Confidence in doing and teaching mathematics is vital for both in-service and pre-service elementary teachers (PSETs) (Giles et al., 2016; Newton et al., 2012). For a variety of reasons, often having to do with negative experiences in mathematics classrooms as students (Bekdemir, 2010; Finlayson, 2014), PSETs often feel and exhibit a lack of confidence during content courses in their preparation programs. Left unaddressed, this low confidence can potentially affect their current or future students’ attitudes about and success in mathematics (Ramirez et al., 2018).

Correspondingly, much research has explored increasing mathematics confidence and lowering mathematics anxiety in students in general, and in PSETs in particular. For example, Finlayson (2014) worked with PSETs to help them develop strategies they could personally use to diffuse their own mathematics anxiety as learners of the subject, as well as strategies they could use in their teaching to mitigate the mathematics anxiety of their future students. For the latter group, these included emphasizing the process of doing mathematics more than whether an answer was correct or not, varying teaching styles and assessment practices, and creating engaging lessons. Emphasizing conceptual knowledge over procedural fluency and using manipulatives have also shown positive effects on increasing the mathematical confidence of PSETs (Gresham, 2007).

Background of Classroom

My institution has three content courses for elementary teachers (whole numbers and operations, geometry and measurement, and rational numbers and operations), and I regularly teach the various courses in the sequence. While we each teach our own sections individually, course instructors function as a team in that we all use the same research-based curricula to teach the courses. In each of the courses, the strategies for increasing confidence and decreasing mathematics anxiety discussed in the previous paragraph are employed: conceptual knowledge and process are emphasized over procedural knowledge and right answers, multiple methods of solving problems are considered and encouraged, and manipulatives are used regularly.

Despite the care put into crafting the courses, and regardless of which course in the sequence I was teaching, one troubling phenomenon was regularly occurring during class discussions. At least once per class, and typically more often, PSET questions or comments would begin with something akin to “This is probably a dumb question, but …” or “This is probably wrong, but …”. I would routinely tell them that not only were the preambles not necessary, but their qualifiers were also often not true: “That’s not a dumb question at all! I was hoping someone would ask it!” or “You weren’t wrong. That was perfect!  But even if you were wrong, discussing incorrect strategies is a great way to learn. No one will think less of you for being wrong about something new you’re just learning about.” No matter how much I tried to address it, the negative prefacing of questions and comments continued to happen.

Intervention

I wanted to rid my classroom of these negative preludes due to the dampening effect they seemed to have on the level of conversation and the mood of the room. If they did not occur, I hoped the PSETs’ confidence would also increase merely because they were not presuming their own failure and deficiencies when choosing to speak. I did not want to take away course points for such utterances, as I knew negatively impacting their grades would only cause conversation to become much harder to solicit. I jokingly wished to myself that I could just put a swear jar at the front of the room and have them put a dollar in each time they made these comments. Of course, I did not want to take money from my students, having them walk to the front of the room to put money in would be embarrassing for them, and I am sure such practice would not go over well with my dean.

That’s when I got the idea for the reverse swear jar. On the first day of class, I appealed to them to not be afraid, to have confidence, to ask questions, and to share ideas. I told them everyone was going to be wrong at some point in the semester, and that was okay because that is how we learn. Then, I pulled out a jar with $27 in it and displayed the PowerPoint slide in Figure 1. The reverse swear jar had $1 for each class period we were to meet during the semester. At the end of the term, the remaining funds would be used to buy snacks for a review session held outside of our class time. Anytime someone uttered one of the banned phrases, I would remove $1 from the jar.

Figure 1. Reverse Swear Jar Introduction PowerPoint Slide

Of course, one important consideration before implementing the reverse swear jar was an examination of potential negative effects on students. As I had already been consistently pointing out the negative self-talk in previous semesters for educative purposes, it did not seem that the reverse swear jar would add significantly to students feeling singled out when they said something. I also thought the removal of $1 was small enough so as not to cause feelings of guilt among the students that they had cost their classmates something significant. More generally, the reverse swear jar should only be used in a classroom environment like those we try to cultivate at our institution where students are cared for and supported and know for certain that is the spirit in which the jar is intended.

Effects

When the jar was introduced, the PSETs appeared intrigued, some even amused, by the idea. Ultimately, over the entire semester, I only had to remove $1 from the jar. Further, conversation seemed more open and free-flowing during class discussions than in previous semesters. The PSETs seemed more willingly to offer conflicting ideas and discuss them as a class when they did not feel obliged to undercut themselves when offering ideas. Perhaps more importantly as they approach their methods course and future teaching, the use of the reverse swear jar seemed to generate a self-awareness and self-monitoring within the PSETs regarding the use of deprecating preludes to their questions and ideas. Such awareness could have positive impacts with respect to how the PSETs communicate with their own students in the future.

The one occasion I had to remove $1 from the jar occurred near the middle of the semester. By that time, the more positive atmosphere that had been generated allowed the student to smile while admitting the mistake, not feel bad about it, and continue the discussion without shutting down. The jar appears to have been a success despite very few people, roughly 25% of the class, showing up to the review session with the provided snacks. I also heard from another instructor that when a student disparaged themselves in their class, a classmate told them about the “Clark Jar” and to not do that.

Future

Given the perceived success of the reverse swear jar, I am looking forward to using it again. At that time, I look to gather data in a systematic way from sections with and without the jar to make more sound comparisons of the effects as well as survey students about their attitudes toward it at the beginning and end of the semester. Also, I am pondering suitable alternatives so that this or a similar idea can be introduced into my Zoom-only sections of the course with students who do not come to campus.

As stated at the outset of this piece, increasing PSETs’ confidence in doing and teaching mathematics is vital (Giles et al., 2016; Newton et al., 2012). Left unaddressed, PSETs’ low confidence can potentially affect their future students’ attitudes about and success in mathematics (Ramirez et al., 2018). AMTE’s Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics note in the PSET knowledge, skills, and dispositions chapter that “well-prepared [beginning teachers] must be clear and confident in their visions for teaching mathematics” (2017, p.18). The standards also acknowledge that too few upper elementary teachers feel confident teaching mathematics at that level. Working to eliminate negative self-talk with respect to mathematics in teacher preparation programs, or at very least making PSETs more aware that it is happening and that it has negative effects, can potentially go a long way toward increasing PSET and beginning teacher confidence in teaching mathematics. The reverse swear jar, when used in a supportive and caring classroom atmosphere, is one way to accomplish this that I look forward to exploring further.

References

Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics. https://amte.net/sites/default/files/SPTM.pdf

Bekdemir, M. (2010). The pre-service teachers’ mathematics anxiety related to depth of negative experiences in mathematics classroom while they were students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(3), 311-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9260-7

Finlayson, M. (2014). Addressing math anxiety in the classroom. Improving Schools, 17(1), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214521457

Giles, R. M., Byrd, K. O., & Bendolph, A. (2016). An investigation of elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1160523. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1160523

Gresham, G. (2007). A study of mathematics anxiety in pre-service teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0174-7

Newton, K. J., Leonard, J., Evan, B. R., & Eastburn, J. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and teacher efficacy. School Science & Mathematics, 112(5), 289-299. https://doi.10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00145.x

Ramirez, G., Hooper, S. Y., Kersting, N. B., Ferguson, R., & Yeager, D. Teacher math anxiety relates to adolescent students’ math achievement. AERA Open, 4(1), p. 233285841875605. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418756052