …because learning mathematics helps students 2 1 1
interpret, analyze, and question data for validity.
7 …to help students grow persistence and confidence. 2 -1 2
32 …to help students reason abstractly. 2 -2 2
37 …because it shows students how to model every-day 1 0 -2
problems mathematically.
11 …because it allows students to become productive 0 -3 -1
citizens.
24 D …because a knowledge of math is part of what it 0 -1 -3
means to be wise and educated.
1 C …because of the permanence of mathematics in the 0 0 -1
world.
27 …because it gives one access to a wider variety of 0 3 1
career options.
2 D …because mathematics can be applied in many areas 0 3 2
of daily life.
13 …because it is necessary for the economy. 0 2 1
29 …to produce/train future mathematicians. -1 1 0
9 …because it is a useful skill in many careers. -1 3 0
12 …because our civilization would collapse without it. -2 1 0
42 …because mathematics is used in many other school -2 3 0
subjects.
38 …because it is a powerful means of communication. -2 -2 3
42
Factor 3: Personally Meaningful
Table 7 below shows the highest (F3++) and lowest (F3--) ranked statements for the
parents identified as Factor 3, and marks both distinguishing (D) and consensus (C) statements,
as well as those statements ranked higher (F3+) or lower (F3-) by Factor 3 participants than those
identified with the other two factors.
As can be seen, the participants identified with Factor 3 ranks statements about the
importance of mathematics education helping students better understand the world and to
encourage creative logic, reasoning, and discovery as being most important to them. Their
strong view of mathematics education helping students to better understand the world and live
more meaningfully in it distinguishes this groups from the other two—the opinion is both strong
and, among these participants, unique in its strength. This group’s strong view of mathematics
education helping students to engage in creative logic, reasoning, and discover is, as mentioned
earlier, shared by participants identified with Factor 2, thus it is not unique in its strength.
Examining the other statements ranking highly in Factor 3 suggest that teaching
mathematics to grow personally internally is valued by this group, whether it is through gaining
an appreciation of mathematics (statement 22), to develop the mind (statements 31 and 35), or to
communicate with others (statement 38). It seems that the group associated with Factor 3
appreciates mathematics education for its ability to help them develop as a person. For this
reason, I choose to call this group of parents the Personally Meaningful group.
By contrast, this group gives aspects of mathematics training based off of its
indispensable part of a human being’s identity and it being a vital part of our Western cultural
heritage its lowest rankings. They also give their next lowest rankings to the aspects of
mathematics that relate to school (statements 25, 40, and 41) and being wise and educated
43
through mathematics knowledge (statement 24). This again suggests a focus on personal internal
meaning.
Table 7
Statement Number Statements Ranks in

and Type Factors
Highest Ranked
5 D F3++ …because it allows students to better understand the 4 -1 0
world and live more meaningfully in it.
30 F3++ …because it encourages creative logic, reasoning, and 4 -1 4
discovery.
22 F3+ …to help students realize and gain and appreciation for 3 2 1
the role it plays in the development of science,
technology, and our civilization.
31 F3+ …because doing mathematics develops and quickens the 3 2 3
mind.
35 F3+ …to enhance imagination and build creativity. 3 -2 1
38 D F3+ …because it is a powerful means of communication. 3 -2 -2
Lowest Ranked
24 F3- …because a knowledge of math is part of what it means -3 -1 0
to be wise and educated.
25 F3- …because it is part of the traditional school curriculum. -3 -2 -2
40 D F3- …to help students be ready for college. -3 1 -1
41 F3- …because it allows students to meet college entrance -3 1 -1
requirements, which allows students to reach higher
education and degrees.
21 F3-- …because it is a vital part of our Western cultural -4 -1 -3
heritage.
23 C F3-- …because it is a valuable and indispensable part of a -4 -3 -4
factors.
group, more than the others, has moderate support for mathematics education because of
mathematics internal beauty, the feelings of satisfaction and pleasure that it brings, and the
44
various mental skills it enhances. They are somewhat less supportive than the other two groups
of teaching mathematics in relation to money (both personally and economically), to process and
model quantitative problems, and because of mathematical properties.
45
Table 8
Statement Number Statements Ranks in

and Type Factors
7 …to help students grow persistence and confidence. 2 -1 2
8 C …because it trains students to give effort to rigorous 2 0 1
work.
17 D* …because it is interesting and intriguing. 2 -3 -3
32 …to help students reason abstractly. 2 -2 2
18 D* …because it creates feelings of pleasure, joy, and 1 -4 -3
satisfaction.
16 D* …because of its intrinsic beauty. 0 -4 -4

3 D …to help students learn about personal finances (budget, 0 4 2
save, taxes, interest, etc.).
6 …to teach students how to tackle difficult tasks and cope 0 0 2
with failure.
1 C …because of the permanence of mathematics in the -1 0 0
world.
36 D* …to develop problem solving skills. -1 2 3
39 …because it is a universal language that is understood -1 2 0
everywhere.
10 …because it produces critically and quantitatively literate -2 0 4
citizens.
26 C* …because mathematical knowledge leads to a higher -2 0 -1
28 C* …because jobs that provide economic self-sufficiency -2 -1 -1
33 …to help students think about quantitative situations and -2 0 3
37 …because it shows students how to model every-day -2 0 1
46
Summary
Overall, parents in Factor 1 seem to value the practical utility of mathematics, meaning
looking at how the mathematics taught will actually be used in the daily lives of their children
outside of school. Parents in Factor 1 are less concerned with the indirect benefits and skills that
are gained from learning mathematics, such as feeling good or gaining perseverance and other
skills that are not specific to mathematics and can be used in non-mathematical situations.
Overall, parents in Factor 2 seem to value how learning mathematics is used to train the
brain, meaning how learning mathematics gives rise to skills that are not specific to only
mathematics. Parents in Factor 2 are less concerned that mathematics should be taught because
it is a part of our human identity.
Overall, parents in Factor 3 seem to value how learning mathematics will be personally
meaningful to their children right now. This may mean helping their children understand
mathematical things and thus live more meaningfully, learning other skills that will help them
outside of mathematics, or creating positive feelings for the child. Parents in Factor 3 are less
concerned that mathematics should be taught because it is a part of our human identity or with
how learning mathematics now could help them later on.
Out of all of the distinguishing statements, there were three statements that were
distinguishing for all three factors: statements 3, 40, and 42. Statement 3, about personal
finance, was neutrally or positively viewed by all three factors, so all parents think teaching
mathematics to learn about personal finance is important to some degree, but the degree to which
they find it important varies. Statements 40 and 42 are slightly different in that Factor 1 views
these as important while the other two factors view them as less important, or negatively. These
statements both relate to schooling and college, which makes sense because Factor 1 cares more
47
about the direct benefits of teaching mathematics, in this case directly helping them in school or
get into college, while Factor 2 and 3 parents care more about brain skills or current personal
meaningfulness, of which school or getting into college in the future are not a part of.
Follow-up Interviews
After analyzing the data and determining the three factors, I had a brief interview with
five participants in order to check my analysis. I chose two parents that were categorized in
Factor 1, two parents in Factor 2, and the one parent who was not in any factors. The one parent
in Factor 3 was not available for further interviewing. During the interview, I first asked parents
to share the first things that come to mind for what are the most important reasons for teaching
mathematics. This time they did not have the cards with reasons to look at, but just went off of
what first came to mind. I then explained the three different groups (factors) of parents that my
analysis discovered and asked them to say what group they most agreed with. They were
unaware of what group I had categorized them being in.
In answering the first question, the first Factor 1 parent said that the most important
reasons for teaching mathematics are to give students a basic understanding of commerce and to
help kids learn the importance and value of finances. When asked what group he thought he
would be in, he replied with the first group (Factor 1). In answering the first question, the
second Factor 1 parent said the most important reasons for teaching mathematics is that people
use math their whole lives so they need to learn it, math teaches logic and one needs to know
how to logically figure things out, math teaches discipline and how to do things correctly and in
order, students need math to do well in college even if they do not use math through college,
math makes one smarter, one cannot function without basic math, and math makes one more
financially secure for instance by knowing how to invest. When asked what group she thought
48
she would be in, she replied with the first group (Factor 1). Thus, both parents categorized in
Factor 1 believed that is where they belong.
In answering the first question, the first Factor 2 parent said that the most important
reasons for teaching mathematics is to help students better thought process both in math and in
general by knowing how to break things down, learn the basics and know the facts, understand
why we need to use math, helps develop the brain, helps in music and different areas, helps
students be educated and pursue careers, and helps build upon skills. When asked what group
