1

I just returned from the Joint Mathematics Meetings of the American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America in Baltimore, the largest mathematics meeting in the world. It is always invigorating to interact with other mathematicians and mathematics teacher educators. I attended an interesting panel discussion about the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ new publication, Catalyzing Change in High School Mathematics: Initiating Critical Conversations. For those of our membership who are engaged in preparing high school mathematics teachers, I think this document will be a good read. It is not a new set of standards – it identifies essential concepts that all high school students should understand at a deep level and recommends organizing the high school curriculum around these essential concepts. Our Tenth Anniversary celebration year continues. In September, Stephen F. Austin University hosted our annual AMTE-TX conference. The conference theme revolved around the AMTE Standards Preparing Teachers of Mathematics (SPTM). The opening session featured a national panel who provided us insight and foundational knowledge about the AMTE SPTM. The highlight was a plenary talk by Trena Wilkerson, winner of the inaugural AMTE-TX Outstanding Service Award. Dr. Wilkerson focused us on determining the actions that we as mathematics teacher educators in Texas can take with regard to the AMTE Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics. Her key question was where do we want mathematics teacher education in Texas to be in 10 years?

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Theresa Jorgensen

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education in Texas

Online Journal of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators in Texas

February 2019

Examination of Mathematics Content Courses for Teachers: An On-ramp for Addressing the AMTE Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics by Sarah Quebec Fuentes, Theresa Jorgenson, Gwendolyn Johnson, Christina Gawlik, and Christopher Kribs Page 4

Volume 9 Issue 1

Continued…

Page 9

AMTE-TX Fall Meeting Photo Journal

2

This year’s AMTE-TX conference will be hosted by Baylor University on September 13-14, 2019. Please mark your calendars and plan to join us. Looking ahead to the next decade, we are opening a call for institutions to host the 2020 and 2021 conferences. There is a simple ‘proposal to host’ form located on the AMTE-TX website under the Conferences tab. I will also be sending out the form in an email to the membership. The deadline for applications is February 28, 2018. Please consider hosting at your institution. The organizational changes spearheaded by Past President Sarah Quebec Fuentes were confirmed by the membership, and the associated changes to our Constitution and Bylaws were ratified. The structure is detailed in Figure 1 below. Our Board Members-At-Large are now Vice Presidents, with specific responsibilities under their purview. Eileen Faulkenberry is the VP for Conferences, Jen Chauvot is the VP for Publications. Our VP for Advocacy recently took a position in another state, so a member will be appointed to this role for the remainder of the term.

Figure 1 Organization of AMTE-TX positions In honor of our year-long 10th anniversary celebration, we have initiated a membership drive with the goal of having 100 members by the end of our 10th year. To help reach this goal, we are asking each of you to recruit one new member. If we each do this, we will exceed our goal. Recruit 1…for 100!

Continued…

3

Also, remember to wear your AMTE-TX anniversary pins to all the conferences that you attend this year, especially the upcoming AMTE 2019 conference in Orlando. At the Affiliates Breakfast on the morning of Saturday, February 9, we will host a mini-party to celebrate our 10th anniversary. Join us, please! We have strong representation by AMTE-TX members among the presenters at AMTE 2019. Please show your support by attending their presentations. If you see other folks from Texas at the conference, be certain to invite them to join AMTE-TX. They can join online using their phone, and there is a field on the online membership form where they can give you credit for recruiting them. Finally, we can be so proud of our AMTE-TX member, Sarah Quebec Fuentes, who was recently elected as Treasure of the national AMTE organization. Congratulations, Sarah, and thank you for your service to the organization!

4

Developing preservice teachers’ mathematics content knowledge should be a key aspect of teacher education programs (CBMS 2012). Supporting this notion, the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators’ Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics (SPTM) are based on five grounding assumptions (AMTE, 2017). In particular, Assumption 3 states “learning to teach mathematics requires a central focus on mathematics,” Assumption 4 stipulates “multiple stakeholders must be responsible for and invested in preparing teachers of mathematics,” and Assumption 5 says “those involved in mathematics teacher preparation must be committed to improving their effectiveness in preparing future teachers of mathematics” (AMTE, 2017, p. 2).

By what means can institutions evaluate how their teacher education program is addressing these three assumptions? One avenue for preservice teachers to acquire mathematics content knowledge is through mathematics content courses. The purpose of the present paper is to describe an approach that mathematics teacher educators can use to investigate mathematics course offerings specifically designed for preservice teachers, the content focus of these courses, and the characteristics of the instructors who teach them.

Methods

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board provides a list of all of the Texas baccalaureate-degree granting institutions. For each institution, from the courses offered during the 2012-13 academic year, researchers identified all undergraduate mathematics courses designed explicitly for students in teacher education programs. Independently, two researchers substantiated the inclusion of a course in the data set using at least two sources, such as course title, course description, and degree plans.

For every section of the identified courses, the two researchers independently collected the following data: course number, name, and description; degree program; instructor name, gender, and position; instructor’s highest degree and corresponding field. Data was collected via internet search of publicly available sources (e.g., institution website). Any discrepancies identified across the two researchers were systematically resolved.

Findings All of the Texas four-year institutions with teacher education programs (n=72) were classified by three variables: Public or Private; Small, Medium or Large; Doctoral-, Master’s-, or Baccalaureate-granting (Carnegie 2001). The findings reported herein are for the four most prevalent combinations of these three variables: Small, Private, Baccalaureate-granting (SPrB); Small, Private, Master’s-granting (SPrMa); Medium, Public, Master’s-granting (MPuM); and Large, Public, Doctoral-granting (LPuD). Three sets of findings are presented: number of course offerings, course content, and instructor characteristics. For each of the four institution types, relative frequencies are reported.

Examination of Mathematics Content Courses for Teachers: An On-ramp for Addressing the AMTE

Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics

Sarah Quebec Fuentes Texas Christian University

Theresa Jorgensen University of Texas at

Arlington

Gwendolyn Johnson University of North Texas at

Dallas Christina Gawlik

CLG Consulting, LLC Christopher Kribs

University of Texas at Arlington

by AMTE-TX Past Presidents

Chri

Continued…

5

Course Offerings

In Table 1, the n values refer to the number of institutions within each categorization. Most SPrB and SPrM institutions offer between zero and three courses, with a notable percentage that offer no courses. In contrast, the majority of MPuM institutions offer between three and five courses. LPuD institutions represent a greater range of number of course offerings, with the majority falling between five and seven. Table 1 Relative Frequency Distributions of the Number of Course Offerings

Number of

Courses

SPrB n=13

SPrM n=11

MPuM n=10

LPuD n=10

0 31% 55% 0% 10%

1 8% 9% 0% 0%

2 38% 9% 0% 0%

3 15% 9% 30% 20%

4 0% 0% 30% 0%

5 8% 18% 20% 10%

6 0% 0% 10% 20%

7 0% 0% 10% 30%

8+ 0% 0% 0% 10%

Course Content In Table 2, n represents the number of distinct course offerings within each institution type. The course content was examined in two ways: (1) mathematical strand(s) addressed in the course and (2) whether the course incorporated only mathematics content or mathematics content together with pedagogy. The first four mathematical content strands represent the NCTM (2000) Content Standards, with Geometry and Measurement merged. Advanced Mathematics was used as the strand for courses such as Introduction to Proof or Calculus. A course was coded Combination of Strands only if more than one strand was addressed. In all institution types, courses addressing a combination of mathematical strands were a plurality of the course offerings, representing a majority for SPrB, SPrM, and MPuM institutions. Similarly, across all institution types, more course offerings addressed mathematics content only versus a melding of mathematics content and pedagogy. Notably, nearly 90% of the course offerings at LPuD institutions focused solely on mathematics content. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Winifred Mallam, Yolanda Parker, J. Matt. Switzer, Elizabeth Ward, and Nicholas Wasserman.

