V5n1 Feature
Top 10 Suggestions for Teaching an Online Mathematics Course
By Jim Gleason
When I was first asked to teach an online distance education course, I was both excited and nervous. The list below is based upon what I learned from teaching a course in discrete mathematics as part of the ACCLAIM program.
10. Remember that online courses are different from the traditional classroom. When teaching an online course, you must view the course as something completely different from a physical classroom. This new teaching environment uses different methods and ideas. You must use computer screens and web cams instead of chalkboards or white boards. You will multi-task in new ways by teaching the class while following the text chat and watching for students to "raise" their hands. It involves finding new ways to get a feel for how your students are doing other than looking at their blank faces. Most of all, you must be comfortable using computers and able to work on technical problems as you go. For some ideas on methods to use, talk to other people who are teaching similar classes, get ideas from the education faculty, and read about what others are doing.
9. Get some training with the software and hardware.
who will be using the same software. Finally, find a mentor who has been through this before.
8. Get to know your technical support.
You will have problems. If you have already developed a relationship with your technical support team, then it will be easier and faster to get help when the problems occur. Most of the problems that occurred during my course were minor problems involving difficulty with my Sympodium interactive pen and some of my students having trouble with their dial-up connections. One night, however, a worm attacked the server on which our class was operating. It was sort of like the power flickering on and off in a normal classroom. Thankfully I was able to call our technician at home and he was able to work on the problem while we continued having class.
7. Use text chat during the class.
This is one area where there is disagreement. Some people have had difficulty paying attention to both the text chat and what they are teaching. However, since many of my students were more comfortable asking questions in the text chat than verbally, I found that this extra effort paid off. As an extra bonus, other students were sometimes able to answer those questions without me having to stop class. The text chat also enabled me to get to know my students better as they were more open and expressive with typing their comments than saying them.
This will be a pain for your students, but it helps immensely with speeding up the turn-around time on grading. When students faxed in their work, I had a more difficult time making comments on their work and sending it back to them. I also found that it helps to limit the number of formats for the homework to be turned in. I limited it to Word or PDF files.
5. Provide quick feedback.
When teaching a distance education course, it is easier not to be as prompt returning homework and answering students’ questions as when they stop by your office. So you need to make a point of promptly returning emails to answer students’ homework questions so that they can finish the assignment, and of grading their homework quickly so that they can use the feedback to make adjustments for future assignments.
4. Build in collaborative work.
3. Make yourself available.
Students will not just stop by your office, so make sure that you stay on top of your email and that your students have a phone number where you can be reached. Also, with distance education students, most of their homework is done during the evenings or on the weekends when they are not at work. Therefore, you will need to keep this in mind when setting up office hours and when assigning due dates for homework.
2. Set up an opportunity to meet the students in person.
Towards the end of the semester I had a chance to meet several of my students at a conference. In the following weeks I found it much easier to interact with these students and to know how best to help them. It would have been much better if I had been able to meet the students earlier. There are many ways of doing this that include having an on-campus class meeting, meeting the students when they begin their program, or traveling and giving the class from the different students' locations. 1. Most of all, remember to have fun.
Realize that you will make mistakes when you are trying something new. So you need to be willing to look like a fool in front of your students at times. They will understand and admire you more for trying something new.
Mathematics and its Applications (http://www.mathdl.org/mathDL/4/), upon which this article is based.
© 2005, Jim Gleason
Jim Gleason is an assistant professor of mathematics education in the Department of Mathematics at University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Besides teaching online mathematics courses, his interests include the mathematical content knowledge of teachers, rural mathematics education, and playing with his four young children.
Feature
Randomized Experiments in Education: A Synthesis By Kevin Kenady
Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in education: Why are they so rare? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175-199.
The educational evaluation community conducts virtually no randomized experiments, but federal funding of educational research is now directed principally towards randomized experimental research. In his article “Randomized Experiments in Educational Policy Research: A Critical Examination of the Reasons the Educational Evaluation Community has Offered for not Doing Them,” Thomas D. Cook explains why causal conclusions are appropriately validated by randomized experimental research while countering the justifications for not using randomization.
educational reforms are enacted without serious evaluations to demonstrate how they affect student performance. “Design-wise, the randomized experiment is widely known as the best tool for attributing observed student change to whatever classroom or school option is under consideration as a possible cause” (p. 176).
