Contents |
Committee | Preface
| Ch 1 | Ch 2 |
Intro to Ch 3-9 | Ch 3
| Ch 4 | Ch 5 |
Ch 6 | Refs for Part 1
| Other Reports | Ch 7
| Ch 8 | Ch 9
This report is designed to be a resource for mathematics faculty and other parties involved in the education of mathematics teachers. It is a distillation of current thinking on curriculum and policy issues affecting the mathematical education of teachers, with the goal of stimulating efforts on individual campuses to improve programs for prospective teachers. It is also intended to marshal the backing of the mathematical sciences community for important national initiatives, such as the use of mathematics specialists to teach mathematics starting in middle grades and expanded time for professional development in the schools.
Now is a time of great interest in K-12 mathematics education. Student performance, curriculum, and teacher education are the subjects of much scrutiny and debate. Studies of the mathematical knowledge of prospective and practicing U. S. teachers suggest ways to improve their mathematical educations.
Two general themes of this report are: (i) the intellectual substance in school mathematics; and (ii) the special nature of the
mathematical knowledge needed for teaching. It is often assumed that, because the topics covered in school mathematics are so
basic, they must also be easy to teach. We owe to mathematics education research of the past decade, or so, the realization that
substantial mathematical understanding is needed even to teach whole number arithmetic well. Several mathematics education
researchers, in particular Deborah Ball and Liping Ma, have been able to communicate these findings in ways that engaged research
mathematicians. Middle grades curricula are even more demanding; for example, the structure of the rational numbers and the idea
of proportionality require even more knowledge of teachers. High school mathematics is often considered more substantive than the
mathematics of earlier grades, but the challenges of developing a knowledge of it for teaching are often unacknowledged.
The mathematical knowledge needed for teaching is quite different from that required by college students pursuing other
mathematics-related professions. Prospective teachers need a solid understanding of mathematics so that they can teach it as a
coherent, reasoned activity and communicate its elegance and power. Mathematicians are particularly qualified to teach mathematics
in the connected, sense-making way that teachers need. For maximum effectiveness, the design of this instruction requires
collaboration between mathematicians and mathematics educators and close connections with classroom practice.
This report is not aligned with a particular school mathematics curriculum, although it is consistent with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' Principles and Standards for School Mathematics as well as other recent national reports on school mathematics. This report focuses on preservice education. Although there is a growing awareness that teachers need more professional development opportunities, this project did not have the time or resources to discuss this important issue in detail.
This report is addressed to a number of different audiences. The following paragraphs offer guidance to readers in some of
these audiences.
The writers of this report hope that it will be useful to other audiences both current and future
teachers, education faculty in general, and school supervisors of mathematics.
This document is available in print and electronic formats. Part 1 is published by the Mathematical Association of America and may be obtained free of charge from the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. The American Mathematical Society has published Parts 1 and 2 as a single volume. Parts 1 and 2 may also be downloaded from the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Web site, www.cbmsweb.org
The official writers of this report are listed at the front of this document, along with the members of the project steering committee. However, the focus, language, and overall tone of this report reflect the helpful advice of scores of mathematicians and mathematics educators, who commented on the many drafts that have circulated over the past two years. Although the writers sometimes had to choose among conflicting advice, it was heartening to see how much consistency and agreement there was in most of the comments.