she thought she would be in, she replied with the second group (Factor 2). It is interesting to
note that after saying she aligned most with the second group, she said that she believed if you
could do the training the brain things that Factor 2 values, then you would be able to do the
practical utility things that Factor 1 values. In answering the first question, the second Factor 2
parent said that the most important reasons for teaching mathematics is to help one function in
everyday life, learn the practical application of math, and to encourage and foster skills that
come along through learning math like logic and reasoning. When asked what group she thought
she would be in, she said the first group (Factor 1). Thus, the first parent categorized in Factor 2
believed that is where she belongs, but the second one thought she aligned more with Factor 1. It
is important to note how this second Factor 2 parent did bring up in the free response question
that mathematics education is important to foster skills that come with learning math, like logic
and reasoning, which I would group more with training the brain (Factor 2). I later looked at this
participants’ distribution grid and the answers in the positive side mostly were all relating to
training the brain, with only two statements in the +2 column that categorize more with Factor 1.
I am not sure the reason why the parent said Personal and Scientific Utility this time around, but
this shows that both can be important to parents and that perhaps they go hand in hand.
49
In answering the first question, the parent that did not fall into any one of the three
categorizes (because he loaded significantly with all three) said that the most important reasons
for teaching mathematics is for the day-to-day practicality of mathematics, that it teaches broader
range of thinking skills, and is needed for a job. When asked what group he felt like he most
aligned with, he said the first group (Factor 1) followed closely by the second group (Factor 2).
Thus, out of the five parents who participated in the additional interview, four of the
parents categorized themselves in what factor/group that I categorized them being in. These
were both of the parents categorized as Factor 1, one of the parents categorized as Factor 2, and
the parent who loaded significantly on all three factors. I am concluding that the parent who
loaded significantly on all three categorized himself how I categorized him because he
essentially answered with two of the groups. The one parent who I categorized as being in
Factor 2 categorized herself as Factor 1. Despite the one parent not categorizing how I did, I still
think my results are valid. In the free response portion of the interview, she talked about a
reason associated with training the brain. In addition, Q-methodology is used to determine
factors, and she did categorize herself with one of the identified factors.
50
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Mathematics education has gone though many changes over the last century and is
continuing to change and evolve. Knowing the views of different stakeholder can help
determine what common ground there is between these different groups. The stakeholder group
of parents is especially important to understand because behind every student is a parent and
parents have historically caused setbacks when new reform mathematics has tried to be
implemented. Despite the importance of parents of stakeholder, little research has been
conducted concerning their perspectives on the importance of mathematics teaching. Through
using Q-methodology, I was able to identify three factors, with the most and least important
reasons for teaching mathematics, as well as the commonalities and differences in parents’
perspectives.
Answering the Research Questions
As a reminder the research questions for this study are 1) What are parents of secondary
mathematics students’ perspectives of the most and least important reasons about the importance
of teaching mathematics? 2) What are the differences in beliefs of the importance of teaching
mathematics? After answering the research questions, I will reflect about how this might help us
understand the past and what this means for the future.
Answering Research Question #1
To answer the first research questions, we can look at what there is general consensus
about from all parents of the most and least important reasons for teaching mathematics. This
can be answered by looking at the consensus statements. The reasons that parents all agree are
more important reasons for teaching mathematics is to help students develop and quicken their
minds, to help produce people to work in STEM fields and gain an appreciation for how
51
mathematics develops science, technology, and our civilization, to train students how to think
critically and analytically, and to help students interpret and analyze data. The reasons that
parents all agree are the less important reasons for teaching mathematics is because it is a
valuable and indispensable part of a human being’s identity, because it is a part of the traditional
school curriculum, because it can transform students’ awareness of society, to teach and help
students engage in social justice, because jobs that provide economic self-sufficiency require
mathematics, and because mathematical knowledge leads to a higher socioeconomic status.
Answering Research Question #2
To answer the second research question, we can look at the factors that were found from
the data. The top reasons that one group of parents values mathematics education is that it has
practical utility, such as financially, vocationally, or academically. The top reasons that another
