Editorial - November 2008 - Volume 108 (7)

Running Against the Wind

Tracy Goodson-Espy, Guest Editorial

With apologies to Bob Seger, this title has always struck me as being descriptive of our role as mathematics teacher educators. As noted by Ma (1999) elementary teachers must possess a “profound” understanding of the mathematics they are charged with teaching. The area of elementary and middle school mathematics is vast and the time dedicated to mathematics content and methods courses are regrettably, too limited. Therefore, we are virtually always faced with hard decisions regarding “what to leave in, and what to leave out.” Given the concentrated time within which we must work to broaden the mathematical worlds of prospective teachers, it is paramount to recognize that, for what we do in classes to be successful, we must first awaken their mathematical curiosity without bringing to the fore counterproductive feelings of anxiety and inadequacy.

In addition to teaching specific content and pedagogy, we must teach processes for learning these topics that teacher candidates can sustain in their own individual classrooms and within professional development settings. In my experience, one of the most effective ways to generate a worthwhile discussion of substantial mathematical content is to first divert teacher candidates' attention away from their own mathematical and pedagogical knowledge. Instead, I have had success by focusing their attention on the mathematical understanding of students. There are, thankfully, few students enrolled in teacher education programs that are not interested in the mathematical performance of students. I regularly use numerous sources of information regarding student achievement data and student work in my mathematics content/methods courses.

First, Learning from NAEP: Professional Development Materials for Teachers of Mathematics (Brown & Clark, 2006) (LFN) contains a set of workshop materials that one can effectively adapt for elementary and middle-school mathematics content and methods courses. The workshops address how to: 1) investigate student understanding by examining NAEP test items and student performance data; 2) use NAEP to develop mathematical content knowledge; 3) analyze NAEP items to improve classroom assessment practices, 4) explore state NAEP results; and 5) consider issues of equity through analysis of NAEP data. One of the most attractive features of these materials is the extensive set of student work available on the accompanying CD, thanks to the dedication of Patricia Kenney, who spent hours at a copier compiling this evidence. While more up-to-date NAEP data is available at the website, http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2007/, the quantity of student work is limited. The LFN materials provide an even richer and deeper set of student work to share with teacher candidates.

Second, there is a series of books that discuss the results and interpretations of NAEP tests (Kloosterman & Lester, 2007; Kloosterman & Lester, 2004; Silver & Kenney, 2000). These books provide snapshots of student achievement within mathematical strands, such as rational numbers, and provide examples of students' work and insightful discussions of relevant research linked to the NAEP questions. I use brief sections from these books as a basis for class discussions.

Third, the released NAEP items provide a source of problems I encourage my preservice teachers to use with their students when they enter schools for practicum and internships. Over time, I have a collected a rich set of NAEP items completed by students from our area schools. This local connection sparks our teacher candidates' interests when this work is introduced in a methods course the following semester.

I have been so encouraged by the teacher candidates' positive responses to the NAEP materials that I am currently leading an NSF grant entitled, North Carolina NAEP: Improving Mathematics Content and Methods Courses in which I am developing curricular materials with colleagues from five universities and community colleges. We will have several modules for Elementary and Middle School content/methods courses completed by Spring 2009 and look forward to using these instructional materials to perhaps draw our teacher candidates into a broader mathematical world that will lead to a better instructional experience for their future students. These techniques and curricular materials are not “silver-bullet” solutions. However, maybe, in some small way, they can contribute to a larger solution to help decrease those headwinds we all endure.

References

Brown, C., & Clark, L. (2006). Learning from NAEP: Professional development materials for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Kloosterman, P., & Lester, Jr., F. (2007). Results and interpretation of 2003 mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Kloosterman, P., & Lester, Jr., F. (2004). Results and interpretation of 1990-2000 mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seger, Bob & The Silver Bullet Band (1980). “Running Against the Wind”. Running Against the Wind, Capitol.

Silver, E., & Kenney, P. (2000). Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.