Method

A cross-sectional, mixed-method survey

One anonymous online survey, 20–30 minutes, no intervention and no manipulation — designed to capture noticing, beliefs, and motivation as they are, not as instruction shapes them.

Participants

Approximately 30–40 undergraduate preservice early childhood education students enrolled in Early Childhood Education coursework at the State College of Florida. Participation is voluntary, anonymous, and unrelated to grading — the instructor never knows who takes part.

What we mean by 'math ideas'

The survey does not ask participants to invent their own labels for mathematics. Instead, it anchors noticing in the Erikson Institute Early Math Collaborative's Big Ideas of Early Mathematics— a research-based framework that organizes early mathematics into coherent conceptual clusters.

Participants are introduced to four Big Ideas before any noticing items appear: quantity, pattern, comparison, and spatial relationships. This gives everyone a shared vocabulary, so when we compare responses we are comparing recognition of the same conceptual terrain, not idiosyncratic interpretations of what "math" means.

What participants do

Review the Erikson-aligned definition of "math ideas" (quantity, pattern, comparison, spatial relationships).
Complete Likert-scale survey items.
Respond to scenario-based multiple-choice items.
Provide optional open-ended reflections on math integration during shared storybook reading.

The survey is administered electronically on a secure institutional platform. There is no recording and no deception; participants may exit at any time without penalty.

What the survey measures

Noticing. Recognition of embedded mathematical ideas in shared storybook reading scenarios — in both planned and spontaneous contexts. Items span the four Erikson Big Ideas so we can see whether some domains are easier to notice than others.
Beliefs. Views about the importance of early mathematics and about integrating math during literacy instruction.
Motivation and self-efficacy. Intention and preparedness to act on noticed opportunities, alongside mathematics self-efficacy.

Analysis plan

Quantitative analysis

Data preparation. Responses are inspected for completeness and cleaned before analysis. Missing data are handled conservatively: because the survey is anonymous and voluntary, item-level missingness is reported, and scale scores are computed only when a participant has completed the majority of items on a given measure.

Descriptive statistics. For every scale and subscale we report means, standard deviations, ranges, and response distributions. This gives a clear picture of how preservice teachers, as a group, rate their own noticing, beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivation.

Reliability. Internal consistency for each multi-item scale is checked with Cronbach's alpha. Scales that fall below conventional thresholds are noted and interpreted cautiously.

Planned versus spontaneous noticing. A paired comparison tests whether participants endorse mathematical integration more strongly when it is the stated purpose of a reading activity than when it must be noticed in the moment. This directly addresses Hypothesis 1.

Correlations. Bivariate correlations examine relationships among noticing scores, early-math beliefs, mathematics self-efficacy, motivation, and instructional intention. These reveal which constructs move together and which are relatively independent.

Regression. Multiple regression models test the predictive hypotheses. In one model, self-efficacy and beliefs predict motivation to integrate math during shared reading (Hypothesis 2). In a second model, beliefs and noticing scores predict instructional intention (Hypothesis 3). Assumptions such as linearity, normality of residuals, and multicollinearity are checked before interpreting results.

Exploratory follow-ups. Additional analyses examine whether some Erikson Big Ideas (quantity, pattern, comparison, spatial relationships) are noticed more readily than others, and whether confidence in a domain predicts intention to act on it.

Qualitative analysis

Data source. The qualitative component comes from optional open-ended reflections at the end of the survey. Participants are invited to explain what they noticed, why they think it matters, and whether they would act on it during a read-aloud.

Thematic coding. Responses are analyzed using an iterative, inductive-deductive thematic approach. We begin by reading all reflections to generate initial codes that stay close to participants' own language. These codes are then organized into broader themes.

Deductive anchors. Because the study is grounded in the Erikson Big Ideas, one coding pass explicitly tags references to quantity, pattern, comparison, and spatial relationships. A second pass tags instructional orientation: whether the participant describes acting on the noticing during reading, extending it into a follow-up activity, or not acting at all.

Codebook and reliability. A small subset of responses is double-coded to develop and refine the codebook. Disagreements are discussed until consensus is reached, and the final codebook is applied to the full set of reflections.

Integration. Qualitative themes are compared with quantitative patterns. For example, if the regression shows that self-efficacy predicts motivation, the reflections are examined for the language participants use to describe confidence, hesitation, or perceived barriers. This mixed-method integration helps explain why the numbers look the way they do.

Ethics, safeguards, and risk mitigation

This study is classified as minimal-risk social-behavioral research under State College of Florida Institutional Review Board oversight. The protocol is anticipated to qualify for Exempt Category 2 review because data are collected anonymously and the research procedures occur in established educational settings.

Anonymity

No names, student IDs, email addresses, or other direct identifiers are collected. Responses cannot be linked back to individual participants.

Voluntary participation

Participation is completely voluntary. Refusing to participate, skipping questions, or exiting the survey early has no effect on grades, course standing, or relationship with the instructor.

No deception or recording

The survey contains no deception and no audio, video, or screen recording. The purpose of each section is described in the informed consent language.

Secure storage

Data are stored on a secure institutional server according to State College of Florida policy, accessible only to the research team for analysis and reporting.

Online informed consent is obtained at the start of the survey using a waiver of written documentation approved by the IRB. Participants are informed that the research involves no greater risk than ordinary educational activities and that they may contact the researchers with questions at any time.

Where this leads

Findings will inform teacher preparation practices around early math integration — and establish the baseline for a future designed sequence: pre-noticing → explicit instruction in mathematical noticing during shared reading → post-noticing, to test whether the quantity, variety, and sophistication of noticing is malleable.