group values mathematics education is that it will help students develop mentally, such as
obtaining reasoning, analyzing, and persevering skills. The top reasons that the last group values
mathematics education is that it will help students live more meaningfully by better
understanding the world and promote discovery. Some noticeable differences in the least
important reasons that different groups of parents value mathematics education is because of the
beauty of mathematics, because of the positive feelings it creates, and because it helps one to
become a productive citizen.
Reflection on History
After analyzing my results, it may be beneficial to look back on history and see if we can
identify why there was backlash at certain times. To do this, we are assuming that parents back
then had the same beliefs as parents today. For instance, let us consider New Math that was
implemented after the USSR’s launching of Sputnik. Mathematics taught in New Math
52
consisted of things such as set theory, modular arithmetic, and abstract algebra. When
considering parents from the first factor, who believe a large reason why mathematics should be
taught is because of the practical use of it in daily life through personal finances and schooling,
then they would not see how the more abstract concepts taught in New Math would be benefiting
their children in their daily lives. Thus, this could be a source of backlash from parents.
Mathematics Education Today
Currently, California is trying to adopt a new mathematics framework for mathematics
education. Amongst the many different things contained in the framework, one aspect
emphasizes the need for using mathematics problems to discuss social justice and solutions to
public policy issues (Schwartz, 2023). This focus on looking at inequalities through
mathematics and finding solutions has received much backlash. This means that there are
different people (stakeholders) valuing this aspect of mathematics education differently from
others. Looking at my results, we find that parents view teaching mathematics to help students
engage in social justice is viewed as less important (in the negative side of the distribution grid)
in all three groups of parents. This means that those who are viewing this aspect as more
important will need to come up with ways to change parents’ views of this aspect in order for
them to accept this framework.
Contributions
Parents’ Perspectives
Little to no research has been conducted concerning perspectives of the importance of
teaching mathematics. Most research that has been done has looked at students’ perspectives.
My study sheds light on parents’ perspectives of the importance of teaching mathematics.
53
My study identifies three factors, or groups, from the parents in the study. One factor
(Personal and Scientific Utility) was the group of parents who believed the most important
reasons for teaching mathematics was because of the practical utility of mathematics, such as
relating to financial benefits, careers, and schooling. These parents are less concerned with the
indirect benefits students reap from mathematics, the nature of mathematics, and the societal
impacts of mathematics. The next factor (Training the Brain) was the group of parents who
believed the most important reasons for teaching mathematics was because learning mathematics
can train the brain, such as learning how to reason through problems, critically analyze data,
develop persistence, and so on. These parents were less concerned with the nature of
mathematics and it being a part of one’s identity. The last factor (Personally Meaningful) was
the group of parents who believe the most important reasons for teaching mathematics was
because it can be personally meaningful to the students, such as through helping students to
better understand the world, encouraging creative thinking, or developing other useful skills.
Identifying these factors are important for several reasons. First, it shows that there are
different groupings of parents in the way they view the importance of mathematics education.
Knowing what parents value most from mathematics education is important because this can
help teachers and curriculum designers present new curriculum in ways that parents will be more
likely to accept based on what they value. For instance, the practical utility, training the mind, or
personal meaningful aspects can be emphasized to parents, to help them accept and not reject the
new curriculum. In addition, knowing the issues that are of least important to parents, as well as
areas where there is disagreement among parents, is also helpful so teachers and curriculum
designers can know ahead of time where there might be pushback from parents, so they can start
54
addressing those issues ahead of time. Ultimately this knowledge will help to facilitate a more
productive conversation and hopefully lasting results that will be most beneficial to the students.
Q-methodology
One contribution is the success in using Q-methodology to collect data on the
perspectives that parents have about the importance of teaching mathematics. Q-methodology
was historically used primarily in the social sciences but has started to gain more use in STEM
fields in more recent years. My study contributes to showing that Q-methodology can
successfully be used in STEM fields, particularly in mathematics education.
By using Q-methodology, parents were able to consider reasons that perhaps they would
not have thought of if they were just answering questions in an interview. This method took very
little of their time, perhaps was less stressful than an interview would be, and many parents even
