Loading in 2 Seconds...

National Conference on Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education

Loading in 2 Seconds...

278 Views

Download Presentation
## National Conference on Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

**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 4 international guests**Conference Participants**• mathematics departments and colleges of education; • private institutions and public institutions; • large established doctoral programs and new programs just getting started; • “seasoned” faculty and faculty who have long careers ahead; • 75 participants attended the first conference (1999); • 21 participants from 1999 are at this conference**Support from NSF**1999 Conference - Lake Ozark, MO NSF Program Officer - Skip Fennell 2007 Conference - Kansas City, MO NSF Program Officer - Spud Bradley**Conference Advisory Panel**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**A brief history of doctoral production in mathematics**education • First doctorates in mathematics education: • 1906 Teachers College Columbia University • 1915 University of Chicago • Production of doctorates (according to the NRC Annual Data): • 1970 128 doctorates, 44 institutions • 1980 74 doctorates, 35 institutions • 1990 65 doctorates, 31 institutions • 2000 90 doctorates, 51 institutions Source: Summary Reports of Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities prepared by National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago**Production of Doctorates in Mathematics Education**(1960-present)**Recent Production of Doctorates in Mathematics Education***Of these institutions, 40 had only one graduate in 6 years**Doctorates Programs in Mathematics Education:Some Facts**• Many doctoral programs are small (in terms of number of graduates). • The number of institutions with doctoral programs is increasing. • The number of graduates of doctoral programs has not changed significantly in the past 15 years. • While there has been a steady increase in the number of graduates from underrepresented groups (African American and Hispanic), these groups continue to be underrepresented in doctoral programs in mathematics education.**Since the 1st Conference (1999) on Doctoral Programs in**Mathematics Education 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)**One Field, Many Paths . .**“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**One Field, Many Paths . .**Assess initial conditions Set goals Develop plans for moving toward goals Document & share improvement efforts • Pointed out special challenges facing improvement: • Absence of standards/regulations • Diversity of institutional programs**Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE)**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”)**Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE)**Principles to Guide the Design and Implementation of Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education (2002) • Core knowledge areas in mathematics education * Mathematics * Learning * Curriculum * Research * Technology * Assessment * Teaching and teacher education * Historical, social, political & economic context • Institutional capacities needed to deliver a program**Joint Position Statement (2002)**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.”**Signs of progress**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.**CLTs Focused on Mathematics Education**• Appalachian Collaborative Center for Learning, Assessment and Instruction in Mathematics (ACCLAIM) University of Tennessee, University of Louisville, University of Kentucky, Ohio University, University of West Virginia • Center for the Mathematics Education of Latinos (CEMELA) University of Arizona, University of New Mexico, University of California-Santa Cruz, University of Illinois-Chicago • Center for Teaching and Learning in the West (CLT-West) Montana State University, University of Montana, Colorado State University, University of Northern Colorado, Portland State University • Center for Proficiency in Teaching Mathematics (CPTM) University of Georgia, University of Michigan • Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum (CSMC) University of Missouri, Michigan State University, University of Western Michigan, University of Chicago • Diversity in Mathematics Education (DIME) University of Wisconsin, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Los Angeles, Vanderbilt University • Mid-Atlantic Center for Mathematics Teaching and Learning (MAC-MTL) University of Maryland, University of Delaware, Penn State University • Center for Mathematics in America’s Cities (Metro Math) Rutgers University, University of Pennsylvania, City University of New York**Other Significant Efforts**2001 Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID) 2006 Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline**Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate**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%.**Stewardship & the Ph.D.**”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)**CID asked essayists: If you start ‘de novo’ how would**you structure a doctoral program in your field? Education: • Virginia Richardson, Chair of Educational Studies, University of Michigan--”Stewarts of a Field, Stewards of an Enterprise: The Doctorate in Education” • David Berliner, Regents’ Professor of Psychology in Education and Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Arizona State University-- “Toward a Future as Rich as our Past” Mathematics: • Hyman Bass, Roger Lyndon Collegiate Professor of Mathematics, University of Michigan--”Developing Scholars and Professionals: The Case of Mathematics” • Tony Chan, Dean of Physical Sciences and Professor of Mathematics, UCLA--”A Time for Change? The Mathematics Doctorate”**Shared concerns about PhD programs***• Develop more diversity among PhD recipients. • Increase doctoral students exposure to technology. • Improve writing and communication skills. • Prepare doctoral students for a wider variety of options than the professoriate. Shorten time to complete PhD. • Make interdisciplinary work a more integral part of doctoral education. *Re-envisioning the PhD--Carnegie Initiative on Doctorates**Who should lead the way?**“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**Two recent reports with implications for doctoral programs**2007 Using Statistics Effectively in Mathematics Education Research American Statistical Association 2007 Educating Researchers Education Schools Project**The Education Schools Project**http://www.edschools.org/**Educating Researchers**“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**Reports Prepared for this Conference**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 Mathematics Education**Some things learned from survey of 70 doctoral programs**About Faculty 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**Some things learned from survey of 70 doctoral programs**About program 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 educational research/statistics. Research stipends for doctoral students ranged from $11,000 to $15,000 per academic year.**Some things learned from survey of 70 doctoral programs**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 continuous change. 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.**Some things learned from survey of 111 doctoral students**Interesting tidbits 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**Some things learned from survey of 111 doctoral students**Mathematics Preparation 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 faculty members Weakness: Lack of coursework in many areas (mathematics, mathematics education, and research)**Where do doctoral graduates go?(The big picture)**Glasgow, R. (2000). An investigation of recent graduates of doctoral programs in mathematics education, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri**Job Searches by Type of Institution & Department (successful**searches)**Looking for Recruiting for a job!**new faculty!**National Conference on Doctoral Programs in Mathematics**Education Kansas City September 2007**Primary Goal of the Conference**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**Points to ponder during the conference**• Would creating a website to post syllabi for doctoral courses in mathematics education be helpful? Should there be a common core of courses for doctorates in mathematics education? • Would a list of top tier research journals in mathematics education be useful? • Would accreditation of doctoral programs advance our profession?**Questions you will decide . . .**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?