Group T6 Action Plans
|
Team Name |
|
University of Colorado Denver |
|
Team Leader |
|
Mike Jacobson - michael.jacobson@ucdenver.edu
|
|
Area & Recs |
|
Teachers and Teacher Education 17, 18, 19 |
The University of Colorado Denver has had a number of grants and projects that have encouraged collaboration between the School of Education and Human Development and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. As the collaborations have progressed, the math departments in both units have decided to create a new degree program for in-service teachers. The program would cross both content and pedagogy from the perspectives of the both the School and College.
As we meet during this forum, we are investigating how the Math Panel Report informs this new program both theoretically and practically. Our action plan includes creating a proposal for the Masters degree, examining our current research and the Math Panel Report to determine how this work may impact the program goals and values.
In the next six months, we are going to proceed with an academic certificate program in middle level mathematics (and science) instruction. We expect that there will be two certificates; one that will include content courses in Algebra, Geometry, Discovery and Use of the History of Mathematics, and Probability/Statistics and a second advanced certificate that would include Rates of Change, Discrete Math, and Math Modelling. In the next year, we plan that these certificates will articulate to a Masters of Science degree in Math Education.
Our long term goal is to promote and foster master teacher leaders in math and science who will understand the hierarchies of mathematics across levels, be able to develop differentiated models of instruction for students, and provide leadership within their district in mathematics. We believe this will enhance teacher retention and improve student achievement across the districts.
|
Team Name |
|
University of Maryland - Center for Mathematics Education |
|
Team Leader |
|
Daniel Chazan - dchazan@umd.edu |
|
Area & Recs |
|
Teachers and Teacher Education 17, 19, 21 |
The University of Maryland Center for Mathematics Education is involved in pre-service education at the undergraduate and graduate level. We support undergraduate certification programs for elementary and secondary teachers. We support graduate programs, some of which involve part-time paid internships in local urban schools that provide a path to certification for elementary and secondary pre-service teachers who have already completed an undergraduate degree. Finally, we also offer cohort-based programs tailored to local school districts seeking to improve the qualifications of their elementary certified middle grades mathematics teachers. As our state moves toward middle grades certification, we will also provide undergraduate and graduate mechanisms for certification as a middle grades mathematics teacher.
The Center also has as a central component of its mission research on the teaching of mathematics in urban settings. Projects have included Dr. Patricia Campbell’s work in Baltimore City, as well as the current MACMTL Case Studies research project with its focus on well-respected teachers of Algebra 1 in urban schools.
As part of the larger MACMTL focus on teacher knowledge, stimulated by critiques of the teacher knowledge literature (Putnam & Borko, 2002), and in line with empirical exploration of cultural matches between teachers and students (Dee, 2004), this Case Studies research project is designed to be open to the possibility that teachers’ subject matter knowledge, and even pedagogical content knowledge, may not be the most important factor in improving student achievement in urban settings. Our careful examination of the work of these teachers suggests that in their teaching they may be using a kind of knowledge of students that has yet to be described in the literature, let alone assessed.
As we explore a variety of methods to attract and prepare teacher candidates who are mathematically knowledgeable and have the skills needed to help students learn mathematics in urban schools, we have come to realize a need for teacher education materials that show evidence of the day to day realities of urban schools, and of how well-respected teachers successfully grapple with the challenges of teaching in urban schools.
We plan to develop artifacts of practice (e.g., audio/video recordings, multimedia cases of class interaction, etc.) from urban mathematics classrooms for use with preservice and inservice teachers. The use of artifacts and cases drawn from mathematics classrooms has been shown to be effective in improving teachers’ capacity for attending to and analyzing student mathematical thinking, developing pedagogical content knowledge, supporting growth in teaching for mathematical understanding, and promoting habits of reflective inquiry more generally (e.g., Borko, 2004; Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). We propose to develop teacher preparation and development resources—constructed from records of interactions in urban mathematics classrooms—that, while serving those purposes, also specifically highlight the work of teaching in urban school contexts. In particular, we will conceptualize and develop artifacts that engage preservice and inservice teachers in meaningful examination of how the socio-economic and political contexts of schooling (in our case, as instantiated in particular urban contexts) influence the work of mathematics teaching and that also provide cases of teachers and teaching in urban contexts that illustrate a diverse set of strategies, kinds of knowledge and expertise, and decision-making processes.
We currently have a significant collection of artifacts drawn from previous research projects that could form the basis for such development work in teacher preparation. In addition, our current work in the Case Studies research project provides the foundation for a conceptual framework of the practices, knowledge and skills effective teachers in urban contexts employ. Building upon this previous work and drawing upon the expertise of members of our faculty in the development and use of artifacts in teacher preparation and development, we propose the following action plan:
1. Develop a conceptual framework of knowledge for mathematics teaching in urban contexts
2. Develop a ‘map’ of possible topics or issues that artifacts should address based on the conceptual framework.
3. Review current artifact holdings and determine whether and how they can be used for the purposes outlined in the framework and the map; determine what additional artifacts should be collected to create a holistic package useful for teacher education.
4. Develop ‘cases’ and/or contextual materials with which the artifacts are to be used. These may significantly differ depending on whether the cases/artifacts are to be used with preservice or inservice teachers.
5. Pilot use of a subset of the artifacts in both teacher preparation and development.
6. Based on the pilot work, develop the artifacts/cases as either ‘units’ in teacher preparation/development or larger programs (or both).
7. Disseminate these materials to other programs preparing teachers to teach mathematics in urban schools.
References
Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3.
Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, Race, and Student Achievement in a Randomized Experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195-210.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics and Science: The State of the Scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5).
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2002). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. In B. Moon, J. Butcher, & E. Bird (Eds.), Leading professional development in education (pp. 11-29). London: Routledge.
.
|
Team Name |
|
Michigan State University |
|
Team Leader |
|
Robert Floden - floden@msu.edu |
|
Area & Recs
|
|
Teachers and Teacher Education 19, 20, 17 |
We will develop an action plan for continuing research on the mathematical knowledge of elementary and middle school teachers and on how teacher preparation programs help teachers acquire that knowledge. The mathematical knowledge teachers need includes deep understanding of the content they will teach, knowledge of how to teach that content, skill in using available curricula, understanding of how students learn the content and of where students are encounter difficulties. Components of the research we plan include:
· Studying what teacher preparation programs – in the US and in other countries – are doing to prepare elementary and middle school teachers;
o By April, 2009, we will complete preliminary analysis of data on preservice teachers’ knowledge of mathematics and mathematics pedagogy in 17 countries. This part of the TEDS-M IEA Study of mathematics teacher preparation. These preliminary results will be discussed in March with the national research coordinators of these countries. International release of the results is scheduled for January 2010.
· Studying the development of mathematical knowledge of prospective elementary and middle school teachers as they move through their teacher preparation and into their beginning years of teaching. We have three ongoing programs of research in this area: a study of the mathematical knowledge of elementary teachers as they move through the teacher preparation at Michigan State University; a national study of the mathematics preparation of elementary school teachers; a study of the mathematics teaching practices as they develop across the teacher preparation program and into the beginning years of teaching.
o By April, 2009, we will complete a draft of a research report, likely about teachers’ knowledge of geometry. We will have made progress on a second report, on teachers’ knowledge of number.
o By April, 2009, we will have completed at least one report on the national study of the mathematical preparation of elementary teachers.
o By April, 2009, we will have completed the coding of data for a cross-sectional study of posing mathematical problems, interpreting student responses, and responding to students’ mathematical ideas.
· Developing better measures of teachers’ mathematical knowledge, especially as that knowledge is linked to K-12 instruction.
o By April, 2009, we will have completed a report on the validation study of an assessment of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching algebra in middle or high school.
o By April, 2009, we will make our assessments available for other researchers, perhaps in collaboration with AMTE.
We plan to use results from research -- our own and that done by others -- to improve our programs for preparing elementary and middle school teachers. We will also develop plans for making results from our ongoing research projects available to others.
|
Team Name |
|
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory |
|
Team Leader |
|
Kit Peixotto - peixottk@nwrel.org |
|
Area & Recs |
|
Teachers and Teacher Education 9, 13, 14 |
The Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center (NWRCC) will host a regional symposium in Portland, Oregon on January 28-29, 2009. The invited participants for the symposium include state educational agency staff from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. The program will focus on a few of the key recommendations from the Teachers and Teacher Education and Instructional Practices sections from the National Math Advisory Panel’s report that are relevant to SEA staff. Teams of SEA staff will engage in sessions with NMAP members and others to consider the implications of the recommendations for their work. The SEAs will be encouraged to put together a team that includes staff responsible for mathematics curriculum and instruction, mathematics assessment, Title I, Title II, teacher certification, and/or school improvement. The intended outcomes of the symposium are for participants to: -develop a common understanding of the key findings in the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Report and to identify implications and next steps for their state education agency.
In addition, the NWRCC will continue to support an electronic learning community for these SEA staff to provide additional opportunities to explore the findings from the report and consider possible actions. As of October 2008, three Webinars will have been conducted with the SEA learning community on the NMAP Report and additional sessions will occur based on outcomes of the January symposium.
|
Team Name |
|
Association of Teachers of Mathematics in Massachusetts |
|
Team Leader |
|
Mary Eich - mary_eich@newton.k12.ma.us |
|
Area & Recs |
|
Teachers and Teacher Education 18, 11, 12 |
As the leading professional organization of mathematics teachers in our state, ATMIM is well positioned to influence the teaching of mathematics. Our conferences, forums, newsletters, and other professional development activities can be focused on Recommendation 25. In addition, we have strong relations with local colleges and universities and other professional organizations in our area and nationally.
Teachers’ regular use of formative assessment improves their students learning, especially if teachers have additional guidance using the assessment to design and to individualize instruction. Although differentiated instruction in now widely used in the teaching of literacy, its application to mathematics instruction has been slower. We will provide opportunities for teachers to learn the techniques of formative assessment and then apply the data they collect to classroom instruction.
In partnership with colleagues at Lesley University and other local Schools of Education, we will focus our professional development events on formative assessment. With support from local STEM organizations, we will invite our members to apply for a mini-grant to support their participation in an 18-month workshop series on formative assessment. Selected membership will:
With this preparation, our Spring 2010 conference can focus on formative assessment at specific grade levels with presenters who are knowledgeable on the topic and accomplished presenters. Including a keynote on the National Math Panel Report, our conference will focus our membership on the issues and recommendations most relevant to classroom teachers.
|
Team Name |
|
Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics |
|
Team Leader |
|
Anne M. Collins - acollin8@lesley.edu |
|
Area & Recs |
|
Teachers and Teacher Education 18, 19, 10 |
This group will contact the program chairs for the annual ASSM conference. We will ask to be scheduled on the program in April to share information about what states are doing with NCTM Focal Points, Achieve benchmarks, and the National Mathematics Advisory Panel report; how these reports/recommendations are impacting the revision of state learning objectives; whether or not the Benchmarks for Critical Foundations of Algebra (NMAPR p. 20)are included in state learning objectives at grade appropriate times; and if the algebra courses being taught in grade 8 meet the criteria for “authentic algebra.” We will survey the ASSM membership and provide conference attendees a summary of the data described.
ASSM members who attended this conference but participated in other strands will also be invited to participate in a panel discussion about NMP and its impact.