Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 147–164 | Cite as

A marriage of continuance: professional development for mathematics lecturers

  • Bill Barton
  • Greg Oates
  • Judy Paterson
  • Mike Thomas
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

In a 2-year project, we developed and trialled a mode of lecturing professional development amongst staff in our department of mathematics. Theoretically grounded in Schoenfeld’s resources, orientations, and goals (ROG) model of teacher action, a group met regularly to discuss both the video excerpts of themselves lecturing along with written pre- and post-lecture statements of their “ROGs”. We found evidence of improved teaching performance but more interestingly, identified key aspects of our practice and of undergraduate mathematics that received repeated attention and developed further theoretical insight into lecturer behaviour in mathematics. The trial has been successful enough to be expanded into further groups that now constitute a professional development culture within our department.

Keywords

Professional development Mathematics Lecturing Undergraduate Orientations Goals 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support of a Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI) grant funded through the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. We also recognise the collaborative work of the following team members on the project: Steven Galbraith, Mike Meylan, Claire Postlethwaite, and Steve Taylor.

References

  1. Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artigue, M. (2001). What can we learn from educational research at the university level? In D. A. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 207–220). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: the genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245–274. doi: 10.1023/A:1022103903080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, B. (2011). Growing understanding of undergraduate mathematics: a good frame produces better tomatoes. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(7), 963–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breen, S., McCluskey, A., Meehan, M., O’Donovan, J., & O’Shea, A. (2012). Reflection on practice, in practice: the discipline of noticing. Informal Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (BSRLM), 31(3), 7–12.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, T. P., Blanton, M. L., Cobb, P., Franke, M. L., Kaput, J., & McLain, K. (2004). Scaling up innovative practices in mathematics and science. Research report from the national center for improving student learning and achievement in mathematics and science. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, D. W. (1982). A modified Moore method for teaching undergraduate mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 89(7), 473–474. 487–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grouws, D. A., & Cebulla, K. J. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics. Geneva: International Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Hake, R. R. (1985). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannah, J., Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2011). Analysing lecturer practice: the role of orientations and goals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(7), 975–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannah, J., Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2012). Student reactions to an approach to linear algebra emphasising embodiment and language. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-12) Topic study group 2, 1386–1393, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  14. Hannah, J., Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2013a). Conflicting goals and decision making: the influences on a new lecturer. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.) Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 425–432), Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  15. Hannah, J., Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2013b). Emphasizing language and visualization in teaching linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(4), 475–489. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2012.756545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaworski, B. (2001). Developing mathematics teaching: teachers, teacher-educators and researchers as co-learners. In F.-L. Lin & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Jaworski, B. (2003). Research practice into/influencing mathematics teaching and learning development: towards a theoretical framework based on co-learning partnerships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jaworski, B., Treffert, S., & Bartsch, T. (2009). Characterising the teaching of university mathematics: a case of linear algebra. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 249–256). Thessaloniki: IGPME.Google Scholar
  21. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2004). An investigation into excellent tertiary teaching: emphasising reflective practice. Higher Education, 47, 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kazemi, E., Franke, M., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teachers’ ability to enact ambitious instruction. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides (Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia) (Vol. 1, pp. 11–29). Palmerston North: MERGA.Google Scholar
  23. Keynes, H., & Olson, A. (2001). Professional development for changing undergraduate mathematics instruction. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at the university level: an ICMI study (pp. 113–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markauskaite, L., Goodyear, P., & Reimann, P. (Eds.) (2006). Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers
  26. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 2–8.Google Scholar
  27. Mason, J. (2000). Asking mathematical questions mathematically. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: the discipline of noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, J. (2008). Doing ≠ construing and doing + discussing ≠ learning: the importance of the structure of attention. Proceedings of ICME-10, Copenhagen (CD version of proceedings). Available from http://www.icme10.dk/proceedings/pages/regular_pdf/RL_John_Mason.pdf.
  30. Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell lecture. Science, 2, 323(5910), 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2002). Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  33. Nardi, E., Jaworski, B., & Hegedus, S. (2005). A spectrum of pedagogical awareness for undergraduate mathematics: from ‘tricks’ to ‘techniques’. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 284–316.Google Scholar
  34. Oates, G. (2009). Relative values of curriculum topics in undergraduate mathematics in an integrated technology environment. In B. Bicknell, R. Hunter, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides (Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia, Vol. 2 pp. 419–426). Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  35. Paterson, J., & Evans, T. (2013). Audience insights: feed forward in professional development. In D. King, B. Loch, & L. Rylands (Eds.), Proceedings of Lighthouse Delta, the 9th Delta conference of teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics and statistics through the fog (pp. 132–140). Kiama: Delta.Google Scholar
  36. Paterson, J., Thomas, M. O. J., Postlethwaite, C., & Taylor, S. (2011a). The internal disciplinarian: who is in control? In S. Brown, S. Larsen, K. Marrongelle, and M. Oehrtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 354–368). Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  37. Paterson, J., Thomas, M. O. J., & Taylor, S. (2011b). Reaching decisions via internal dialogue: its role in a lecturer professional development model. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 353–360). Ankara: IGPME.Google Scholar
  38. Paterson, J., Thomas, M. O. J., & Taylor, S. (2011c). Decisions, decisions, decisions: what determines the path taken in lectures? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(7), 985–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prushiek, J., McCarty, B., & Mcintyre, S. (2001). Transforming professional development for preservice, inservice and university teachers through a collaborative capstone experience. Education, 121(4), 704–712.Google Scholar
  40. Rowland, S. (2000). The enquiring university teacher. Philadelphia: OU Press.Google Scholar
  41. Russ, R. S., Sherin, B., & Sherin, M. G. (2011). Images of expertise in mathematics teaching. Expertise in Mathematics Instruction: An International Perspective, 41–60.Google Scholar
  42. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2008). On modeling teachers’ in-the-moment decision-making. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), A study of teaching: multiple lenses, multiple views (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph 14, pp. 45–96). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  43. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think. A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2001). Tertiary mathematics education research and its future. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at the university level: an ICMI study (pp. 207–220). The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  45. Speer, N. M. (2008). Connecting beliefs and practices: a fine-grained analysis of a college mathematics teacher’s collections of beliefs and their relationship to his instructional practices. Cognition and Instruction, 26(2), 218–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Speer, N. M., Smith, J. P., & Horvath, A. (2010). Collegiate mathematics teaching: an unexamined practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Törner, G., Rolke, K., Rösken, B., & Sririman, B. (2010). Understanding a teacher’s actions in the classroom by applying Schoenfeld’s theory teaching-in-context: reflecting on goals and beliefs. In B. Sriraman & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education, advances in mathematics education (pp. 401–420). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: a framework for reconsidering research-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bill Barton
    • 1
  • Greg Oates
    • 1
  • Judy Paterson
    • 1
  • Mike Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options