Search for: All records

Graduate student instructors (GSIs) in mathematics play a pivotal role in shaping undergraduate education and are the future of collegiate mathematics faculty. As part of their development, GSIs are expected to engage in teaching-focused professional development (TPD), particularly in evidence-based strategies like Active Learning (AL) methods. However, higher education is only beginning to explore how to effectively measure GSIs' growth in teaching skills through such TPD. This study examines the learning process of 47 novice GSIs from three universities, specifically focusing on their evolving understanding of AL before and after participating in TPD. By analyzing the GSIs' own definitions of AL, the research highlights changes in their knowledge and alignment with the intended TPD outcomes. The findings provide insight into the effectiveness of TPD on AL, while also offering recommendations for structuring future evaluations of TPD impact on GSI teaching knowledge and skills. 

Teaching professional development (TPD) in collegiate mathematics has expanded over the last few decades. Providers of TPD, people who organize and facilitate professional learning about teaching, are at the center of this growth. Yet, little is known about who Providers are and what they do. To better understand the national landscape of Providers of TPD within university mathematics departments, this report shares data from a national survey where respondents were Providers. The focus here is on findings from survey questions asking about characteristics of Providers and the “providees” with whom they work, along with formats, topics, and activities used in TPD. Results suggest that Providers value active, learner-centered instructional methods promoted by research and policy. However, in the TPD itself, formats, topics, and activities commonly used by Providers may preach but not regularly practice activity-based methods. 

Those who lead the preparation and assessment of novice college mathematics instructors for teaching (Providers) do their work in many ways (e.g., course coordination, seminars,workshops). Using data from a large national survey, this study examined reporting among 95 Providers about the structures of their departments, their goals for the professional development work they do, and their relative valuation among goals. Respondents completed a sorting and ranking activity about professional development goals and answered an open-ended question describing their sorting decisions. Qualitative coding identified six main themes for the respondents’ 285 descriptions. Quantitative analysis used the rankings of goals within respondents’ sorting categories to examine how Providers describe and value professional development goals related to professional community, classroom and department culture, and instructor response to students within their classrooms.