Answering the Objections to Randomized Experiments
Those who advocate non-randomized research say that experiments are too expensive and they take too long to reach a causal conclusion. Cook (p. 176) believes the opposite. “Experiments are probably less expensive in the long run because, being more efficient about reducing causal uncertainty; fewer of them are needed for the same degree of confidence in the causal conclusion drawn.” He also explains that, in non-experimental research, the greater likelihood of a false conclusion increases the odds of expensive and erroneous educational reform. The cost of such error to student achievement, says Cook, is too high.
accept the findings of research that uses other methods but ignores contingency. For example:
Notice how many useful conclusions about educational practice are today specified without qualification: Small schools are better than large ones; time-on-task raises achievement; summer school raises test scores; school desegregation hardly affects achievement; and assigning and grading homework raises achievement. (Cook, p. 180)1
Although Cook acknowledges that past experiments have been too limiting because of the “black box” style (too few contingencies examined), this doesn’t, he argues, negate the need for randomized experimental research, with improvements to counter the narrow explanations that have plagued past experiments.
Another objection to randomized experiments is school policies of fairness to all children, with principals often believing that any control group in their school would be unfair. Critics object that this circumstance makes randomized experiments
impracticable. Also, the length of randomized experiments seems prohibitive. The evidence of randomized experiments conducted by outside groups, however, proves otherwise. Randomized experiments have been done to improve student health, to prevent school violence, and to reduce teen use of tobacco, drugs and alcohol, and to improve preschools (Cook, p. 183). The objection to length is not valid: Randomized experiments have been conducted in relatively short periods of time.
The loss of students, the leaving of principals and other threats to internal validity are mentioned as reasons for not conducting randomized experimentation. Cook contends that many of these concerns can be averted. Requiring that 80% or more of the entire
school staff must vote for participation is an example of the sort of planning required. Other concerns can be addressed by the researcher planning with the district and school (Cook, p. 185).
Many opponents to randomized experiments assume treatment and setting variances in real-life educational contexts undermine the validity of results. Although variations in implementation exist, experiments can certainly protect against bias in causal estimates. This is done through large sample sizes. Cook also notes that the implementation of reforms will also involve variations, and that, therefore, experiments conducted in real schools do represent what will most likely happen in a wider
application of reform efforts subsequent to the study (Cook, p. 187).
Do experimentalists value purity so much as to limit the usefulness of the
findings? A 95% certainty rate for causal conclusions is the accepted norm. Although this is extremely limiting when considering the usefulness of a treatment, it is not set in stone. Maybe a 75% certainty rate, suggests Cook (p. 189), would be ample proof that a
treatment is useful. Maybe a 65% rate would be acceptable if there was ample proof that the treatment does no harm.
indeed be the focus of experiments. Also, with precautions, positive tentative results can be revealed so long as they are revealed carefully and uniformly across the experiment. (Cook, p. 189-190).
Many researchers believe that a more complete and therefore a more useful picture of educational concerns can be discovered through ethnographic, quasi-experimental and case study methods of research. They also believe the flexibility of these alternative methods of research cannot be surpassed. Cook agrees. He doesn’t see this as a justification for not using randomized experimental research, but as an opportunity for randomized experimental research to become even more robust.
Experimental researchers should use other forms of research to develop, guide, and assist in experimental research, and he emphasizes the necessity of other types of research in attaining a complete picture (Cook, p. 192).
Implications for Rural Mathematics Education Researchers
In an ideal world, money and time for research would be unlimited. Decisions about whether to conduct important research would never be based on the availability of funding or time. But these things do influence research interests and research methods. Researchers need to be aware of the current desires of those who control the sums of money dedicated to research. In today’s climate, that means a concerted federal plan to fund randomized experimental research, at least in the U.S. Department of Education.
Since the evidence shows that virtually no rural or mathematics education research has used randomized experiments, researchers interested in rural mathematics education research are well advised to consider the desires in play at the federal level. If randomized experiments are found to be a possibility for a specific research idea, the opportunity to obtain funding is good news for the researcher. The more research conducted with varied findings, the more robust will be the conclusions.
What is the outcome of ignoring the funding issues aforementioned? Cook concludes that if researchers in education programs in universities continue to advise against randomized experimental research, then
for the intellectual reasons given it will be difficult to enlist the current generation of self-styled educational evaluators behind a banner promoting more
contract research firms and university faculty in the policy sciences. (Cook, 195-6)
What about rural education research conducted from a sociological standpoint? Should researchers working in this tradition also consider randomized experimental research? It seems preposterous. Experimental research cannot address questions of a descriptive sort, for instance. “What’s going on?” is not limited to “What program works best?” There’s more to education than choosing the right product. To design appropriate interventions, rural educational researches must also look to descriptive questions that speak to issues of policy, context, purpose, and what people think. As the emerging fields of rural education and rural math education grow to maturity, randomized experiments may well become a useful part of the body of this type of research. There’s no reason for them not to be. For the near future, however, it seems to me that the current
methodological choices of rural educators are the most appropriate.
When rural educators want to improve rural education, when mathematics educators want to improve math education, they need to decide what is the most effective method for research based on best research practices. Therefore, on one hand,
Feature
The Critique of True Experiments (Opinion) By Craig Howley
We’ve just published Kevin Kenady’s synopsis (RuMED No. 7, also in this issue) of Thomas Cook’s defense of true experiments. It is strange, isn’t it, that so many claims are made about one set of materials or another, but that so few experiments put them to the ultimate test? Cook argues that true experiments are the one-best-way to determine if Saxon Math (for instance) really causes improved learning of math. This is something some people want to know, but others imagine that a variety of materials and methods is more helpful than certain knowledge that one is “best.” Putting an assertion like that to the ultimate test might be epistemologically dubious, however. These things are less a matter of science than of history, economics, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. Or of everday life. All are needed in the project of education critique.
Good Question
There are, in any case, very few true experiments (random assignment of subjects to treatment conditions) evaluating educational materials. It seems a surprising oversight. And the question that Cook rightly asks is, “How come nobody in education ever does experiments?” It’s a good question. A good question for critique and for research. One sign of a good question is that it’s one dramatically overlooked.
(see Kevin’s synopsis for more details) where the risks are less real. Some readers who are “educationists” will agree that the field education can use more such work. Others will hardly agree at all. I tend to agree, and I tend to think that publishers should be footing the bill for the true experiments needed.
Three Problems
There are problems, though, with a lot more such work, none of which Cook examines. The first of these concerns the conceptions that some educational
psychologists tend to hold about education itself, and about what constitutes education research. Among these concepts is an old one: that the study of the mind reveals what is most needful to know about teaching and learning and that teaching and learning are the honored core of education. Even if the belief were true, other perspectives—from philosophy, history, sociology, anthropology, art and literature, and economics—are still essential. Not just needful if we can afford them, but essential. Unfortunately, the psychologists like to assert the value of their disciplinary focus over the intellectual pluralism of the educationists. An interview in the Spring 2005 edition of the Newsletter for Educational Psychologists, observes:
The Assistant Secretary of Education [an educational psychologist] in the Bush
Administration has been critical of the quality of research being presented at
AERA, and he has advocated more controlled intervention research designed to
provide evidence of best educational practices. Joel Levin also discussed the
quality issue in educational research in his E. L. Thorndike Award address at a
this unfortunate trend, and as a result, the reputation of our journals has remained
high. (p. 11)
Oh, well. One might wonder if such an assertion in such a venue actually represents
some of the trouble in the field of educational psychology (i.e., the problem of easy
hubris) as much as its “quality.”
The second problem concerns the particular psychological perspective indicated
above: the need for excellent research to identify “best practice.” This narrow
perspective refashions evaluation as research, and a federal education research office
touting true experiments as research is one working hard to hobble research with a critical
intent. This narrow perspective is hardly typical of all educational psychologists, and it is
especially not typical of those who are broadly educated and widely read. (The speaker
cited, elsewhere in the interview, explicitly advises such reading as the core of
education.)
The third problem concerns allegations about the inferior quality of education
research generally. No scholarly field—neither educational psychology nor
mathematics—has a lock on quality. Good scholarly work has been done everywhere, in
all fields, and can still be done anywhere, even in education and even by educationists in
minor institutions. The mind is not properly an organizational captive.
Individual scholars, in their bodies, however, often are, and the vanity of
misconstructions of quality turns on the sad quest for funding—an assertion that is
neither a surprise, nor the quest a stranger, to many scholars. Academic vanity, however,
is given rare expression as a threat at the end of Cook’s exegesis! The passage shows the
For the intellectual reasons given it will be difficult to enlist the current
generation of self-styled educational evaluators behind a banner promoting more
experimentation. Fortunately or unfortunately, they are not needed tof this task.
They are not part of the current flurry of controlled experimentation now
underway. And while the future demand for experiments cannot be predicted
accurately, it may well be possible to meet all this demand with staff from
contract research firms and university faculty in the policy sciences. (Cook, 2002,
pp. 195-196)
RFPs from the Department of Education, and the awards granted, suggest the threat has
been acted upon. Still, “Pot calls Kettle Black” is an organizational game that one might
not want to play, whatever one’s affiliation. (This sort of political game is very, very
different from legitimate intellectual critique.)
Trouble
Is there trouble with schooling? Yes. Is there trouble with the Bush
Administration? Yes. Is there trouble, period? Yes. Some call trouble the human
condition. One extremely thoughtful educational psychologist (Bruner, 1996), explaining
the importance of narrative treatments of phenomena, argues that trouble is the root not
only of all good stories, but of all good research. Trouble is what necessitates critique,
and Cook’s critique is welcome. It’s hard to applaud the threats, though—even ones with
teeth.
References
Erik Gunn 4/20/06 9:07 AM
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in education: Why are they so rare? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175-199.
