 A comparative case study of preservice teachers’ progression of elementary mathematical knowledge for teaching October 19, 2012 Penina Kamina

CONTEXT  There is a move to have first year teachers who readily transition into classroom teaching with ease.  Thus a call for a shift in teacher education preparation programs for more field-based experiences (Kagan, 1992)

FOCUS  The purpose of this roundtable discussion is to share.  I will share the learning trajectories of participants exposed to a simulation and a field experience.  Teaching-experience: A simulation (Microteaching) and 3-week field participation.

GUIDING QUESTIONS  Does exposure to more field-experience in teacher preparation lead to a well grounded reflective graduate teacher?  Is a mere semester long of student teaching enough in teacher education preparation?  What are other existing models of field-experience practices?

DESIGN  62 preservice teachers in their senior year  Comparison of mathematical teaching practices of two (B-6 versus 1-6 certifications) groups of pre- service elementary teachers  The B-6 certification group would be repeating these experiences.  Data: lesson plan notes; observational notes; reflective task; summative survey

DESIGN  In microteaching, participants individually plan, teach, and videotape a 15-minute lesson relevant to assigned common core state standards for mathematics. Peers serve as students. After watching this video, they each write a reflective paper.  Participants were debriefed before the 3-week teaching experience  During the 3-week field experience, participants plan and teach a math lesson appropriate to the host class. They each write a reflective paper.  A summative survey given to all participants at the end of the course.

FINDINGS Both Microteaching & Participation ITEMAGREEDISAGREE I planned clear & concise math content objectives 97%3% I planned clear & concise math practice objectives 97%3% I gave multiple examples in introduc. 89%11% I asked multiple questions in lesson 91%9% During the activity: (a) Student worked independently 88%12% (b) Students worked in small groups 32%68% (c) Student worked with a partner 46%54% Students used manipulative or technology effectively 90%10% Students were frustrated 1%99% I was frustrated during lesson 19%81% I integrated technology 84%16% I made connections to math concepts 97%3% The math content objectives were met 97%3% The math practice objectives were met 97%3% I summarized the lesson in closure 87%13% I designed effective math instruction 97%3% I was confident 47%53%

Findings  From the reflective tasks and observational notes, generally teacher candidates who had more field experience opportunities were stronger in pedagogy i.e. ability to integrate technology, classroom management, pacing of content; clarity in task directions etc than those who had just a few chances  Their mathematical knowledge of teaching mathematics were not different. More data required (The anticipation of the B-6 group of teaching lower elementary classes would probably contribute to this)

QUESTION???  How should we optimize preservice elementary teachers understanding of theory and practice in teaching and learning of i.e. mathematics?

QUESTIONS (???)

REFERENCES  Hargrove, T., Fox, K. R., & Walker, B. (2010). Making a difference for pre-service teachers through authentic experiences and reflection. Southeastern Teacher Education Journal, 3(1),  Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2),