Are elementary school teachers satisfied with their mathematics preparation?

Are elementary school teachers satisfied with their mathematics preparation?Author(s): ROBERT E. REYSSource: The Arithmetic Teacher, Vol. 14, No. 3 (MARCH 1967), pp. 190-193Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41187262 .

Accessed: 21/06/2014 20:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Arithmetic Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:14:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41187262?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Are elementary school teachers satisfied with their mathematics preparation?*

ROBERT E. REYS

University of Missouri at St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri

Dr. Rey s is assistant professor of education at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and is consultant for the Kinlock Cooperative School Project.

In 1960 the Committee on the Under- graduate Program in Mathematics, the major group influencing the modernization of college mathematics, published their recommendations for the mathematics preparation of elementary school teachers of mathematics.1' 2 Subsequently, statewide conferences for mathematics educators from various educational institutions were con- ducted under the auspices of the Commit- tee on Undergraduate Programs in Mathe- matics. In these meetings were discussed the problems of adequately training elementary school teachers of mathematics and possible avenues to an improved mathematics preparatory program. One of the statements issued at each of these meetings concerned the importance of each educational institution's critically examining its own mathematics program for elementary school teachers.

* This research was based in part on the writer's doctoral dissertation, "A Study of the Mathematics Preparatory Program for Elementary School Teachers of the University of Missouri at Columbia," completed under the guidance of Dr. Floyd G. Delon, College of Education, University of Missouri, 1966.

1 Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathe- matics, "Recommendation of the Mathematical As- sociation of America for the Training of Mathematics Teachers," American Mathematical Monthly, LXVII (December 1960). 2 Donovan A. Johnson and Robert Rahtz, The New

Mathematics in Our Schools (New York: The Mac- millan Co., 1966).

This is a report of one such examination and research, designed to provide information for curricular improvement in the mathematics preparatory program for elementary school teachers at the Univer- sity of Missouri at Columbia. The following question represents the central theme upon which the study focused: Are graduates majoring in elementary education at our institution adequately prepared to teach mathematics in the elementary school?

Procedure

It was decided that confidence of recent graduates teaching elementary school mathematics should be somewhat indicative of the adequacy of the mathematics preparatory program. Consequently, a questionnaire was constructed to obtain the opin- ions of recent graduates regarding their ability to assume the responsibilities of teaching mathematics in their present posi- tions.

In this context, recent graduates were the 250 elementary-education majors who graduated from the University of Missouri at Columbia in 1965. At the beginning of the second semester of the 1965/66 aca- demic year a questionnaire was sent to these recent graduates. The findings were based upon a return of 218, or 87.5 per-

190 The Arithmetic Teacher



Table 1

Evaluation of effectiveness of courses offered in the preservi ce training program of the University of Missouri that were completed by recent graduates

Percent of response Little or Average Considerable

Question no value value value Of what value was the mathematics content course in contributing to your teaching competence in arithmetic? 35.29 52.94 11.77 Of what value was the "methods of teaching arithmetic" course in contributing to your teaching competence in arithmetic? 39.31 33.79 26.90

Of what value was the "problems of teaching arithmetic" course in contributing to your teaching competence in arithmetic? 10.71 39.29 50.00

cent, of the recent graduates. The high percent of return, together with many un- solicited comments on the questionnaire, indicated a keen interest in this investigation on the part of the recent graduates.

A review of the college transcripts of recent graduates disclosed that a content course in mathematics for elementary-education majors, an undergraduate methods course in teaching arithmetic, and a senior methods course in problems of teaching arithmetic were the three courses most often selected by the recent graduates in their mathematics preparatory program. Therefore, three items on the questionnaire were designed to determine of what value the recent graduates thought these courses were in preparing them to teach mathematics in the elementary school.

Findings

Table 1 shows that, of the recent graduates who had earned credit in the content course, 35.29 percent rated it of little or no value in preparing them to teach mathematics in the elementary school. Less than 12 percent rated the content course of considerable value in contributing to their teaching competence.

Nearly 40 percent of the respondents who completed the undergraduate methods course considered it of little or no value in their preparation, while approximately 27 percent rated it of considerable value. Of those graduates who completed the

senior methods course, 10.71 percent reported it of little or no value, whereas 50 percent rated it of considerable value.

These results indicate that the content course and undergraduate methods courses, the two courses most frequently taken by elementary-education majors, did not provide mathematical experiences that were considered valuable, in the opinion of approximately one-third of the students.

In order to estimate the effectiveness of the program for elementary school

Table 2

Rating of effectiveness of the mathematics preparatory program for elementary school teachers at the University of Missouri by recent graduates, reported by percent of response

Rating Grade Highly Not

average effective Effective effective A 7.69 69.23 23.08 B 13.79 63.79 22.41 C 11.25 51.25 37.50 D 20.00 50.00 30.00

Total response 13.04 57.76 29.20

teachers of mathematics, the recent graduates were asked to rate their overall preparation in mathematics as not effective, effective, or highly effective. Table 2 reveals that nearly 30 percent rated their preparation as not effective, whereas only slightly over 13 percent considered their preparation highly effective. The fact that

March 1967 191



nearly 30 percent rated their mathematics preparatory program as ineffective is consistent with findings reported in Table 1.