Hahn, D, & Husman, J. (2005). An interview with Barry Zimmerman. Newsletter for Educational Psychologists, 28(1), p. 11. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from
http://www.apa.org/divisions/div15/sp05.nep.pdf
Feature
(Remember) The Purpose of Public Education by Michael Ratliff
In the two years that I’ve been in the ACCLAIM (Appalachian Collaborative Center for Learning, Assessment, and Instruction in Mathematics) doctoral program, I have become more interested in rural education. It is increasingly clear to me that the issues and resolutions in rural education are at the heart of good public education, especially good mathematics education, in the democratic society that our forefathers envisioned. To fully understand the purpose of public education, one should first consider a historical perspective of public education in our country.
community whose children attended; payments were not always monetary – i.e., a sack of potatoes, a dozen eggs, etc.
In this time period, the larger town public schools and the rural community schools had two very different agendas. The larger town public school was designed to maintain the status quo; sons and daughters were educated so that they could assume the societal roles of their fathers and mothers. And, sons’ educations were very different than daughters’ educations. In the rural community schools, sons and daughters basically had the same curriculum, the protestant Bible and other books usually brought from home. It was an education intended to lessen the hard times of rural existence.
During the Revolutionary War, and the post-war time period to some degree, public education in both the larger town schools and the rural schools began to have a somewhat common agenda. Basically, the commonalities were one should be educated enough so that one could read a newspaper, read the protestant Bible, and do mathematics at a level appropriate for computing one’s taxes. In other words, a national agenda began to take shape – an agenda needed for the new country’s survival. Public education wasn’t viewed as an individual endeavor; it was viewed holistically as an enterprise necessary for freedom and democracy. Consider one of Thomas Jefferson’s most famous quotes: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Jefferson understood the necessity of education beyond maintaining status quo or lessening hard times. He understood it as the mechanism for sustaining a true democracy and promoted public education for all.
curriculum – very much pro-agricultural rather than a classical liberal education. Similar arguments have existed at different levels throughout our history of public education.
I believe that arguments against Jefferson’s ideas have been a great detriment (along with the Industrial Revolution and educational equality, which I’ll discuss later in this paper) in sustaining good public education in both rural and nonrural settings and their respective communities. By good public education, I mean an education that will provide an equal opportunity for persons to succeed in quality lives of their choice, provide the knowledge necessary to function productively in a democratic society, and provide a community with persons who are capable of contributing to the well-being of that community – and not necessarily in simply sustaining or preserving the community. Since the creation of humankind, people and their environment have changed and always will. I don’t believe in preserving a “way of life.” A “way of life” can be improved through education with traditions and beliefs being sustained and preserved – “improved” meaning with respect to the environment and other people.
As public education evolved over the 19th-century, it was challenged in many ways. Questions regarding religion’s place in the public school, given that all paid taxes, began to surface in the middle of the century by immigrants, mainly Irish Catholics, and rightly so. Another issue that surfaced was the issue of public education for blacks after the Civil War. This issue haunted public education for almost a century – equality in that all men are entitled to an equal education became “equal, but separate” (and really “unequal, but separate”). Another issue was the nation’s ability to provide good education as the nation expanded geographically.
As all of this unfolded, public education was tweaked and modified, but the purpose of public education remained the same – the common body of knowledge that promoted an equal chance in life for students and the promotion of how to be Americans. After all, this utility of public education defined freedom and democracy at their cores.
At the dawn of the 20th century, public education changed forever as a result of two circumstances: 1) a large influx of European immigrants, and 2) the Industrial Revolution. Both circumstances led states to adopt child labor laws and focus public education on training a student for the workforce. This was a major shift in that students basically knew their destination in life – the definition of freedom was changing.
Depression, the Cold War (and Sputnik), the Civil Rights movement (which also raised equality issues for disabled students as well as students whose second language was English), and the perceived national crisis in education of the past two decades (prompted by the Reagan administration) – contributed greatly to this shift. I compare this shift in public education to the construction of super-highways in the Appalachian region. The super-highways were built so that industry could move in; however, very little industry moved in, there was an out-migration of people instead.
These factors created a public educational system that was far from equitable for students. The “one-size fits all” approach focused on individualism does not serve rural— or non-rural—communities well. The sole purpose of public education for most students became job or life training. This creates an out-migration from rural communities (the super-highway analogy) and it doesn’t promote service to one’s community. Further complicating matters was the issue of consolidation of school districts in the name of progress. (This is an issue with which my home state of Arkansas is currently struggling. In fact, my hometown, Rison, recently absorbed another school district in the name of progress. In my opinion, this consolidation has denied students the opportunity to contribute to their home community of Kingsland, not to mention the additional 200 minutes per week spent riding a school bus.)
guidance and accountability have regulated the enterprise in a way that often stunts the potential that exists in public education for best serving a school’s community, the “place” of those who attend the school.
The guidance to which I’m referring is curricula that are mandated by federal or state governments. These curricula are often disjoint from students’ place and
experiences – therefore, not very meaningful to students. So, what should curricula look like? I believe the question is actually a philosophy of education question to some degree. What should education be in our country? That is, what is the purpose of education?
The purpose of public education is not as it is defined and perceived by many in today’s society – to prepare students for jobs in the global society. I believe the purpose is as Jefferson had intended for our society – to provide an equal opportunity for persons to succeed in a quality life of their choice, provide the knowledge necessary to function productively in a democratic society, and provide a community with a person who is capable of contributing to the well-being of that community. I stated this earlier and the definition is in agreement with the classical liberal arts perspective where autonomy, introspection, and rationality are the overarching attributes of such an education.
words, this great enterprise of public education in our country should consist of a common block of national knowledge and also specialized knowledge relevant to students’ place and experiences. These two kinds of knowledge should: 1) provide students with skills and the ability to function in our democracy (i.e., be a productive, not harmful, citizen); 2) inform students of the world that exists beyond their place and experience; and 3) promote students’ application of knowledge in their place. This approach makes the most sense because of the ethnic, cultural, and geographic diversity in our country.
Unfortunately, this has not been the approach to public education, especially in the past 30 years, a time where the world has become very competitive (a byproduct of the ultra-capitalistic societies that have been created) and the primary aim of public education is to produce people who can compete. In an essay written by Wendell Berry in 1975, “A Remarkable Man” (in What Are People For?), Berry states: “The purpose of education with us, like the purpose of society with us, has been, and is, to get away from the small farm – indeed, from the small everything. The purpose of education has been to prepare people to ‘take their places’ in an industrial [or technological] society, the assumption being that all small economic units are obsolete. And the superstition of education assumes that this ‘place in society’ is ‘up.’ ‘Up’ is the direction from small to big. Education is the way up. The popular aim of education is to put everybody ‘on top.’” Berry is speaking about this competitive world and public education as the mechanism that sustains it.
less than 1% of the world’s population control over 40% of the world’s wealth. And I’m very uneasy about this because that 1% includes corporations that, although made up of people, are units with very few human characteristics – machines. I believe (and it’s my fear) that at some point in time, public education will be selective of the population and feed those machines only. Democracy will then fade away and … (well, it’s not a pretty picture). So I’m an advocate of my plan.
Another component of public education today is high-stakes testing, which has also emerged and grown (it seems exponentially) in the last 30 years. Presidents Reagan, G. Bush, Clinton, and G. W. Bush have all promoted high-stakes testing as the form of assessment in public education. (Testing services are getting very wealthy and powerful as a result of this environment.) High-stakes testing is the accountability component most influential in policy regarding public education. Hence, high stakes testing has directed curricula towards that competitive environment that is detrimental in public education’s service to communities.
I’m not opposed to accountability in our public education system. I just do not believe that high-stakes testing is appropriate for this accountability. So what should accountability be in public education? Again, I have an answer (an opinion) regarding accountability.
specialized knowledge could be a capstone project focusing on the students’ interests. Although the timeline may be problematic, an additional assessment (possibly a survey including a written feedback component) containing both types of knowledge could be administered to former students, say 5 to 7 years after graduation. (Maybe a tax break could be used as an incentive for former students’ participation in this assessment.) This information could be extremely valuable for the development of curricula, and this could provide public education with a very valuable accountability component. The information gathered could be used in decisions at the local level for the improvement of public education. Only the common knowledge assessment component will be used for comparing public schools, provided schools have equitable resources for the common national knowledge component of public education. (I guess my plan has a form of high-stakes testing. My consequences would be different than those that currently exist, however. I have not thought about those consequences, but they would be constructive.)
This is of utmost importance. Paul Theobald states in his book, Teaching the Commons, “The school’s place allows educators to take what is artificial out of the schooling experience.” He adds: “All of the traditional ‘subjects’ can reap the same intellectual rewards through a focus on place; and they can be made more powerful by engaging the place with a multidisciplinary approach.” Also, John Dewey states in his book, Democracy and Education: “The more human the purpose, or the more it
approximates the ends which appeal in daily experience, the more real the knowledge.” I agree with all three statements. And the importance of such an approach is in the uniqueness of place and the uniqueness of students. I firmly believe that a public education of this kind will produce persons with that classical liberal arts perspective.
In conclusion, I confess that my strengths are neither politics nor economics; I’ve never had any formal coursework in either field and have struggled in fully understanding how educational practices impact or have been impacted by those areas. In attempting to better understand, I read a few chapters from a book on rural development in our country. I was very surprised to find that some policies being promoted can actually harm a rural locale – i.e., the policies promote changes that make a rural locale more non-rural and some policies tend to be short-term (one generation) fixes. I intend to follow up this reading with more reading on rural development in our country. And let me add that I do understand well enough to believe that the political and economic conditions in rural locales can be improved with public education as discussed in this paper.
enrollment, nine students with most pursuing secondary certification in mathematics. Before the course met, I requested that students complete a course expectations survey – Why are you taking the course? What are your expectations in this course? How is geometry content relevant to your daily life? How is geometry related to other branches of mathematics? I was surprised by the student responses on the survey, and my approach in this course has been an attempt to meet their expectations. Why? – Their expectations are based on their lives, i.e., their place and experiences. Please don’t misunderstand, I will respect the mathematics discipline and cover the necessary content; but with this approach, it will be more meaningful to them. (That’s my intent.) At the same time, I’m modeling good pedagogical behaviors for those preparing to teach mathematics.
After rereading what I’ve written thus far, I found myself broadening my earlier question regarding the purpose of education. I believe that one best answers the “purpose of education” question if one understands the broadest purpose, the purpose of
humankind. A responsibility within that purpose of humankind is to serve others in life’s journey. Part of this service is the “renewal of life by transmission” that Dewey speaks of in Democracy and Education. But then again, the purpose of humankind has always been a topic of debate; therefore, so will the purpose of education. Nevertheless, I’ll stand firm on my beliefs and will act accordingly; my hope is to inspire others to do so also and to remember the purpose of public education.
References
Streep, M. (Narrator), Sears Hunter, M. (Editor), Moore, A. (Cinematographer), et al. (2002). School, the story of American public education [Documentary]. Princeton, N.J.: Films for the Humanities and Sciences.
Theobald, P. (1997). Teaching the commons: place, pride, and the renewal of community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Feature
Rural Education Symposium Organized by Virginia Department of Education By Craig Howley
The Virginia Department of Education did something very unusual—and excellent—the second week of February 2006. It held its First Annual Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2, Rural and Low-Income School Symposium in Roanoke, February 9-10. The presenters agreed that this was the first instance in their experience of a State Education Agency bringing together rural practitioners to meet with actual scholars of rural education. According to presenter Jerry Johnson, research director of the Rural School and Community Trust, when he was a school principal (a couple of years ago), rural educators went to meetings to hear people from the SEA explain “how to fill out the paperwork.”
In addition to Johnson, symposium presenters also included Craig Howley, Ohio University, (professional development); Barbara Lawrence, Lesley University, (school facilities); and Arlie Woodrum, Ohio University, (school leadership). Johnson spoke on budgeting and on the Rural Trust’s data describing rural Virginia’s schools.
Organizer Gabie Frazier vows the symposium will be the first of many. The participants affirmed the need to gather and talk and hear about rural issues.
Feature
ACCLAIM Doctoral Program is Making a Difference By Sherry Jones
Working toward a doctoral degree was an educational and professional goal that I thought I was going to have to abandon. I live in central West Virginia, where the nearest doctoral institution is nearly 100 miles away. My full-time teaching position on the faculty of Glenville State College keeps me so busy that traveling 100 miles one way to take classes was not really a viable option. In addition, I deal with a disability that presents challenges in maintaining a “normal” lifestyle and requires medical treatment at a hospital once a week. Also, there have been numerous family responsibilities with illnesses and care of elderly family members.
In March, 2004, however, Dr. Mayes contacted me to let me know that someone had dropped out of the program and asked if I was still interested. I decided to apply for the program and was invited to join Cohort 2. Our cohort started taking classes together at Ohio University in the summer of 2004. Now, as we are soon approaching summer of 2006, I can say without reservation that this program is truly a blessing in my life.
Why do I consider the program such a positive force in my life? First, the people in this program are truly among the finest group of folks I have ever known. The doctoral students from Cohort 2 are supportive of one another and give willingly of their time and talents to each other and to the program. We have also received encouragement and support from members of Cohort 1. Bringing together students from different states and different places in their math careers is conducive to rich discussions and sharing of diverse ideas. All the students have their own circles of contacts in education, which in turn adds breadth and depth to the network of the cohorts. Each doctoral student has unique strengths and expertise to offer. Because I live in a very rural area and am the only professor at my college who teaches the math-oriented courses in the business department, I have never had an opportunity like this program to share experiences and learn from other faculty who are teaching a wide variety of courses in mathematics at different instructional levels.
rural education, and teacher education. Our professors each have their own network of contacts in mathematics, teaching, and rural education, so we are meeting and talking with educators and researchers who expand our circle of professional contacts and help develop our professional interests. Doctoral programs that offer this level of quality, expertise and diversity are few and far between, if they exist at all.
Second, this program is changing the way I teach. Teaching to achieve a deeper understanding of mathematics has been a focus in our doctoral work and has been very helpful to me as I strive to enhance my teaching and help my students learn mathematics in meaningful ways. The doctoral classes have given me a rich array of ideas, teaching methods, materials, and lessons to incorporate in my classroom. Equally important, as a result of the doctoral classes, my questioning techniques are changing in order to help my students reach a deeper understanding of mathematics.
