Search for: All records

We report preliminary results of selected questions from a national survey of instructors of geometry courses for secondary teachers about the nature of instructor-student interactions. Survey responses (n= 118) are used to indicate six latent constructs describing aspects of instructor-student interaction that in turn quantify hypothesized characteristics of two didactical contracts, which we call inquiry in geometry and study of geometry. We found that instructors whose highest degree is in mathematics education are less likely to rely on a study of geometry contract than instructors whose highest degree is in mathematics. Also, instructors who have previously taught high school geometry are less likely to lecture. 

We report partial analysis of a survey of instructors of undergraduate geometry courses for teachers, attending to how they described the nature of the mathematical work they engage students in and the opportunities to learn that students had. Analysis of latent construct correlations showed that engagement of students in inquiry into geometry was significantly associated with opportunity to learn about mathematical definitions and conjecturing and engagement of students in the study of geometry was significantly associated with opportunity to learn about axioms and about history of geometry. Latent variable means comparisons showed group differences in claimed opportunity to learn between instructors whose highest degree was in mathematics and those whose highest degree was in mathematics education. 

This paper contributes to understanding the work of teaching the university geometry courses that are taken by prospective secondary teachers. We ask what are the tensions that instructors need to manage as they plan and teach these courses. And we use these tensions to argue that mathematics instruction in geometry courses for secondary teachers includes complexities that go beyond those of other undergraduate mathematics courses–an argument that possibly applies to other mathematics courses for teachers. Building on the notion that the work of teaching involves managing tensions, and relying on interviews of 32 instructors, we characterize 5 tensions (content, experiences, students, instructor, and institutions) that instructors of geometry for teachers manage in their work. We interpret these tensions as emerging from a dialectic between two normative understandings of instruction in these courses, using the instructional triangle to represent these. 

We report on an effort to vet a list of 10 student learning objectives (SLOs) for geometry courses taken by prospective geometry teachers. Members of a faculty online learning community, including mathematicians and mathematics educators who teach college geometry courses taken by prospective secondary teachers developed this list in an effort to reach a consensus that might satisfy various stakeholders. To provide feedback on the final list of 10 SLOs, we constructed and collected responses to a survey in which 121 college geometry instructors ranked a set of potential SLOs, including the 10 proposed SLOs as well as 11 distractors. The 10 SLOs were, for the most part, among the highest ranked by the sample. 

For centuries, there has been a debate about the role of undergraduate education in society. Some have argued that universities should focus on practical skills and knowledge to prepare students for the workforce, while others have supported the idea that universities should prioritize providing a broad understanding of disciplinary knowledge and practices. In this paper, we leverage data collected from 32 interviews to explore how instructors of the undergraduate geometry course for teachers (GeT) talk about the various tensions they experience in their work. Three distinct ways of talking about tensions emerged from the data: the tension as a dilemma that needs to be managed, the tension as a place to take sides, the tension as an opportunity to reframe aspects of the work. In closing we draw connections between these patterns in the data and the two perspectives about the role of undergraduate mathematics courses in preparing PTs for the work of teaching. 

an assemblage of argumentation analytic methods that can support research about faculty learning communities interacting across substantive differences. Drawing on our research with a cross-institutional faculty online learning community, we use data to show how theories from discourse analysis, systemic functional linguistics, and argumentation modeling can be operationalized to support researchers in brooking methodological tensions, including framing argumentation as the topic of or a resource for investigation and considerations of collaborative discourse as both process and content. Our methodological findings illustrate an example of this operationalization, highlighting analysis of transdisciplinary, collaborative discourse in a community composed of instructors of college geometry courses required for pre-service teachers. We share possible uses for this methodological approach vis-a-vis research about the professional work of undergraduate mathematics education and pre-service teacher preparation. 

This theoretical contribution draws on earlier work by Herbst and Chazan (2012; also Chazan et al., 2016) in which they describe the position of a mathematics teacher in an educational institution as accountable to stakeholders who issue four types of professional obligations. We propose an application and adaptation of that framework intended to address the case of instructors who teach undergraduate mathematics courses to future teachers. Considerations of not only the academic but also the professional ends of these courses are key in our application of the theory of obligations. 

Authors of this proposal are members of an inter-institutional working group focused on the teaching and learning of transformations in college geometry courses taken by prospective secondary teachers. After exploring axioms and definitions for transformational geometry in our courses, we decided to shift to identifying not just what, but how students were learning about transformations in our courses. To explore this, we began a lesson study (Boyce et al., 2021). In this report, we discuss our engagement in the lesson study, its outcomes, and new directions. 

In this poster presentation, we share what our research team has learned by collecting responses from Geometry for Teachers (GeT) students who have taken a mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry (MKT-G) assessment before and after taking the GeT course. 

This paper reports an ongoing effort to address the problem of instructional capacity for high school geometry from a systems improvement perspective. In an effort to understand the system that contains the high school geometry instructional capacity problem, we identified key stakeholders and conducted preliminary interviews to learn about the problem from their perspective. We use these interview data to describe the system in more detail and to identify six major factors contributing to the high school geometry instructional capacity problem.