A comparison was made between the recent graduates' grade average in mathematics and their evaluation of the mathematics preparatory program in order to find whether a relationship existed between these two variables. These data, reported in Table 2, show that over one-fifth of the recent graduates with a grade average of either A or B and nearly 40 percent of the recent graduates with a C grade average rated their mathematics program as ineffective. This evidence indicates that the mathematics preparatory program did not satisfy a sizable proportion of the elementary-education majors with average or above-average ability in mathematics.

A similar comparison was made between the grades earned by recent graduates in the content courses and undergraduate methods courses and their evaluation of the respective courses. The results revealed that approximately 40 percent of the recent graduates who earned a grade of A, B, or C in either or both of these courses rated them of little or no value in contributing to their teaching competence in mathematics.

More than 78 percent of the recent graduates expressed a need of additional mathematics preparation for teaching mathematics in the elementary school. The preceding finding might be the consequence of the detailed program in mathematics compiled by most of thé recent graduates. This assertion is supported by data col- lected from an examination of college transcripts of recent graduates.

This investigation revealed that nearly one-fourth did not take a college course in mathematics, slightly over 60 percent completed only one three-semester-hour course in college mathematics, and less than 5 percent completed more than six semester hours in college mathematics.

Although these findings were consider- ably below the minimal mathematics re- quirements for elementary school teachers

proposed by the Committee on Under- graduate Programs in Mathematics, they were consistent with those reported by Knowles at one of the regional CUPM conferences.3

The recent graduates who expressed a desire for additional preparation in mathematics were asked to identify what courses would be of most value. The results showed that content courses were requested by nearly 46 percent, whereas methods courses were preferred by 87 percent of the recent graduates.

These findings indicate that methods courses in mathematics are preferable to content courses. This seems to present a paradoxical situation. The recent graduates expressed a desire for additional preparation in mathematics, but by nearly a two-to-one majority preferred to avoid the study of mathematics per se.

Summary

The findings from this investigation seem to indicate that -

1. The pedagogical preparation provided by the mathematics program did not satisfy approximately one-third of the recent graduates.

2. A very large percent of recent graduates who had a grade average of A, B, or C in their mathematics preparatory program rated the program as ineffective.

3. The mathematics preparatory program required of elementary-education majors did not satisfy the minimum require- ments proposed by CUPM.

4. More than three-fourths of the recent graduates desired additional training in mathematics.

Discussion following the investigation The data from this questionnaire did not

provide sufficient evidence to give a definite answer to the central question. In fact, rather than providing an answer, the study

8 Committee on the Undergraduate Programs in Mathematics, Ten Conferences on the Training of Teachers of Elementary School Mathematica, April 1964.

192 The Arithmetic Teacher



produced many additional questions, some of which are as follows:

1. Why did over one-third of the recent graduates consider the content and undergraduate methods courses of little or no value in preparing them to teach mathematics in the elementary school?

2. Why did nearly 30 percent of the recent graduates rate their mathematics program as ineffective?

3. Why did the recent graduates who indicated a need for additional preparation in mathematics prefer methods courses over content courses by nearly a two-to- one majority?

4. Why did over 85 percent of the recent graduates take one content course or less in mathematics?

5. Why did such a large percent of recent graduates with better-than-average work in mathematics rate their mathematics preparatory program as not effective?

Hopefully, these results will serve as a catalyst for additional study that will eventually provide the answers to the preceding questions.

The ultimate consequences of the initial findings from this questionnaire are uncertain. Even though the results were not what we as a staff had hoped (or antici- pated), they have made the personnel in

mathematics education more cognizant of the existing mathematics preparatory program for elementary school teachers. These findings will serve not only as a basis for improvement, but as an impetus for ame- lioration as well.

The following question has troubled this writer and seems pertinent to this investigation: Are the statistics revealed in these findings unique to the University of Mis- souri, or are they characteristic of the mathematics preparatory programs of other institutions? The answer to this question would be provided if similar statistics were available from other educational institutions. Your acting on one of the following suggestions may help to start additional in- stitutional investigations in the mathematics preparation of elementary school teachers.

If you as an elementary school teacher are dissatisfied with your mathematical preparation or have suggestions for curricular improvement, you have the respon- sibility of writing to the mathematics education personnel at your alma mater expressing your feelings.

If you are a faculty member of an educational institution, it is hoped that you will ask yourself the central question of this article, provided you have not done so already. If your answer is yes, congratu- lations! If your answer is no, or if you are uncertain, then get busy!

New research journal published by USOE

The U. S. Office of Education recently announced the publication of the first issue of Research in Education, a monthly journal of abstracts designed to provide teachers, administrators, research specialists, and others in the educational community with up-to-date information about research sponsored through the USOE Bureau of Research. Persons wishing to purchase a year's subscription may do so by sending $11.00 (plus $2.75 for foreign mailing) to the Superin- tendent of Documents, U. S. Government Print- ing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402. Single copies will be available for $1.00 each.

March 1967 193