Continued…

6

Table 2 Relative Frequency Distributions for Course Content

Course Content

SPrB n=22

SPrM n=14

MPuM n=43

LPuD n=54

Number & Operations

14% 0% 9% 9%

Geometry & Measurement

5% 14% 16% 13%

Algebraic Thinking

5% 0% 5% 11%

Data Analysis & Probability

9% 14% 5% 6%

Advanced Mathematics

5% 7% 7% 15%

Combination of Strands

64% 64% 58% 46%

Math Content only

68% 57% 74% 89%

Content & Pedagogy

32% 43% 26% 11%

Instructor Characteristics

For the analysis of instructor characteristics, within each institution type n represents the number of course sections of mathematics courses for teachers (Table 3). Instructor characteristics include highest degree, field of highest degree, position, and gender. Across all institution types, the majority of instructors have a doctorate. SPrM institutions had the highest percentage (96%) of instructors with a doctoral degree. For SPrB, SPrM, and MPuM institutions, the highest degree of the majority of instructors is in mathematics whereas the majority of instructors at LPuD institutions hold their highest degree in mathematics education. Of interest, the highest degree of 22% of instructors at SPrM institutions is in a field other than mathematics or mathematics education.

With respect to instructor position, the difference between the percent of tenure stream and full-time instructors is at least 60% for SPrB and SPrM institutions (favoring tenure stream), whereas there is nearly no difference between percentages for MPuM institutions. In contrast, LPuD institutions have more full-time than tenure stream instructors in mathematics courses for teachers, with a difference of about 20%. Additionally, MPuM and LPuD institutions have a higher percentage of adjuncts teaching these courses. A greater difference exists between the percentage of female and male instructors at SPrB and SPrM institutions in comparison to MPuM and LPuD institutions. Continued…

7

Table 3 Relative Frequency Distributions of Instructor Characteristics

Instructor Characteristics

SPrB n=25

SPrM n=23

MPuM n=103

LPuD n=168

Highest Degree

Doctorate 72% 96% 52% 64%

Master’s 28% 4% 48% 36%

Bachelors 0% 0% 0% 1%

Field of Degree

Mathematics 56% 61% 65% 45%

Math Education 44% 17% 34% 55%

Other 0% 22% 1% 0%

Position

Tenure Stream 80% 83% 44% 34%

Full-time Instructor

20% 13% 40% 55%

Adjunct 0% 4% 16% 11%

Gender

Female 76% 35% 46% 46%

Male 24% 65% 54% 54%

Conclusion

Although the aforementioned findings are reported in aggregate for institution types, you can conduct a similar analysis for the teacher education program at your institution. To start, identify the mathematics courses solely included in the programs of studies for preservice teachers. For these course offerings, classify the content (mathematical strand(s), incorporation of pedagogy) and gather instructor characteristics. To extend your analysis, organize the data according to certification level and examine whether your institution meets the Mathematical Education of Teachers II (MET II) (CBMS, 2012) recommendations for number and focus of mathematics content courses. For instance, MET II recommends that for the middle grades certification level, prospective teachers should complete at least five mathematics courses specifically designed for middle grades teachers,

8

with course content aligning to the first four mathematical strands in Table 2. The AMTE SPTM highlight connections to MET II related to mathematics content for each of the grade band elaborations.

The AMTE SPTM recommend that all stakeholders must be invested in and responsible for the preparation of teachers of mathematics, which involves mathematics content courses, methods and pedagogy courses, and clinical experiences. The present paper focuses on one of these aspects, mathematics content courses. The assessment of instructor characteristics identifies some key stakeholders involved in the mathematics preparation of teachers. This is a first step toward collaborative critical conversations reflecting upon and enhancing mathematics teacher preparation program characteristics and effectiveness.

References

Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from at amte.net/standards

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2011). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2010 edition. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

2019 Annual AMTE Conference

February 7 – 9, 2019 | Orlando, Florida Presenters who are members of AMTE- TX

Thursday

Ann Wheeler, “Enactment of Digital Curricula in Elementary Classrooms and Its Impact on Mathematical Practices” Jennifer Chauvot, “Strategies, Examples, and Models of Online Professional Development for Mathematics Teachers” Crystal Kalinec and Colleagues, “Preservice Teachers Communicating Children’s Mathematical Strengths in the Form

of Family Newsletters” John Lamb, “Draw a Mathematics Teacher at Work”

