Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Finds key determinants of teaching performance in pre-service teachers, suggesting improved training strategies.
In the context of Vietnam’s transition to a competency-based curriculum, Realistic Mathematics Education has emerged as a pivotal pedagogical framework. However, its successful implementation depends heavily on the professional readiness of pre-service teachers. This study develops and validates a structural model to investigate the key determinants of Realistic Mathematics Education-based teaching performance among mathematics education students. This paper uses a quantitative research design with an ex post facto approach was employed. Data were collected from 654 pre-service mathematics teachers across pedagogical universities in Vietnam using a multi-stage sampling strategy that combined cluster and convenience sampling. The primary instrument was a structured online survey consisting of 5-point Likert scale items adapted from established theoretical constructs. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling via SmartPLS 4.1 was utilized to analyze the measurement and structural relationships. The results confirm that Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Institutional Support, and Experience and Observation significantly and positively influence Realistic Mathematics Education teaching performance. Notably, Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes serve as a vital mediator, translating professional knowledge and support into practice. While the model demonstrates high predictive power, Importance-Performance Map Analysis identifies Experience and Observation as a critical priority area characterized by high impact but relatively lower performance levels. This shows teacher training programs should move beyond theoretical instruction to prioritize immersive clinical experiences, video analysis, and practical design skills. Enhancing these factors supports the development of effective, real-world-aligned numeracy instruction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Da et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: