Secondary Teachers’ Participation Patterns in a MS in Mathematics Program

1. Secondary Teachers’ Participation Patterns in a MS in Mathematics Program Sarah Ives, George Tintera, Elaine Young, & Joe Champion Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi South Texas Mathematics Consortium March 24, 2012

2. Master’s Degree Participation • Almost half of inservice teachers earn a master’s degree (NCES, 2010) • Teacher demand for master’s remains strong (Roza & Miller, 2009) • More earn master’s in education than their content field (Hill, 2007) • Improving specialized content knowledge is important to mathematics education (Ball, Thames & Phelps, 2008) • Reaching more than just the “cream of the crop” graduate student to improve teaching of mathematics in schools Education and Mathematics Master’s Degree for Teachers Masters 1970 2009 Ratio E:M % change Education 87,666 175,880 17:1 + 100.6% Math 5,191 4,890 36:1 - 5.8% (NCES, 2010)

3. Teacher Quality Grant ProgramsTexas A&M University-Corpus Christi(NCLB flow-through funds)m 2004-2005 Growing Educational Outcomes in Mathematics $79,995 2005-2006 Problem Solving with Numbers and Patterns $81,878 2006-2007 Problem Solving with Number and Algebra $169,994 2007-2008 Geometry, Problem Solving & Assessment $86,958 2008-2009 Problem Solving: Discrete to Continuous Mathematics $86,990 2009-2012 TAMUCC School Mathematics Project $435,000 2012-2013 TAMUCC Secondary Mathematics $108,000 TOTAL$1,048,815

4. Faculty & Institution Benefits • Summer salaries • Course releases • Adjunct salaries • Student assistants • Conference travel • Technology materials • IDC research funds Graduate enrollment!

5. Grant Participants Eligibility criteria: emergency/alternative certification, teaching out of field (no math major/minor), low college math hours, no math pedagogy hours, high needs school teams. Participants take grant courses for college credit or CEU hours.

6. Participant Information • College math hours M=21 sd= 14 Range 0-64 • 2/3 of participants had no math pedagogy hours • 24% held BS in Math; others held BS in education, science, sports, business or liberal arts • 40% were not fully certified to teach math when starting the grant program • 21% had a previous master’s degree in education, business, science or liberal arts • 42% admitted to the MS Math program, 31% to education masters, 10% non-degree, 17% for CEU hours only • Participants with certification averaged 5 years of teaching • Cohorts of 30 teachers with emphasis on school teams

7. MS in MathematicsCurriculum Content track with project/thesis (36 hours) MATH 5321 Problem Solving & Mathematical Reasoning MATH 5322 Mathematics Assessment MATH 5325 Structure of Number Concepts MATH 5326 Structure of Patterns & Algebra MATH 5327 Structure of Geometry & Measurement MATH 5328 Structure of Probability & Statistics MATH 5329 Structure of Modeling with Rates of Change MATH 5393 Literature Review & Research Methodology MATH 5995/7 Research (project or thesis) Elective courses (choose 3) MATH 5323 Mathematics Instruction & Mentoring MATH 5324 Action Research MATH 5331 Evolution of Mathematical Systems MATH 5332 Integrating Technology in Mathematics Education

8. Composite Profiles Figure 1. Composite profiles in proportion to number of teachers represented by each profile. (Unmarked regions indicate 14 teachers not represented in the profiles) N = 118.

9. Findings Six participation categories were identified: False start – 8 did not complete first grant class Starters – 37 completed 1-2 grant courses (less than one cycle) Completers– 25 completed 3-7 grant courses (one cycle or more) Plateaued – 8 did not finish last courses (research & project) for degree Graduates – 19 graduated with Math and 4 with Education degree (Low-High and High-High patterns) Current – 17 current participants in 3-year grant cycle (Start- Stop-Start pattern)

10. Barriers & Actions • Personal and family issues such as health and job • Continue contact with teachers; School teams • Distance to travel for classes (up to 1.5 hours) • Moving to hybrid courses • Unsuccessful in completing master’s project • Expanded to 3 project/3 thesis options; Sharing faculty research; Writing across degree program • “Start-stop-start” participation pattern • Continue contact with teachers; School teams; Advising • Weak mathematics background • School teams; Non-degree status working toward degree status

11. Future Actions • Mentoring • graduates visit proposal/project classes to share their experiences and personal outcomes of participation • School districts • Collaborate with districts to recruit teacher teams • Additional grant programs • Seek additional grant opportunities for recruiting and supporting graduate students through the end of the program

12. References Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. C. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hill, H. C. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. The Future of Children, 17(1), 111-127. NCES. (2010). Masters by subject 1970 to 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from www.nces.ed.gov/ National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roza, M. & Miller, R. (2009). Separation of degrees: State-by-state analysis of teacher compensation for masters degrees. Schools in Crisis: Making Ends Meet. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from www.crpe.org Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.