An Evaluation of ULTRA; an Experimental Real Analysis Course Built on a Transformative Theoretical Model

  • Timothy Fukawa-ConnellyEmail author
  • Juan Pablo Mejía-Ramos
  • Nicholas H. Wasserman
  • Keith Weber


Most prospective secondary mathematics teachers in the United States complete a course in real analysis, yet view the content as unrelated to their future teaching. We leveraged a theoretically-motivated instructional model to design modules for a real analysis course that could inform secondary teachers’ actionable content knowledge and pedagogy. The theoretical model and designed curriculum launches the study of advanced mathematics content, in this case, real analysis, via authentic 7–12 classroom situations, abstracts the secondary mathematics, and uses that content to motivate the presentation of the advanced mathematics content. Subsequently, the curriculum then reconnects to practice, asking the teachers to translate ideas from real analysis in ways that are appropriate for teaching high school content to students. This study evaluated the success of the curriculum in terms of the students’ proficiency with real analysis, challenging secondary mathematics content, and the use of that content in teaching situations via both written post-tests and interviews and showed the viability of the model and experimental curriculum.


Secondary teacher preparation Advanced mathematics Real analysis Pedagogical practice 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under collaborative grants DUE 1524739, DUE 1524681 and DUE 1524619. Any opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40753_2019_102_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.2 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2241 kb)


  1. Abbott, S. (2015). Understanding analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock, L., & Weber, K. (2010). Referential and syntactic approaches to proving: Case studies from a transition-to-proof course. Research in collegiate mathematics education VII, 93–114.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begle, E. (1972). Teacher knowledge and pupil achievement in algebra (NLSMA technical report number 9). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, School Mathematics Study Group.Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM). (2010). Retrieved from: Last accessed May 30 2019.
  7. Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences (CBMS). (2001). The mathematical education of teachers. Providence, RI and Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences (CBMS). (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II. Providence, RI and Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Even, R. (2011). The relevance of advanced mathematics studies to expertise in secondary school mathematics teaching: Practitioner’s views. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 941–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Findell, B. (2010). The mathematical education of prospective teachers of secondary school mathematics: Old assumptions, new challenges. CUPM discussion papers about mathematics and the mathematical sciences in 2010: What should students know, 31–41.Google Scholar
  13. Fitzpatrick, P. M. (2006). Advanced Calculus (2nd ed.). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  14. Goulding, M., Hatch, G., & Rodd, M. (2003). Undergraduate mathematics experience: Its significance in secondary mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 361–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herbst, P., Chazan, D., Chen, C., Chieu, V. M., & Weiss, M. (2011). Using comics-based representations of teaching, and technology, to bring practice to teacher education courses. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iannone, P., & Inglis, M. (2010). Self efficacy and mathematical proof: Are undergraduate students good at assessing their own proof production ability? In S. Brown, S. Larsen, K. Keene, & K. Marrongelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education, 2010. North Carolina: Raliegh.Google Scholar
  17. Ko, Y. Y., & Knuth, E. (2009). Undergraduate mathematics majors’ writing performance producing proofs and counterexamples about continuous functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. D., & Senk, S. L. (2012). Knowledge of algebra for teaching: A framework of knowledge and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGuffey, W., Quea, R., Weber, K., Wasserman, N., Fukawa-Connelly, T., & Mejía-Ramos, J. P. (in press). Pre- and in-service teachers’ perceived value of an experimental real analysis course for teachers. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, XX(X), XXX. Scholar
  20. Mejía-Ramos, J.P., & Weber, K. (in press). Mathematics majors’ diagram usage when writing proofs in calculus. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, XX(X), pp. XXX.Google Scholar
  21. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237–266). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. TeachingWorks (2018). High leverage teaching practices. Downloaded from: Accessed 31 May 2018.
  26. Ticknor, C. S. (2012). Situated learning in an abstract algebra classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(3), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wasserman, N., Villanueva, M., Fukawa-Connelly, T., Mejía-Ramos, J. P., & Weber, K. (2017). Making real analysis relevant to secondary teachers: Building up to and stepping down from practice. PRIMUS, 27, 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wasserman, N., Weber, K., Villanueva, M., & Mejía-Ramos, J. P. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ views about the limited utility of real analysis: A transport model hypothesis. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wasserman, N., Weber, K., Fukawa-Connelly, T., & McGuffey, W. (2019). Designing advanced mathematics courses to influence secondary teaching: Fostering mathematics teachers’ ‘attention to scope’. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(4), 379–406. Scholar
  30. Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weber, K., Mejía-Ramos, J.P., Fukawa-Connelly, T., Wasserman, N. (submitted). Connecting the learning of advanced mathematics with the teaching of secondary mathematics: Inverse functions, domain restrictions, and the arcsine function. Journal of Mathematical Behavior.Google Scholar
  32. Winicki-Landman, G., & Leikin, R. (2000). On equivalent and non-equivalent definitions: Part 1. For the learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 17–21.Google Scholar
  33. Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2008). Exemplifying definitions: A case of a square. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2010). Advanced mathematical knowledge in teaching practice: Perceptions of secondary mathematics teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Ritter HallTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations