1. Preparing Teacher Candidates for CCSS in Mathematics: The Sequel Reuben S. Asempapa Ohio University AACTE Webinar December 15, 2015

2. OverviewOverview Research Assessment Resources

3. Research  Conducting relevant research that connects to the CCSS in mathematics  Investigating misconceptions and concerns about mathematical modeling (Asempapa, in press; Gould, 2013; Wolfe, 2013;)  Why the focus on modeling?  It is a SMP for all K–12  Nearly 40% of the CCSS in mathematics for high school fall under the category of modeling

4. Research Findings (Asempapa, in press)  Mathematical Modeling (MM) Definition Note: inter-rater reliability =.87; N = 284;

5. Research Findings (Asempapa, in press)  Participants experiences with MM Note: The variation in sample size is due to the variation in the number of responses; Yes = 1; No = 2; Not Sure = 3. QuestionNMSDYes (%)No (%)Not Sure (%) Does your mathematics textbook have mathematical modeling activities? 318 1.930.77106 (33)127 (40)85 (27) Do you teach mathematical modeling activities? 3191.53.79211 (66)48 (15)60 (19) Did you take a mathematical modeling course in your teacher preparation program in college? 3131.970.4132 (10)258 (83)23 (7) Does your school district provide you with any support in teaching mathematical modeling? 3182.030.7279 (25)150 (47)89 (28)

6. Assessment  Students  PISA, TIMSS (international)  NAEP (national)  PARCC, SBAC, and AIR (state level)  Pre-service and in-service teachers  GAIMME document

7. Assessment Cont’d  Integrate the CCSS in mathematics into state teacher licensure assessments  Assess pre-service teachers’ learning related to the CCSS in mathematics for feedback and program improvement

8. Other Resources  Taking advanced mathematics courses  Throughout the program  At least 4 years of continuous mathematics  Developing methods courses that will ensure pre- service teachers have the content and pedagogical backgrounds needed to support students’ progress in meeting the CCSS in mathematics  Developing communities of practices with in-service and pre-service teachers and faculty

9. Other Resources Cont’d  One-year clinically based model for teacher preparation  Align teaching standards and licensure requirements to CCSS in mathematics  Support faculty through professional development  Collaboration between faculty  Collaboration between the department of mathematics and the department of teacher education

10. Useful Sources  American Institute for Research (2014). Preparing teachers for the Common Core: Aligning preparation program curricula. Washington DC: American Institute for Research. Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/Teacher _Preparation_Common_Core.pdf  Asempapa, R. S. (in press). Developing an instrument to assess teachers’ knowledge about the nature of mathematical modeling and their attitude toward such modeling (Doctoral dissertation). Athens, OH: Ohio University.  Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (2012). The Mathematical Education of Teachers II. Providence RI and Washington DC: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.  Gould, H. T. (2013). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematical modeling. Retrieved from http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:161497  OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/ pisa/pisaproducts/46619703.pdf  Science and Mathematics Teacher Imperative (SMTI), The Leadership Collaborative (TLC), and the Working Group on the Common Core State Standards (n.d). The Common Core State Standards and teacher preparation: The role of higher education (Discussion Paper). New York, NY: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/ projects-and-initiatives/stem-education/SMTI_Library/APLU-SMTI- Paper-2/file?id=3482  Wolf, N. B. (2013). Teachers’ understanding of and concerns about mathematical modeling in the common core standards. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (UMI 3590815).

11. THANK YOU!