Project TALL Math Teachers as Learners Learning Mathematics : Project TALL Math Teachers as Learners Learning Mathematics Thomasenia Lott Adams
Associate Professor
School of Teaching & Learning
Director of Graduate Studies
College of Education
Research Team : Research Team Thomasenia Lott Adams, Principal Investigator
Mathematics Education Graduate Students
Joanne LaFramenta, Specialist Student & National Board Certified Teacher
Emily Peterek, Doctoral Student & Alumni Fellow
Kristin Spencer, Doctoral Student
Fatma Aslan-Tutak, Doctoral Student
Guiding Statement : Guiding Statement
“To be a good teacher of mathematics, one must know some mathematics. Although many teachers learned a great deal of mathematics in college, there is always a need to learn more, or at least learn new things about previously learned topics. If one believes that education is a lifelong enterprise, then it is crucial that all teachers of mathematics continue to be students of mathematics.”
(Taylor, 1986, p. 10)
Purpose : Purpose To engage classroom teachers in professional development experiences focused on enhancing and increasing the teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and to subsequently study change in teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and the impact on students’ achievement in mathematics
Highlights from the NCTM Teaching Principle : Highlights from the NCTM Teaching Principle
In order to teach mathematics effectively, teachers must know the mathematics they are teaching.
Teachers need opportunities for professional development to continue to improve their teaching of mathematics. Professional development activities should include means by which teachers enhance their knowledge of mathematics.
Highlights from the NCTM Teaching Principle Cont’d : Highlights from the NCTM Teaching Principle Cont’d A requirement for students being empowered by and with mathematics is that teachers are first empowered by and with mathematics.
One of the means by which we can support this principle is through professional development experiences in mathematics education that focus on teachers’ mathematics content knowledge.
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000)
Theoretical Basis : Theoretical Basis
Classification for teacher knowledge by Shulman (1986)
Knowledge of subject matter (content knowledge)
Pedagogical content knowledge
Knowledge of other content
Knowledge of the curriculum
Knowledge of learners
Knowledge of educational aims
General pedagogical knowledge
Why Content Knowledge? : Why Content Knowledge?
“…many US teachers lack sound mathematical understanding and skill. This is to be expected because most teachers – like most other adults in this country-are graduates of the very system we seek to improve” (Ball, Hill & Bass, 2005).
Pre-service teachers’ limited mathematical content knowledge is an obstacle for their training on pedagogical and didactical knowledge (Brown and Borko, 1992).
Why Content Knowledge? Cont’d : Why Content Knowledge? Cont’d “As teachers increase their conceptual knowledge and become more fluid in connecting their knowledge to lesson presentations, their students’ mathematical competence should also improve” (Leinhardt & Smith, 1985).
Lack of content knowledge makes teachers more dependent on the textbook and less flexible for changes in classroom teaching (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson & Carey, 1988).
Why Content Knowledge? Cont’d : Why Content Knowledge? Cont’d
There is a paucity of research focused on the mathematics content knowledge of teachers for contents of geometry and measurement. These and other mathematics concepts are interrelated and contributes to the complexity of what is intended for mathematics content knowledge.
An approach to teachers as learners provides an opportunity to promote quality in teaching as teachers’ understanding of the content increases. As a result of teachers having the potential to be able to present more meaningful content, an expectation for increase in student achievement is warranted.
Primary Research Questions : Primary Research Questions What is the nature of the teachers’ mathematics content knowledge prior to participation in professional development experiences designed to enhance and increase teachers’ mathematics content knowledge?
What is the nature of the teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and ways they express change in their mathematics content knowledge as a result of participation in these professional development experiences?
What is the impact of enhancing and increasing teachers’ mathematics content knowledge on students’ achievement in mathematics?
Research Sample : Research Sample Alachua County public elementary schools:
Metcalfe Elementary School
Prairie View Academy
21 teachers for all grades 1-5 across the two schools
Approximately 450-500 students
Methodology : Methodology Teachers will be randomly assigned to an experimental group or a control group.
Random assignment will occur within grade levels in each school. Classes will remain intact.
Methodology: Prior to Treatment : Methodology: Prior to Treatment All Teachers
Survey: “Teaching Mathematics in the Elementary School: The Voices of Classroom Teachers” Adams, T. L., & Hsu, J. (1998).
At least one classroom observation of mathematics instruction
Mathematics (auto)biography
All Students
Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (G-Made), AGS Publishing, for individual grades (for pre- and post-test)
Methodology: Treatment : Methodology: Treatment
Treatment group teachers will participate in 35 professional development modules
Two professional development strategies outlined by the Ideas That Work: Mathematics Professional Development:
Immerse the teachers in into mathematics
Implementation of a long-term course design
(Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, 2000)
Methodology: Pre-Module : Methodology: Pre-Module Prior to the treatment teachers’ engagement in each professional development module, each teacher will participate in the following:
Mathematics pre-assessment
Interview (includes follow-up from other data collection methods)
Teacher-made artifacts (e.g., lesson plan, exploration, activity, assessment project, etc.)
Classroom observation
Methodology: The Modules : Methodology: The Modules Adams, T. L. (2005). Measurement and geometry: Perimeter, area, and volume. Orlando, FL: Harcourt School Publishers.
Adams, T. L. (2004). Elementary mathematics concepts video library. Gainesville, FL: UF Office of Academic Technology.
Adams, T. L. (2003). Hands-on and minds-on explorations (focus on geometry). Engineering Math Excellence GatorTrax Project. Gainesville, FL: UF College of Engineering.
Methodology: The Modules Cont’d : Methodology: The Modules Cont’d Braumbaugh, D., Andersen, J., & Adams, T. L. (2003). Algebraic reasoning. Orlando, FL: UCF Academy for Teaching, Learning, and Leadership.
Dixon, J. K. & Adams, T. L. (2002). Living spaces & learning places: Geometry in the city. Orlando, FL: UCF Academy for Teaching, Learning, and Leadership.
Methodology: Post-Module : Methodology: Post-Module Following the treatment teachers’ engagement in each professional development module, each teacher will participate in the following:
Module evaluation (feedback regarding their experience in the module)
Mathematics post-assessment (parallel version of the pre-assessment)
New teacher-made artifact
Classroom observation
Methodology: Post Treatment : Methodology: Post Treatment
Teachers: closure session
Students: G-Made mathematics achievement test as post-test
Completion of data analysis
Funding : Funding Multi-University Reading, Mathematics,
and Science Initiative
Florida State University/
Learning Systems Institute
US Department of Education
Amount: $160,000.00
September 2005-July 2006