Teaching is not a static profession. As a teacher, one must continually grow and change in order to adapt to fluid curricula and diverse student needs. The sharing of expertise that occurs in this program has helped me do a much better job of growing and changing as a professional than I would have been able to do on my own. Ultimately, my students reap the benefits of my professional growth.
focus on mathematics education. Recognizing that rural students value place, community, and family is necessary for teachers to successfully work with and understand the needs and aspirations of rural students.
Like many small rural colleges, Glenville State is attempting to offer more opportunities for rural students to achieve a college degree. Our college serves a population where having access to online classes is not just a convenience but a necessity for many of our students. The online classes taught in the ACCLAIM program serve as excellent models in the development of distance learning courses. The ACCLAIM Faculty Symposium on Learning and Teaching held on October 10 and 11, 2005, in West Liberty, KY, was a forum where many ideas and strategies to support online courses were shared. This sharing of ideas and strategies will be invaluable to those of us who are working toward increasing undergraduate and graduate online course offerings to help meet the current needs of rural students.
Focusing on the curriculum and work required in the ACCLAIM doctoral program demands strong commitments of time and energy. Most valuable things in life require the same level of commitments. It is my honor and privilege to be a member of Cohort 2, and I strongly feel that the program is well worth the time and effort. My school, my students, and I are benefiting from the difference this program is making in our rural corner of the world.
Our Neck of the Woods
Capacity Building Initiative Update by Terri Hopkins
ACCLAIM is gearing up for another doctoral cohort, set to begin classes in the summer of 2007 at Lexington, Kentucky. As we prepare for this next group, the first cohort members are in the various stages of completing their degrees, working on comprehensive exams, writing proposals, undertaking literature reviews, collecting data, and writing their dissertations. Members of the second cohort are winding up their second year of course work, completing a History in Mathematics course taught by Dr. Carl Lee and their year-long internship under the guidance of Drs. Vena Long and Terri Hopkins.
applicants from the Appalachian region, representing Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. We are still receiving new applications weekly and are excited about the pool of candidates. People wishing to apply can begin the process by completing an online application at http://www.acclaim-math.org/application.aspx.
Those applicants that have already applied are currently serving in a variety of capacities. There is a mix of elementary, middle and high school teachers as well as several community college instructors. We even have applicants who are working outside the classroom: one principal as well as an applicant who is working in the “real” world with instructional materials.
Teacher Development Initiative Update by Karen Mitchell
No organization can hope to realize its full potential without the involvement of its membership. Recently, the Board of AAMTE has established 5 committees that will afford the members of AAMTE with a variety of opportunities to become more involved with the work of the organization. Members of AAMTE who are interested in serving on a committee should send a list of their preferences to Rhonda Creech (AAMTE
Member-at-Large) in an email ([email protected]) with a subject heading of “AAMTE committee volunteer.”
Research Initiative Update by Craig Howley Research Symposium Ready to Roll
the improvement of mathematics teaching and learning. Little research has been done from this perspective, and none in rural mathematics education.
Featured speakers (who will deliver formal papers) are David Gruenewald (Washington State University), Marta Civil (University of Arizona), and Sarah Lubienski (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). In addition, a series of additional scholars, also from outside the Center, will be involved in conducting break-out
conversations related to the conference theme (Jim Lewis, University of Nebraska; Noran Moffett, Clark-Atlanta University; Tim Forde, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Alan
DeYoung, University of Kentucky; Aimee Howley, Ohio University; Rico Gutstein, University of Illinois at Chicago; Paul Theobald, Buffalo State University; and Ted Coladarci, University of Maine). Other confirmed participants at this writing, include Oscar Chavez, (University of Missouri), Jim Gleason (University of Alabama), George Johanson (Ohio University), Mike Mays (West Virginia University), and Edna Schack (Morehead State University). Also participating will be all the members of ACCLAIM’s 2004 cohort of doctoral students, several members of the 2002 cohort, and many
members of the ACCLAIM management team. New Publications
Thomas D. Cook. (March 2006). Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. (synthesized by Kevin Kenady)
exclusively towards randomized experimental research. In his article Cook explains why causal conclusions are appropriately validated by randomized experimental research while countering the justifications for not using randomization. Following his synthesis of Cook’s exegesis, Kenady (an ACCLAIM doctoral student) offers implications relevant to rural mathematics education research.
ACCLAIM Monograph No. 3 (January 2006)
Leadership of Mathematics Reform: The Role of High School Principals in Rural Schools
by William Larson and Aimee Howley (with Solange Andrianaivo, Brian Boyd, Victor Brown, Roni Hayes, Marged Howley, Longun Lado, Sue Nichols, Ron Smith, and Megan Rhodes)
No empirical study—not a single one before this one—has bothered to examine the actual activities of rural principals on behalf of improving mathematics education. Indeed, in 25 years of reform there have reportedly been fewer than ten studies of what principals do anywhere to lead math reform. The professional literature behind this study of principals’ leadership of mathematics education reform, in fact, is mostly a prescriptive literature, and about ten percent of these prescriptive works reportedly mention rural schools. This monograph, then, presents the results of the first study of rural principals’ engagement with mathematics education “reform.” The study was assisted by a group of nine students, including six doctoral students, four from the ACCLAIM doctoral program in mathematics education (Boyd, Brown, Nichols, and Smith), and three from Ohio University’s rural school administration program (Andrianaivo, Lado,
Erik Gunn 4/20/06 9:07 AM
and Rhodes). Two masters students assisted as well. At this date, the lead authors are also preparing a manuscript for journal publication. (The study will be presented at AERA, April 2006.)
Avery Allman. (August 2005) Lessons from an Old Muleskinner's Experience.
Entertainment--a story told to ACCLAIM picnickers during their summer course time at Ohio University.
Allman teaches social studies at a local rural high school; he can reportedly entertain any gathering, and without advance notice, with his monologues. The talent for such performance is rare, and maybe getting more rare still, as local practices of this sort are crowded out by inferior mass-marketed products—the monkey business of big-buck amusements. We asked Allman to write out this story, but we were told (were we stupid?) he’s a storyteller, not a writer (get it??). We were, however, smart enough to record the event and to get it transcribed and edited, and we’re pleased to be able to share it—with the storyteller’s
permission—with the rest of the world.
Ongoing and studies and forthcoming publications
Anderson, R. (dissertation-in-progress, Portland State University). Mathematics, Meanings, and Identity in a Rural High School: A Case Study of a Rural High School’s Mathematics Education Practices and their Relationship to Students’ Identities as Mathematics Learners
Lucas, D. and undergraduate students. (community math study, midwest location) . This is a replication and extension of the study conducted in Padua, WV and reported in A Rural Community's Perceptions of Mathematics and
Mathematics Education in Appalachia ACCLAIM’s Monograph No. 1 (2005).
Jamie Fugitt, ACCLAIM doctoral student, is assisting in the study. Sloan, M. (dissertation-in-progress, University of Georgia). Mathematics Education in Rural Georgia: The Crossroad of Social, Political, and Economic Factors
Resource Review
Teaching Mathematics Online: A Virtual Classroom
A feature article in this issue of Rural Mathematics Educator by Jim Gleason entitled “Top 10 Suggestions for Teaching an Online Mathematics Course” was based on an article Dr. Gleason wrote and published in the Journal of Online Mathematics and its Applications. The article can be accessed at
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/4/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=1057 .
Resource Review
Charter, Private, Public Schools, and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Data
A report, Charter, Private, Public Schools, and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Data, by Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Theule Lubienski looks at an analysis of NAEP data for mathematics achievement. Their findings suggest that
Erik Gunn 4/20/06 9:07 AM
demographic differences account for the disparity in achievement levels of public versus private school students. If one controls for these demographic differences, public schools score significantly higher than their private school counterparts. The report can be accessed at http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP111.pdf .
Announcements
Call for Rural Research
NREA has issued a call for rural research in preparation for the 98th Annual NREA Convention which will be held in Kansas City, Missouri, October 21-25, 2006. The theme for the conference is “NREA: Crossing Into Our Next Century.” Information can be obtained at: http://www.nrea.net/NREA%20Annual%20Convention.htm .
Upcoming Events
Third ACCLAIM Research Symposium
ACCLAIM will host its third research symposium at Cherry Valley Lodge in Newark, Ohio, May 18-20, 2006. Keynote speakers will be David Gruenewald, Marta Civil, and Sarah Lubienski.
Would we be interested in your work? The answer is yes if the words “rural” and “mathematics” appear often in your manuscript. We welcome distinctive and non-trendy scholarship. Empirical work (quantitative and qualitative) is a priority, but we will consider theoretical pieces, historical research, or biography, and very well argued commentary as well. Contact Craig Howley at [email protected] for more information.
What to Look For
Volume 5 No. 2 of the Rural Mathematics Educator coming in June.
Disclaimer
The Rural Mathematics Educator is produced at Ohio University and published electronically by the Research Initiative of the Appalachian Collaborative Center for Learning, Assessment, and Instruction in Mathematics (ACCLAIM).
The Research Initiative is housed in McCracken Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701-2979.
Office: 740-593-9869 Fax: 740-593-0477 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.acclaim-math.org
ACCLAIM is funded by the National Science Foundation as a Center for Learning and Teaching. The Center is a partnership of the Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation (Lexington), Marshall University (Huntington, WV), Ohio University (Athens), the University of Kentucky (Lexington), the University of Louisville (Louisville), the University of Tennessee (Knoxville), and West Virginia University (Morgantown).
