International Approaches to Professional Development for Mathematics Teachers

Chapter 7: In-Service Professional Development for Teachers of Pre-University Mathematics

108 Chapter 7 In-Service Professional Development for Teachers of Pre-University Mathematics Bernard Murphy Background There is a well-publicized shortage of specialist teachers of mathematics in England (see, e.g., Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education [ACME], 2002; Department for Children, Schools, and Family [DfES/ DTI], 2006; Smith, 2004). In response to the Smith Report, the UK government set up the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics (NCETM) to coordinate the national provision of professional development. Both the Smith Report and the NCETM highlighted a gap in the professional development available to mathematics teachers. They highlighted the need for professional development courses that provide opportunities to secondary school mathematics teachers to extend their subject knowledge and deepen their understanding of the associated pedagogy. In 2003, Mathematics in Education and Industry (MEI), an independent UK curriculum development body with many years of experience in providing professional development, designed the Teaching Advanced Mathematics (TAM) course in collaboration with the University of Warwick. TAM is aimed at teachers who are competent to teach students up to age sixteen, to the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) qualification in England, and who wish to develop their knowledge, skills, and understanding of A-level mathematics, and its teaching (see Porkess, 2003, for information related to the structure of A-level mathematics). In June 2004, with the funding support In-Service Professional Development || 109 of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, a pilot phase was initiated with twenty teachers enrolled in the course. Due to numerous demands, the course is now offered through four universities in England, supporting approximately seventy teachers per year. Successful completion of the TAM course leads to a postgraduate certificate in A-level mathematics pedagogy, which constitutes one-third of a master’s degree. Underlying Principles Guiding Design of the Course In 2002, leading practitioners and experts in the field of mathematics education in England met to reflect on principles guiding the design of high-quality professional development opportunities for mathematics teachers. These principles were reported by the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME, 2002) and informed design of the TAM course, as delineated below. • Promoting collaboration between different institutions: TAM is based on collaboration between MEI, universities, and schools. • Availability of professional development: TAM aims to support teachers (with the necessary experience) who want to develop their teaching to a higher level. • Availability of non-teaching time to reflect on teaching practices: TAM course days give participants time away from the pressures of the classroom. • Sustaining continuous professional development: TAM is long term, lasting sixteen months, with three years’ support in total. • Teachers’ ownership: TAM has built-in flexibility, giving teachers the opportunity to choose areas of study outside a common core. • Independence: funding from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation allowed MEI to design TAM without externally imposed constraints . • Deepening subject knowledge: TAM assumes knowledge of the General Certificate of Secondary Education and allows teachers to deepen their knowledge to A level and, if required, beyond. The course was based on these well-established, effective principles. Its development was also based on an evaluation process. 110 || Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers Integration of Assessment Processes in the Course Design During the pilot phase, course development was influenced by the findings of external evaluators from the Curriculum, Evaluation, and Management Centre (CEM) at Durham University. These researchers adopted a mixed methods research approach, including questionnaires, interviews with participants , interviews with teaching colleagues and students, observations of lessons, and observations of university-based sessions. They followed participants through the course and monitored their progress for one year after completing the course. This evaluation was an integral part of the pilot phase. The researchers produced regular reports as the pilot phase progressed for the TAM Steering Committee (made up of members of MEI, the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, and the four participating universities). The assessment study was a formative one, offering suggestions and recommendations for course improvement responded to by the course manager and university providers . In the six interim reports (between 2005 and 2007), there is much evidence from the participants that they got a great deal from it in terms of building their knowledge and confidence to teach mathematics to A-level mathematics students. (This was also supported in the final report of CEM, presented in August 2008.) In 2008, participants who had completed the course were asked in an email survey to give their views on how the course...