said that they enjoyed and had fun reading through and sorting the statements. Thus, recruiting
parents might be easier because it seems less intimidating than an interview.
Implications
We need to be aware of the way others think and, in particular, in the field of
mathematics education we need to be aware of the way that parents value mathematics
education. Awareness of how parents value mathematics education can help facilitate productive
conversations about what mathematics should be taught in school and why. One implication is
that there should be more direct conversations about what people value in mathematics
education. When conflicts arise or there is backlash about certain curriculum, it could be fruitful
to ask parents what they value in mathematics education for their students. This way, the teacher
or curriculum designer can help point out how the mathematics does connect to what the parents
55
value. If needed, they can see how they can enhance the curriculum and mathematics to help
support the values parents are seeking for their students in their mathematics classrooms.
Limitations and Direction for Future Research
My research does not suggest that there are only the three factors that I identified from
my study, namely practical utility, training the brain, and personally meaningful. There could be
other factors that were not uncovered from my sample of parents. There could be other
connections or reasons parents have the values they do. My study did not look into possible
connections between the parents in each factor to see if there were commonalities between them.
My sample of parents was chosen simply if someone was a parent of a student in the public
education system. Further investigation into similarities between parents and their values by
having more specific criteria to participate, such as geographical location, race, social-economic
standing, gender, and so on. Further investigations could also have an increased number of
participants.
My study just looked at one group of stakeholders, namely parents. Parents are just one
of many groups of stakeholders that are important to look at. In the long run, the views of all
different stakeholders need to be looked at in order to see the commonalities and differences
between the groups and find what people value so what is taught in mathematics reflects that.
When we know what different stakeholders value, then productive conversations can be held to
help bridge the gap between the groups so ultimately the mathematics and how it is taught will
be accepted by all. This will provide the best mathematics education for our students.
Methodologically, future studies could explore larger numbers of participants in
particular stakeholder groups, as well as other decisions regarding numbers of factors, extraction
56
and rotation methods, and other criteria for flagging Q-sorts to see if any clearer pictures emerge
of participants’ views.
Conclusion
Mathematics education continues to evolve to provide the best education for students.
Knowing why people value mathematics will help us to know what should be taught.
Specifically knowing what parents value will help bridge the gap between the curriculum and
how it is accepted by parents. As we further our research to see what all groups of stakeholders
value, mathematics education will be able to be shaped into something that everyone will accept
and see the value in.
57
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. R. (1980). Attitude measurement and research. In D.A. Payne (Ed.), Recent
developments in affective measurement (pp. 1-24). Jossey-Bass.
Akhtar-Danesh, N. (2016). An overview of the statistical techniques in Q methodology: Is there
a better way of doing Q analysis? Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q
Methodology, 38 (3-4), 29-36.
Albersmann, N. & Rolka, K. (2012). Challenging parental beliefs about mathematics education.
In M. Hannula, P. Protaankorva-Koivisto, A. Laine, & L. Näveri (Eds.) Current state of
research on mathematical beliefs XVIII: Proceedings of the MAVI-18 Conference (pp.
99-109). Helsinki, Finland.
Banasick, S. (2019). Ken-Q analysis. https://shawnbanasick.github.io/ken-q-
analysis/doi:10.5281/zenodo.1300201
Baumslag, B. (2014). Why are so many forced to study mathematics at school and then find they
never use it subsequently? Mathematics in School, 43(4), 6-8.
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4),
561-567.
Brown, Z., & Rhoades, G. (2019). Q-methodology: Seeking communalities in perspectives of
young children and practitioners. In Z. Brown & G. Rhoades (Eds.), Using innovative
methods in early years research (pp. 202-215). Routledge.
California State Education Department. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public
schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Author.
Cooper, J. B., & McGraugh, J. L. (1970). Attitude and related concepts. In M. Jahoda & N.
Warren (Eds.), Attitudes. Selected readings (pp. 26-31). Penguin.
58
Fan, Lianghuo. (2021). Exploring issues about values in mathematics education. ECNU Review
of Education 4(2), 388-395.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage Productions.
Fortin, J. (2021, November 4). California tries to close the gap in math, but sets off a backlash.
New York Times. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html
Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. Educational Studies in
Mathematics 1(1), 3-8.
Goldin, G., Rösken, B., & Törner, G. (2009). Beliefs – No longer a hidden variable in
mathematical teaching and learning processes. In J. Maaß & W. Schlöglmann (Eds.),
Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education: New research results (pp. 1 – 18). Sense
