2
For many teachers, research does not seem to factor into their
decision-making process. Dr. Judith Sowder (2000) writes, “Many
teachers and policy makers believe that most research has little relevance
to the decisions they must make” (p. 106). Research is often seen as
impractical or written in a form that is not accessible to many teachers.
Sowder cites an article by Kennedy (1997) in Educational Researcher,
stating that teachers often feel research does not answer the questions they
have; nor does it adequately consider their constraints. All of these hurdles
limit the connection between research and practice.
During my tenure as a math department chair and as a district math
resource teacher, I found this aversion to research a prevailing mindset.
Less experienced teachers were often so overwhelmed with the daily pace
that they simply wanted tips on classroom management and survival
techniques. More experienced teachers usually resisted using research for
one of three main reasons. First, they had endured too many poorly run
professional development activities in which research seemed impractical.
Second, they felt their “curricular tool bag” was full, and they no longer
needed to grow pedagogically for their students to achieve. Lastly, even if
they felt they might benefit, they often felt overwhelmed by the amount of
material to wade through and underwhelmed by the resources they had to
assist them in the cause.
If math educators value research and hope to make a positive
impact on student learning from the results they achieve, then they must
find a way to help practicing and future teachers see research as relevant
to the choices they make. My experience in graduate school reinforced my
desire to help bridge this gap between teachers and research. Through my
work with pre-service teachers, I was able to create the norm of using
research to guide instruction. I saw the benefit of exposing future teachers
not only to research findings, but also to ideas that might help shape their
own conceptual understanding of mathematics. My interactions during this
time, both with pre-service teachers and their mentors, reinforced my
belief that greater understanding of mathematical proficiency is required
from teachers before adequate gains in students’ mathematical skills can
be achieved.
We hope that our students will gain a proficient understanding of
mathematics. Yet to afford this opportunity, we expect our teachers to
comprehend what mathematical proficiency means. In Adding It Up
(2001), Kilpatrick, Swafford, and Findell describe this proficiency as
containing five different components: conceptual understanding,
procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, and
productive disposition. Exploring these ideas with teachers, I realized that
many considered proficiency simply to mean procedural competency.
interests and career
trajectory to past history.
It is helpful to make this
connection for readers,
but your statement
should not be exclusively
about past teaching
experiences, but rather
contextualize relevant
experiences in terms of
their relationship to a
Ph.D. program and
doctoral studies. The
overall message of the
statement should be
forward-looking rather
demonstrate knowledge
in the specialty field
(mathematics) but again
is contextualized in terms
of its relationship to a
Ph.D. program. This
demonstrates an ability
to understand how to
frame problems in a
particular field of study
within a Ph.D. program