Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 271–297 | Cite as

Structural and conceptual interweaving of mathematics methods coursework and field practica

  • Damon L. Bahr
  • Eula Ewing Monroe
  • Dennis Eggett
Article

Abstract

This paper describes a study of observed relationships between the design of a preservice elementary mathematics methods course with accompanying field practicum and changes in the extent to which participating prospective teachers identified themselves with the mathematics reform movement after becoming practicing teachers. The curriculum of the course with its embedded field practicum experiences was designed to support prospective teachers in interweaving methods coursework and pedagogical instruction with classroom practice. University and elementary school structures were interwoven by conducting weekly mathematics methods course sessions at a school site followed immediately by related practicum experiences in classrooms in the school. The interweaving of conceptualizations about mathematics teaching and learning was facilitated as the methods instructor provided professional development for classroom teachers simultaneously with the methods course, encouraging the teachers to create “reform-friendly” classroom environments. Survey data from 68 prospective teachers involved in the project were analyzed to identify and describe relationships between course/practicum experiences and the degree to which they as practicing teachers, 1–3 years following the course/practicum, identified with a reform mathematics perspective, as well as to examine factors influencing those relationships.

Keywords

Mathematics teacher education Field experiences Prospective teacher education 

References

  1. Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. S., & Speck, D. W. (1998). “Oh what a difference a team makes”: Why team teaching makes a difference. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Association of Childhood Education International. (1998). ACEI position paper: Preparation of elementary teachers. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/%5C%5C%5C%5C/esd/pdf/meetings/emag/pdf/acei_summary_elem_teacher_prep.pdf.
  4. Association of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). ATM response to changes to framework January 2006. Retrieved from http://www.atm.org.uk/policy/ATM-Changes-To-Framework-2006-01-00.pdf.
  5. Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority. (2008). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Sydney, Australia: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Bahr, D. L. (2013). It takes a village: Investigating the critical role clinical faculty play in mathematics teacher education. Teacher Development, 4, 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. Bahr, D. L., & Monroe, E. E. (2008). An exploration of the effects of a practicum intensive mathematics methods course on the beliefs of elementary preservice teachers. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm.
  8. Bahr, D. L., Monroe, E. E., Balzotti, M., & Eggett, D. (2009). Crossing the barriers between preservice and inservice mathematics teacher education: An evaluation of the grant school mathematics project. School Science and Mathematics, 109(4), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bahr, D. L., Monroe, E. E., & Shaha, S. (2013). Examining preservice teacher belief changes in the context of coordinated mathematics methods coursework and classroom experiences. School Science and Mathematics, 113(3), 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchberger, F., Campos, B. P., Kallos, D., & Stephenson, J. (Eds.). (2000). Green paper on teacher education in Europe: High quality teacher education for high quality education and training. Umea, Sweden: Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe.Google Scholar
  11. Bullough, R. V. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bullough, R. V., & Knowles, J. (1991). Teaching and nurturing: Changing conceptions of self as teacher in a case study of becoming a teacher. Qualitative Studies in Education, 4(2), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., Erickson, L., et al. (2003). Teaching with a peer: A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., et al. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chin, P., & Russell, T. (1995). Structure and coherence in a teacher education program: Addressing the tension between systemics and the educative agenda. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Cohn, M. (1981). A new supervision model for linking theory to practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole, D. J., Ryan, C. W., & Tomlin, J. A. (2003). Inquiry based science: A constructivist approach in teacher education. Dayton, OH: Wright State University.Google Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12–17.Google Scholar
  20. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Charles W. Hunt lecture: Teacher education and the American future. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  22. Darling-Hammond, L., & MacDonald, M. (2000). Where there is learning there is hope: The preparation of teachers at the Bank Street College of Education. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level (pp. 97–172). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, R. B. (1990). Discovery learning and constructivism. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 93–210). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  24. Drexel University, Goodwin School of Education. (2011). Field experiences overview. Retrieved from goodwin.drexel.edu/soe/pdf/FE2011.pdf.Google Scholar
  25. Elliott, B. (1995). Developing relationships: Significant episodes in professional development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(2), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  28. Fullan, M., Galluzzo, G., Morris, P., & Watson, N. (1998). The rise and stall of teacher education reform. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  29. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Gravemeijer, K. (2010). Realistic mathematics education theory as a guideline for problem-centered, interactive mathematics education. In R. Sembiring, K. Hoogland, & M. Dolk (Eds.), A decade of PMRI in Indonesia. Bandung, Utrecht: APS International.Google Scholar
  32. Hadi, S. (2012). Mathematics education reform movement in Indonesia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 12th international congress on mathematical education. Retrieved from www.icme12.org/upload/submission/1897_F.pdf.
  33. Hallman, H. L. (2007). Negotiating teacher identity: Exploring the use of electronic teaching portfolios with preservice English teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 474–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1999). Persuasive problems and issues in teacher education. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 279–305). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Jacobs, J. K., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1996 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  38. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
  39. Koppich, J. (2000). Trinity University: Preparing teachers for tomorrow’s schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation in a five-year program (pp. 1–48). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  40. Leung, F. K. S., & Li, Y. (2010). Sharing and understanding mathematics education policies and practices in East Asia: An introduction. In F. K. S. Leung & Y. Li (Eds.), Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia (pp. 1–8). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Liu, J., & Li, Y. (2010). Mathematics curriculum reform in the Chinese mainland: Changes and challenges. In F. K. S. Leung & Y. Li (Eds.), Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia (pp. 9–32). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  44. McNally, J., Inglis, B., & Stronach, I. (1997). The student teacher in school: Conditions for development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(5), 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers (Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning). Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Public/ResearchReports/NCATEInitiatives/BlueRibbonPanel/tabid/715/Default.aspx.
  46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  48. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  49. Nokes, J. D., Bullough, R. V., Jr., Egan, M. W., Birrell, J. R., & Hansen, M. (2008). The paired placement of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2168–2177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & LeSage, A. (2003). A survey measuring elementary teachers’ implementation of standards-based mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(4), 344–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Snyder, J. (2000). Knowing children—understanding teaching: The developmental teacher education program at the University of California, Berkeley. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level (pp. 97–172). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  52. SurveyMonkey. (1999-2012). Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com/.
  53. Tchoshanov, M., Blake, S., Della-Piana, C., Duval, A., & Sanchez, S. (2001). Students’ perceptions of cross-disciplinary team teaching on site at a PDS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dallas, TX (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451174).Google Scholar
  54. Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’ changing beliefs and instructional use of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whitford, B. L., Ruscoe, G. C., & Fickel, L. (2000). Knitting it all together: Collaborative teacher education in Southern Maine. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation at the graduate level (pp. 173–257). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  56. Widjaja, W., Dolk, M., & Fauzan, A. (2010). The role of context in teacher’s questioning to enhance students’ thinking. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 33(2), 168–186.Google Scholar
  57. Wingfield, M., Nath, J. L., Freeman, L., & Cohen, M. (2000). The effect of site-based preservice experiences on elementary social studies, language arts, and mathematics teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440972).Google Scholar
  58. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zumwalt, K. (1988). Are we improving or undermining teaching? In L. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: Eighty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 1 (pp. 148–174). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damon L. Bahr
    • 1
  • Eula Ewing Monroe
    • 2
  • Dennis Eggett
    • 3
  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  3. 3.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations