(Page 4 of 7) - Learning to teach preservice mathematics teachers: The role of a doctoral course authored by Crespo, Sandra. and Speer, Natasha.

anticipated learning and doing in their new teaching roles even though this was an explicit
prompt of the assignment. We gleaned more into their ideas through discussions and later
assignments such as when we asked the students on the first day of class to find their place in a
continuous line labeled math/math educator at one end and teacher/teacher educator at the other
end. We also asked students to quick-write and discuss responses to questions such as: “What do
you think is the most challenging thing about learning how to teach mathematics? What do you
think the most important thing is you can do to help your students learn to teach well?

The map of the teacher/teacher educator—math/math educator revealed that our students

located themselves nearer to one of either side rather than close to or at the middle. Students’
responses to questions that elicited their thinking revealed the wealth of knowledge and ideas
they had brought with them that were consistent with many of the views and goals explicitly
stated in teacher preparation standards and our institution’s program standards but that also
lacked clear articulation. Their statements also revealed their troubles identifying the expertise
they brought that could help their students learn to teach well. Their responses to what is
challenging about learning to teach mathematics included: “move from being a student to
becoming a professional,” “teaching people that are different from yourself,” “developing a good
understanding of mathematics,” “managing class discussions,” “develop confidence in own
ability to do math” (elementary majors), “translate content they know to make it understandable
to kids” (secondary). Responses to what they could do to help their students learn to teach well
included statements such as: “model good practice and being a transparent facilitator—letting
them see what you’re thinking,” “being flexible, positive, and open-minded,” “help them
understand the whys in mathematics.”

Students were less clear or forthcoming about the experiences and knowledge they brought to

their new roles. Their statements reflected desires to share and promote in their future students a
passion and enjoyment with mathematics and teaching: “My gift as a teacher educator is that I
know what a mathematical awakening looks like;” “I want to provide preservice teachers with
the kinds of mathematical experiences I had.” Their comments also reflected views of teachers
and teacher educators in their past that they wanted to emulate and others they much rather not
be. They described teachers who did or did not practice what they preached, who knew (or not)
their content and could or could not teach it, and teachers who did and did not seem to care for
their students.

These comments make evident students’ preoccupation with establishing themselves as

knowledgeable teachers who care for their students. The students’ reluctance to claim identities
that included expertise in the subject and or practices of mathematics teaching interacted in
interesting ways with the course activities, teaching assignments, and their developing identities
as mathematics teacher educators. Consider the double bind for them to claim an identity either
as a math struggler or a math smart. Claiming either identity undermines the possibility of
connecting with future teachers of mathematics who look to ‘learn from’ either an expert in the
content they will be teaching or someone who understands what is like to struggle with
mathematics. These identity ‘crises’ created two interrelated challenges that participants
experienced throughout the course—developing credibility and integrity as mathematics teacher
educators.

Issues with developing credibility (being regarded as having expertise in the content and

practices of mathematics teaching) arose during the course activities when these revealed the
participants’ inexperience with either mathematics and/or with teaching practice. These occurred,
for example, when particular content was examined through a reading (e.g., division of fractions
in the case of Ms. Daniels in Borko and colleagues, 1992), when students presented their
‘researchable questions’ to other mathematics education students and faculty across our campus
in a public poster session, or when peers or instructors challenged their ideas about mathematics
or teaching. In the context of their teaching, issues of credibility were more pressing when their
knowledge and practices were challenged by their students, the collaborating teachers who
worked with their students, or by fellow instructors. These issues were amplified by the history
and reputation of the teacher preparation program in which they now worked and studied.