Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
National Conference on Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education Kansas City, MO September 23-26, 2007 Supported by the National Science Foundation Award No. ESI-0333879 National Conference on Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education 150 participants 90 U.S. Colleges/Universities
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Kansas City, MO
September 23-26, 2007
Supported by the National Science Foundation Award No. ESI-0333879
90 U.S. Colleges/Universities
4 international guests
1999 Conference - Lake Ozark, MO
NSF Program Officer - Skip Fennell
2007 Conference - Kansas City, MO
NSF Program Officer - Spud Bradley
John Dossey, Illinois State University
Jim Fey, University of Maryland
Jim Lewis, University of Nebraska
Vena Long, University of Tennessee
Sid Rachlin, East Carolina University
Barbara Reys, University of Missouri
Jim Wilson, University of Georgia
Doctoral Student Members:
Kate Ulrich, University of Georgia
Dawn Teuscher & Nevels Nevels, University of Missouri
Summary Reports of Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities
prepared by National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago
*Of these institutions, 40 had only one graduate in 6 years
2001 AMTE Website posting of PhD programs
Publication of One Field, Many Paths: U. S. Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education
2002 Principles to Guide the Design and Implementation
of Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education
2002 Joint Position Statement on Doctoral Programs in
Mathematics Education (NCTM and AMTE)
“Improving complex systems is a continuing process that yields small changes over time. But those changes can accumulate to yield lasting and fundamental improvements rather than quick and temporary fixes. We believe that it is important for the mathematics education community to take the initiative and begin a rational long-term process of improving its programs for training coming generations of doctoral students.”
Hiebert, Kilpatrick, & Lindquist, p. 159
Assess initial conditions
Develop plans for moving toward goals
Document & share improvement efforts
Created a place for institutions with doctoral programs to provide information about programs.
Currently more than 50 institutions have posted information.
Check the website at http://www.amte.net
(click on “PhD Programs”)
Principles to Guide the Design and Implementation of Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education (2002)
* Mathematics * Learning
* Curriculum * Research
* Technology * Assessment
* Teaching and teacher education
* Historical, social, political & economic context
NCTM and AMTE developed and published a joint position statement on doctoral programs in mathematics education.
“A high-quality doctoral program comprises more than a set of courses and a dissertation. Doctoral programs in mathematics education must have a critical mass of faculty with expertise in mathematics education to provide program leadership; research opportunities; and supervised experiences in collegiate teaching, proposal writing, and publication preparation. Equally important is the environment fostered within an institution where students and faculty learn, work, and interact to create support and respect for diverse identities related to culture, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and exceptionalities.”
NSF issued a call for proposals to establish centers in mathematics and science education to strengthen/increase production of doctorates.
Mid-Atlantic Center of Mathematics Teaching and Learning Funded (University of Maryland, University of Delaware, Penn State University).
2000-05 NSF funded 7 additional Centers for Learning and Teaching focused on mathematics education.
University of Tennessee, University of Louisville, University of Kentucky, Ohio University, University of West Virginia
University of Arizona, University of New Mexico, University of California-Santa Cruz, University of Illinois-Chicago
Montana State University, University of Montana, Colorado State University, University of Northern Colorado, Portland State University
University of Georgia, University of Michigan
University of Missouri, Michigan State University, University of Western Michigan, University of Chicago
University of Wisconsin, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Los Angeles, Vanderbilt University
University of Maryland, University of Delaware, Penn State University
Rutgers University, University of Pennsylvania, City University of New York
2001 Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID)
2006 Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education:
Preparing Stewards of the Discipline
Studies from the 1970s, 1980s, & 1990s report that “conventional doctoral programs do not meet the needs of students, employers, and society.” (p. 5)
Many Ph.D recipients are ill-prepared to function effectively in their work.
Women and ethnic minorities are underrepresented among doctoral students.
Doctoral student attrition in many departments approach or even exceeds 50%.
”The Ph.D. is expected to serve as a steward of her discipline or profession, dedicated to the integrity of its work in the generation, critique, transformation, transmission, and use of its knowledge.”
(Golde & Walker, 2006, p. 122)
Shorten time to complete PhD.
*Re-envisioning the PhD--Carnegie Initiative on Doctorates
“There is no shortage of ideas about what we need to change. We have to decide whether or not we want to change.” p. 121
“It is vital to actively engage doctoral students and recent Ph.D.’s in the process of reform. They are tomorrow’s stewards.” p. 60
“Universities rename, but don’t redesign.” p. 33
“The real lynchpin of graduate program reform is to be found in the generation in between the graduate students and senior faculty. Untenured faculty and recently tenured associate professors represent the best hope for sustained and meaningful reform.” p. 43
2007 Using Statistics Effectively in Mathematics
American Statistical Association
2007 Educating Researchers
Education Schools Project
“Programs for the preparation of researchers and the education of practitioners generally look very much alike.” (p. 37)
“Many faculty advising doctoral students lack the skills, knowledge and expectations necessary to mentor students in preparing a substantial piece of research.” p.55
Lack of agreement on “what constitutes good research and how to prepare researchers.” p. 5
Recommendation--”Establish high and clearly defined standards for education research and doctoral preparation in research; close doctoral programs that do not meet those standards.” p.75
Doctoral Production in Mathematics Education in the
United States: 1960-2005
Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education in the
United States: 2007 Status Report
Report of a 2007 Survey of U. S. Doctoral Students in
Number of faculty members per program ranged from 2 to 19.
Mathematics education faculty have their academic home in
mathematics departments at six institutions.
Over one-half (55%) of faculty are tenured.
1/3 of the institutions reported they had at least one unfilled
position in mathematics education
Admission requirements vary greatly
Some require teaching experience--others do not.
Some require K-12 teaching experiences-others do not.
Some require a BS or MS in mathematics-others do not.
Course work beyond BS required for doctorate ranges from
80 to 120+ semester hours.
There is no core mathematics education course work
required by all institutions.
Largest block of core courses across institutions was in
Research stipends for doctoral students ranged from
$11,000 to $15,000 per academic year.
Changing nature of programs
About 50% reported no changes in their doctoral program
in mathematics education in the last 5 years.
About 50% reported their doctoral program experiencing
Over 70% were Very Familiar or Somewhat Familiar with
AMTE Principles . . .
Over 75% were Very Familiar or Somewhat Familiar with
One Field, Many Paths . . .
Majority of doctoral programs undergoing change credited
Principles and/or One Field as influencing the changes.
More females are enrolled in doctoral programs (66%)
K-12 teaching experience ranged from 0-31 years with
an average of 5.6 years
How are perspective students finding information about doctoral programs?
40% of doctoral students used the internet
25% of doctoral students used previous associations
with a school
15% of doctoral students found their program through
word of mouth from other students or faculty members
18% of doctoral students will not have taken a
mathematics course during their doctoral program
Strengths and Weakness of Doctoral Programs from the students’ point of view
Strength: Collaboration with high quality and productive
Weakness: Lack of coursework in many areas
(mathematics, mathematics education, and research)
Glasgow, R. (2000). An investigation of recent graduates of doctoral programs in mathematics education, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri
Discuss issues and share strategies and products related to doctoral programs in mathematics education, including:
Core components of doctoral programs
Developing leadership capacity
Alternative ways of delivering doctoral programs
Recruitment and support considerations
courses in mathematics education be helpful?
Should there be a common core of courses for doctorates in mathematics education?
mathematics education be useful?
Do you have the resources and will to make changes?
In what ways can your doctoral program be improved?
Is now the time to do so?
Jim Hiebert, University of Delaware
Diana Lambdin, Indiana University
Steve Williams, Brigham Young University