Trena Wilkerson and Colleague, “Supporting Mathematics Teachers to Take Action” Colleen Eddy, “Facing the Truth: Transforming Practice as a Mathematics Educator for Access and Equity”

Friday

Matt Switzer, “Secondary Student Teachers' Ability to Respond to Student Mathematical Thinking” Trena Wilkerson, “I Am New to Mathematics Teacher Education: Realities of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service”

Rebecca Dibbs, “Eliminating Homework to Improve Equity and Outcomes for ELL Students in Geometry: An Action Research Project”

James Alvarez, Theresa Jorgensen, and Colleague, “Exploring Alignment of Preservice Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences Using Research-based Course Materials to Teacher Preparation Standards”

Crystal Kalinec-Craig, “Designing a Video Clip Playlist for Mathematics Methods Courses” Dittika Gupta, “Lesson Study as a Vehicle for Establishing Early Career MTE Learning From Practice”

Saturday Sarah Quebec Fuentes, “Fostering and Improving Small Group, Student-to-Student Discourse: A Professional

Development Program” Sandi Cooper, Brandy Crowley, Michael Warren, and Colleague, “The Development of Teacher Noticing for PSTs in a

Varied Field Experience” Cody Patterson, “Developing and Assessing Inservice Precalculus Teachers’ Mathematical Meanings for

Trigonometric Functions”

9

AMTE-TX Fall Meeting Photo Journal

September 21-22, 2018 Hosted at Stephen F. Austin State University

10

11

Lo

okin

g A

head

: Up

co

min

g C

on

fere

nces

Upcoming Conferences

February 7-9, 2019 AMTE Conference Orlando Feb. 28 - March 2, 2019 RCML Conference Charlotte April 3-6, 2019 NCTM Annual Meeting San Diego July 10-12, 2019 CAMT San Antonio Sept. 13-14, 2019 AMTE-TX Fall Conference Waco Sept. 25-27, 2019 NCTM Regional Conference Boston October 2-4, 2019 NCTM Regional Conference Nashville October 16-18, 2019 NCTM Regional Conference Salt Lake City November 7-9, 2019 SSMA Annual Convention Salt Lake City November 14-17, 2019 AMATYC Conference Milwaukee November 14-17, 2019 PMENA Conference St. Louis January 15-18, 2020 MAA-AMS Meeting Denver

Call for Submissions for JMTET

Submit manuscripts by March 15, 2019. Visit our AMTE-TX website for submission guidelines at

https://amte-tx.com/online-journal-2/.

Questions? Interested in becoming a reviewer?

Contact the Journal Co-Editors: Mark Montgomery, montgomems@sfasu.edu Ryann Shelton, Ryann_Shelton@Baylor.edu

President Theresa Jorgensen, University of Texas at Arlington 2018-2020

Past-President Sarah Quebec Fuentes, Texas Christian University 2018-2019

VP for Conferences Eileen Faulkenberry, Tarleton State University 2016-2019

VP for Advocacy Paul Gray, Cosenza & Associates, LLC 2019-2020

VP for Publications Jennifer Chauvot, University of Houston 2018-2021

Secretary Gwen Johnson, University of North Texas, Dallas 2018-2021

Treasurer Rebecca Dibbs, TAMU-Commerce 2017-2020

Membership Coordinator Kathy Smith, Tarleton State University

Affiliate Representative Debra Plowman, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi

Social Media Specialist Yolanda Parker, Tarrant County College, South Campus

Photographer John Lamb, University of Texas at Tyler

Webmaster Dittika Gupta, Midwestern State University

JMTET Co-Editors Mark Montgomery, Stephen F. Austin State University

Ryann Shelton, Baylor University

JMTET Copy Editor Matt Switzer, Texas Christian University

AMTE-TX Officers

MEMBERSHIP The AMTE-TX official membership cycle is from July 1 through June 30. Typically, members join or renew memberships at CAMT or at the AMTE-TX Fall Conference. Encourage your colleagues to join!

You can access information about dues and the membership form at our website, https://amte-tx.com. After completing the form, return the form and dues to: Kathy Horak-Smith ATME-Texas Membership Tarleton State University - Mathematics Box T - 0470 Stephenville, TX 76042