Jennifer Ward (Kennesaw State University), Katherine Baker (Elon University), Erin M. Smith (University of Southern Mississippi), Tracy Dobie (University of Utah), Naomi Jessup (Georgia State University), Monica Gonzalez (East Carolina University), and Kathleen Nitta (Gonzaga University)*

In June of 2019, seven early career faculty from a range of institutions (see Table 1) gathered at the Association for Mathematics Teacher Education (AMTE) Service, Teaching, and Research (STaR) summer institute in Park City, Utah and formed a Teaching Interest Group (TIG) centered on improving our practice of preparing future elementary mathematics teachers in methods courses. As we discussed our individual practices, contexts, and interests, we became focused on the construct of equity-based pedagogies, including its multiple interpretations and how future elementary mathematics teachers (PTs) enact it across our varying contexts. We grounded our approach to equity-based pedagogies by reviewing equity position statements from mathematics and education organizations, reflecting on how those statements influence our personal lenses and approaches to methods instruction. Specifically, we examined statements, briefs, and professional standards from influential organizations, such as AMTE, National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, National Council for the Supervisors of Mathematics, TODOS, and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. In order to define equity-based pedagogies within the context of our collaboration, we utilized this definition from Chao, Murray, and Gutiérrez (2014): "...practices that take into account the way(s) mathematics education perpetuates oppressive norms and therefore actively seeks to erase them, so that all students can participate meaningfully in mathematics learning and create their own mathematical knowledge" (p. 1).

Table 1

Contextual Information for Each Mathematics Teacher Educator

Note. SES = Socioeconomic status

As the week-long institute approached its end, it became apparent that what started as an assigned TIG had evolved into a community of learners. We gathered for coffee and began to think about preparation for our upcoming fall courses. We wrestled with ideas centered on how we all might address equity with some sort of methodological commonality, while acknowledging our varied contexts and course needs. This quandary turned into a sharing of articles, protocols, and facilitation strategies related to our teaching, which ultimately launched a discussion on perceptions of “smartness” of students in elementary mathematics classrooms and the pervasiveness of “who” is often positioned as competent in elementary classrooms by teachers and others students. We collaboratively sought to disrupt stereotypical notions of competence in mathematics, such as quickness and procedural fluency and labels like “bright” or “gifted”, that teachers are embedded in due to systems of privilege (Skinner et al., 2019). We discussed Skinner and colleagues’ (2019) article Learning to See Students’ Mathematical Strengths as a resource to engage PTs with equity-based pedagogies, specifically related to smartness in mathematics. This article outlines five strategies that practitioners can employ for seeing strengths in students, including: (1) trust students with open-ended, multidimensional, challenging tasks, (2) randomly assign students to partners or groups (and check your assumptions about who is successful), (3) have explicit, inclusive conversations with students, parents, and colleagues that broaden what it means to be smart in math, (4) work to notice power and privilege as they play out in classroom interactions, and (5) seek out critical friends to challenge and support you.

As a collective we acknowledged the differences in our infusion of equity-based practices into our coursework. However, one aspect of interest and importance to all of us involved supporting our PTs in examining who is considered “smart” in mathematics. Deficit-based narratives around who is positioned as smart in mathematics classes have been voiced by PTs in our prior course offerings. These narratives are counter-productive to the development of mathematics learning environments where every student has opportunities to develop productive mathematical identities. Using “smartness” as a lens to examine mathematics allows us to engage every PT across our contexts, since these PTs are at different places when it comes to thinking about issues of equity, identity, power, and privilege in mathematics. At our final STaR meeting, our TIG developed a plan for moving forward to continue our collaborative reflection and study of our practice. In particular, we agreed to examine how we could work to disrupt narratives about who is perceived as “smart” in mathematics during our upcoming elementary mathematics methods courses. This could help position PTs to advocate for students who have been historically marginalized within their schools, furthering AMTE’s mission of improving K-12 mathematics teacher education and specifically connecting to Indicator C.4.3: Draw on Students’ Mathematical Strengths in AMTE’s Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics (2017).

Since the summer institute, we continue to meet monthly and carry out a study of our own practice. We decided to use Skinner and colleagues’ (2019) article as a common course reading across each of our course sections and developed a shared plan for implementation that includes in-class discussions in each of our classroom spaces, written reflections, and pre- and post-survey responses from each of our students. We also wrote our own reflections and memos to document how we implemented the reading and our reactions post-implementation.

Our group met during AMTE’s Annual Conference in Phoenix in February 2020, using the time in our STaR follow-up meeting to devise a plan of action toward dissemination of our work. During our time in Phoenix we were able to finalize two proposals for the upcoming meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education-North America organization, both of which have been accepted. We are also in the process of preparing two manuscripts. The first explores the question of How do ideas about trust and control emerge as PTs reflect on their experiences, classroom practice, and the article? Our group is currently engaged in reviewing literature and analyzing data from the PTs’ surveys and reading reflections. Another manuscript, a collective self-study, aims to explore the experience of mathematics teacher educators collaborating from various institutional contexts and how our work together informs our future mathematics methods course preparation.

We view these upcoming presentations and manuscripts as having three overarching contributions to the field, including: (a) insights into PTs’ perceptions on seeing students’ mathematical strengths, (b) insights into how mathematics teacher educators can structure their coursework to incorporate articles and experiences that advance equity in mathematics education, and (c) insights into how early-career mathematics teacher educators establish a structure for collective reflection and development around teaching and research. Because our contexts are vastly different, a beneficial outcome of this work is recommendations for effectively integrating equity into methods courses that should transfer to a variety of locations to benefit mathematics teacher educators, PTs, and elementary children. We remain committed to our group because the collaboration allows us to operate as a community of learners, supportively encouraging one another to enhance our equity-based pedagogies for the benefit of PTs’ future practices. This is especially important for some group members who are the sole mathematics teacher educator in their department or institution. This group provides a space to co-plan and co-reflect, so we are not working in isolation as an MTE or an early-career faculty member. Moving forward, we will continue our collaborative reflection with the overarching goal of ensuring equitable mathematics education for every student, PreK-12+.

References

Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from https://amte.net/sites/default/files/SPTM.pdf

Chao, T., Murray, E., & Gutiérrez, R. (2014). What are classroom practices that support equity-based mathematics teaching (NCTM Equity-Based Research Brief). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. A joint position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/psmath.pdf

National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics & TODOS: Mathematics for All (2016). Mathematics education through the lens of social justice: Acknowledgement, actions and accountability. Retrieved from  https://www.todos-math.org/assets/docs2016/2016Enews/3.pospaper16_wtodos_8pp.pdf

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Access and equity in mathematics education: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring  mathematical success for all.  Reston, VA: Author.

Skinner, A., Louie, N., & Baldinger, E. M. (2019). Learning to see students’ mathematical strengths. Teaching Children Mathematics, 25, 338-345.

*The fourth and fifth authors equally contributed and are listed alphabetically; the sixth and seventh authors equally contributed and are listed alphabetically.