The Transforming Teacher Education Initiative is part of Minnesota's state-funded systemic initiative, SciMathMN. This partnership among business, education, and government has as its mission to be an advocate for standards-based systemic reform in Minnesota's science and mathematics education system and a catalyst for the implementation of national standards in both areas.
Edited by Sharon Stenglein
Robert W. Plants
We have heard much about discovery as a method of teaching the “new arithmetic” to elementary school children. Discovery is as stimulating at the teacher-education level as it is at the elementary school level.
Alice F. Artzt
How a cooperative–learning activity was used in a college mathematics–teacher–education course to enable preservice and in–service middle and high school mathematics teachers to experience, learn about, and reflect on the intricacies, complexities, and values of effective cooperative–learning strategies.
Kenneth J. Travers
“CELIBACY,” the mathematicianphilosopher Alfred North Whitehead has observed, “does not suit a university. It must mate itself with action.” In these action-packed days, people in the ivycovered halls constantly are being reminded of this maxim. And nowhere is it more nearly true than in teacher education. The long-overdue revolution in curriculum has made available instructional materials dealing with mathematical content relevant to the needs of our technological society.
Margaret A. Farrell
Some good suggestions on how a competency-based teacher-education program might focus on nontrivial tasks and measure them in ways that are not merely based on checklists.
Cherie Adler Aviv and Thomas J. Cooney
The survey reported here was conducted for the purpose of obtaining information about the status of secondary school mathematics teacher-education programs. The dearth of information about teacher-education programs was emphasized in the NACOME report (1975). The NACOME report particularly pointed out that little evidence exists on activities oriented toward preparation of mathematics teachers. This report represents an attempt to provide such information. In reporting the results, questions will be identified that need to be asked in order to obtain a clearer picture of the dynamics of a teacher-education program. We regret that we did not ask these questions.
Mathew D. Felton-Koestler and Courtney Koestler
Many current and prospective teachers, policy makers, and members of the public view mathematics as neutral and objective, and they expect mathematics teaching and teacher education to be neutral as well. But what would it mean to think of mathematics teacher education as politically neutral? Below we consider some questions that we see as highlighting why mathematics teacher education cannot be neutral. We are not the first to raise these issues, but we appreciate the opportunity to discuss and reflect on them among a community of mathematics teacher educators. Although these questions have always been relevant, we see their importance growing in the face of the increased mathematization of our world and a highly polarized political landscape with a seemingly increased public acceptance of oppressive discourse and actions (Potok, 2017).
Thomas J. Cooney
Most mathematics educators are involved in the practice of teacher education at some level. Indeed, the field of mathematics education is predicated on the assumption that someone has to be educated to teach mathematics in our schools. This raises the question of what it means to be educated in o rder to become a teacher of mathematics. What kinds of knowledge do teachers need to become effective teachers of mathematics? What sorts of experiences are needed for teachers to acquire this knowledge? A fundamental question for mathematics teacher educators is how the field of teacher education can be conceptualized so that programs and activities can be created to assist in the acquisition of this knowledge. Given the high visibility of standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (NCTM, 1988, 1991, in press), a question of interest to many is, What does it take to develop teachers who can move the field toward realizing these standards?
Thomas J. Cooney
The purpose of this article is to examine the relevance of the International Study of Achievement in Mathematics to those mathematics educators in volved in the preparation of teachers. While the explicit purpose of the Study is not to provide directions for teacher-education programs, the Study nevertheless examines questions which indirectly involve the training of mathematics teachers. While all of the hypotheses in the Study deal with some aspect of education as they relate to mathematics, some hypotheses, namely Hypotheses 12–26, arc involved with probl ems more directly related to the mathematics education community. In particular, Hypotheses 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20. in the opinion of the writer, take on added significance when considering the preparation of mathematics teachers.
O. Robert Brown, R. Ruel Morrison, Mary Ann Byrne, Thomas J. Cooney, Edward J. Davis, Michael L. Mahaffey, William D. McKillip and James W. Wilson Wilson
Interest in competency-based instruction has been evident at all levels of education. The Georgia Elementary Mathematics Teacher Education Project (GEMTEP) was designed to develop a “competencybased” training program in mathematics for inservice and preservice elementary teachers.