Publishers.
Graue, M. E., & Smith, S. Z. (1996). Parents and mathematics education reform: Voicing the
authority of assessment. Urban education, 30(4), 395-421.
Halloran, J. D. (1970). Attitude formation and change. Leicester University Press.
Hendrickson, D. (1974). Why do we teach mathematics? Mathematics Teacher, 67(5), 468-470.
Herrera, T. A., & Owens, D. T. (2001). The “new new math”?: Two reform movements in
mathematics education. Theory Into Practice, 40 (2), 84-92.
Hill, J. L., Kern, M. L., Seah, W. T., & van Driel, J. (2021). Feeling good and functioning well in
mathematics education: Exploring students’ conceptions of mathematical well-being and
values. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 349-375.
59
Hunter, J. (2021). An intersection of mathematics educational values and cultural values:
Pāsifika students’ understanding and explanation of their mathematics educational
values. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 307-326.
Jacobsen, K. S., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Perceptions of environmental justice and the conflict
surrounding large carnivore management in Norway—Implications for conflict
management. Biological Conservation, 203(1), 197-206.
Janmaat, G., McCowan, T., & Rao, N. (2016). Different stakeholders in education. Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 46(2), 169-171.
Jordan, K., Capdevila, R., & Johnson, S. (2005). Baby or beauty: A Q study into post pregnancy
body image. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23 (1), 19-31.
Klein, D. (2007). A quarter century of US ‘math wars’ and political partisanship. BSHM Bulletin,
22, 22-33.
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2002). Measuring mathematical beliefs and their impact on the
learning of mathematics: A new approach. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner
(Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 95 – 113). Kluwer
Academic Press.
Lee, J. (2012). College for all: Gaps between desirable and actual P-12 math achievement
trajectories for college readiness. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 43-55.
Morea, N. (2022). Investigating change in subjectivity: The analysis of Q-sorts in longitudinal
research. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1 (3), 100025.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. United States Government Printing Office.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (n.d.) Looking back, moving forward. Retrieved
60
June 1, 2022, from https://www.nctm.org/100timeline/
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. NGA and CCSSO.
http://www.corestandards.org
Paige, J. B., & Morin, K. H. (2016). Q-sample construction: A critical step for a Q-
methodological study. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(1), 96-110.
Pang, J., & Seah, W. T. (2021). Excellent mathematical performance despite “negative” affect of
students in Korea: The values perspective. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 285-306.
Peressini, D. (1998). The portrayal of parents in the school mathematics reform literature:
Locating the context for parental involvement. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 29(5), 555-582.
Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., & Van De Giesen, N. C. (2008). Identification of stakeholder
perspectives on future flood management in the Rhine basin using Q
methodology. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12(4), 1097-1109.
Rockliffe, F. (2001). Parental involvement in mathematics education in a Canadian elementary
school. In F. Smit (Ed.). A Bridge to the Future (pp.235-244). ERNAPE.
Roitman, J. (1999). Beyond the math wars. Contemporary Issues in Mathematics Education,
36(1), 123-134.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. Jossey-Bass.
Sæbjørnsen, S. E. N., Ellingsen, I. T., Good, J. M., & Ødegård, A. (2016). Combining a
naturalistic and theoretical Q sample approach: An empirical research
illustration. Operant Subjectivity, 38(2), 15-32.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253-286.
61
Schwartz, S. (2023, July 18). California adopts controversial new math framework. Here’s
what’s in it. Education Week, Retrieved July 27, 2023 from www.edweek.org/teaching-
learning/california-adopts-controversial-new-math-framework-heres-whats-in-it/2023/07.
Stanic, G. M. (1986). Growing crisis in mathematics education in the early twentieth century.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), pp. 190-206.
Stanic, G. M., & Kilpatrick, J. (1992). Mathematics curriculum reform in the United States: A
historical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 17(5), 407-417.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of
Chicago Press.
Tang, H., Seah, W. T., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, W. (2021). The mathematics learning attributes
valued by students in Eastern China. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 261-284.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2014). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and
interpretation. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911
West, L. (2020). Why is teaching and learning mathematics important: Developing a concourse
Masters Thesis, Brigham Young University.
Wilson, S. M. (2003). California dreaming: Reforming mathematics education. Yale University
Press.
Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to
understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32 (5), 1185-
1194.
62
Appendix A: Statements
1. Teaching mathematics is important because its permanence in the world.

2. Teaching mathematics is important because it can be applied in many areas of daily life.
3. Teaching mathematics is important to help students learn about personal finances (budget,
save, taxes, interest, etc.).
4. Teaching mathematics is important because it teaches students to be able to interpret,
analyze, and question data for validity.
5. Teaching mathematics is important because it allows students to better understand the world
and to live more meaningfully in it.
6. Teaching mathematics is important to teach students how to tackle difficult tasks and cope
with failure.
7. Teaching mathematics is important to help students grow persistence and confidence.
8. Teaching mathematics is important because it teaches students to give effort to rigorous
work.
9. Teaching mathematics is important because it is a useful skill in many careers.
10. Teaching mathematics is important because it produces critical and quantitively literate
citizens.
11. Teaching mathematics is important because it allows students to become productive citizens.
12. Teaching mathematics is important because our civilization would collapse without it.
13. Teaching mathematics is important because it is necessary for the economy.
14. Teaching mathematics is important to produce people to work in STEM fields (science,
15. Teaching mathematics is important because it is a body of knowledge that is true everywhere
and forever.
16. Teaching mathematics is important because of its intrinsic beauty.
17. Teaching mathematics is important because it is interesting and intriguing.
18. Teaching mathematics is important because it creates feelings of pleasure, joy, and
satisfaction.
19. Teaching mathematics is important to teach, learn, and resolve social justice issues.
20. Teaching mathematics is important because it can transform students’ awareness of society.
21. Teaching mathematics is important because it is a vital part of our Western cultural heritage.
22. Teaching mathematics is important to help students realize, and gain an appreciation for, the
role it plays in the development of science, technology, and our civilization.
23. Teaching mathematics is important because it is a valuable and indispensable part of a human
being’s identity.
24. Teaching mathematics is important because it is a part of what it means to be wise and
educated.
25. Teaching mathematics is important because it is part of the traditional school curriculum.
26. Teaching mathematics is important because its knowledge leads to a higher socioeconomic
status.
27. Teaching mathematics is important because it gives one access to a wider variety of career
options.
28. Teaching mathematics is important because jobs that provide economic self-sufficiency
29. Teaching mathematics is important to produce/train future mathematicians.
63
30. Teaching mathematics is important because it teaches creative logic, reasoning, and
discovery.
31. Teaching mathematics is important because it develops and quickens the mind.
32. Teaching mathematics is important to help students reason abstractly.
33. Teaching mathematics is important to help students think about quantitative situations and
34. Teaching mathematics is important because it teaches students to think critically and
analytically.
35. Teaching mathematics is important to enhance imagination and build creativity.
36. Teaching mathematics is important to develop problem solving skills.
37. Teaching mathematics is important because it teaches students how to model every-day
38. Teaching mathematics is important because it is a powerful means of communication.
39. Teaching mathematics is important because it is a universal language that is understood
everywhere.
40. Teaching mathematics is important to help students be ready for college.
41. Teaching mathematics is important because of its role in college entrance requirements, to
help students can reach higher education and degrees.
42. Teaching mathematics is important because it is used in many other school subjects.
64

Parents Perceptions of The Importance of Teaching Mathematics - A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parents Perceptions of The Importance of Teaching Mathematics - A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brigham Young University

Theses and Dissertations

Parents' Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics:

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Steve R. Williams, Chair

Department of Mathematics Education

Brigham Young University

Copyright © 2023 Ashlynn M. Holley

All Rights Reserved

Parents’ Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics: A Q-Study

Keywords: teaching, mathematics, parents, perspectives, q-methodology, curriculum, reform

done it without them.

TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 4

History of U.S. Mathematics Education ..................................................................................... 4

Backlash Through History .......................................................................................................... 6

The Importance of Parents as Stakeholders ................................................................................ 8

Previous Studies in Valuing Mathematics Education ............................................................... 11

Views, Attitudes, Opinions, and Beliefs ................................................................................... 16

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 19

Q-Methodology Overview ........................................................................................................ 19

Q-Methodology Steps ............................................................................................................... 22

Concourse and Selection of Subset ........................................................................................... 23

Selection of Participants ........................................................................................................... 24

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 26

Factor Analysis as Applied to Q-Methodology .................................................................... 26

Choosing the Number of Factors .......................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 31

Consensus Statements ............................................................................................................... 31

Description of Factors ............................................................................................................... 34

Factor 1: Personal and Scientific Utility ............................................................................... 34

Factor 2: Training the Brain.................................................................................................. 39

Factor 3: Personally Meaningful ........................................................................................... 43

Follow-up Interviews ................................................................................................................ 48

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 51

Answering the Research Questions .......................................................................................... 51

Answering Research Question #1 ......................................................................................... 51

Answering Research Question #2 ......................................................................................... 52

Reflection on History ............................................................................................................ 52

Mathematics Education Today ............................................................................................. 53

Parents’ Perspectives ............................................................................................................ 53

Limitations and Direction for Future Research ........................................................................ 56

Appendix A: Statements ............................................................................................................... 63

Table 1: Factors and Loadings Following Rotation.….………………………………………. . 29

Table 2: Consensus Statements .................................................................................................... 32

Figure 1: Distribution Grid .......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 2: Factor and Eigenvalue Scree Plot ............................................................................... 28

at best temporary agreements about what mathematics should be taught.

how it should be taught. These stakeholders include teachers, principals, mathematicians,

parents, students, politicians, researchers, etc. (Janmaat et al., 2016).

employment, as well as the enjoyment of solving personally relevant quantitative problems. It

better informed and more involved citizens.

History of U.S. Mathematics Education

to successfully engage in the curriculum meant for the elite.