1

Experiences and Outcomes of a CETP Funded Joint

Appointment in Mathematics and Education

John E. Donovan II

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

College of Education and Human Development

University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469

The Maine Mathematics and Science Teaching Excellence Collaborative (MMSTEC) has funded three joint appointment tenure-track faculty positions at three of the seven campuses within the University of Maine System. Each institution agreed to sustain these positions after the funding period. At the outset, the broad goal for these positions was to “build a bridge between Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Colleges of Education.” In this article I will share my experiences as the joint appointee at the University of Maine, the Land Grant and Sea Grant institution of the University of Maine System, which offer a vision of what is possible from such a joint position.

The Maine Mathematics and Science Teaching Excellence Collaborative (MMSTEC) is one of approximately thirty Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (CETPs) NSF has funded over the last several years. MMSTEC began as a partnership between three of the seven campuses of the University of Maine System and the Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance (MMSA)[1]. As the grant has evolved over the past four years MMSTEC has formed partnerships with all of the campuses within the system. A distinguishing feature of MMSTEC is that it funded three faculty positions, one at each of the campuses of the grant’s core partner institutions, that will be financed by the respective campuses when the grant ends. Each position is a joint appointment between a department of mathematics or science and a department of education.

The flagship campus of the University of Maine System is the University of Maine (UM), Orono. UM is a Land and Sea Grant institution and is Maine’s principal research and graduate institution. UM is composed of five separate and distinct colleges including the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, which houses the Department of Mathematics and Statistics (DMS), and the College of Education and Human Development (COEHD). I was hired as the MMSTEC joint appointee between DMS and COEHD at UM for Fall 2002, the beginning of year 3 of MMSTEC’s five-year grant. Officially I have a split responsibility of 55% in DMS and 45% in COEHD with a teaching responsibility in DMS. Although COEHD is represented on my peer committee (the five-member committee has 3/2 split favoring DMS), my tenure will be determined according to the policy of DMS.

MMSTEC’s broad goal for this position was to “build a bridge” between COEHD and DMS. To date, this goal is being met. The position is considered very successful by the effected departments at UM, and MMSTEC. In this paper the experiences and outcomes resulting from the position at UM are discussed. These offer a vision, by way of example, of benefits possible for both a University, and the appointee, from such a position. In the sections that follow, three themes are discussed: the conditions and thought processes that led to the joint appointment model, the effects and outcomes of this joint appointment at UM, and the effects and opportunities I have had as a result of being hired as a part of MMSTEC. In the conclusion, these themes are related to the MMSTEC’s sustainability.

To understand the grant’s foundation and the outcomes at UM, two people involved with the grant since its formulation were interviewed. They will be referred to as Dean and Curt. Both Dean and Curt have worked at UM for longer than 20 years. Each interview lasted about 35 minutes and was audiotaped for reference. Prior to the interviews, which I conducted, Dean and Curt were asked to think about the following questions:

  • Why was a joint appointment position created?,
  • What were your objectives for this position?, and
  • What have been the benefits, outcomes, of having a joint appointment?

I also informed them about the interview protocol saying,

I will of course ask follow-up questions based on your responses and ask you for any information you feel is relevant. It is helpful for me to think about my position as the "joint appointment position" in order to try and look at this from a distance; this interview is not about me but rather the position.

Dean is the Dean of COEHD at UM. He is not a principal investigator on the grant, but he was involved in the initial grant planning and the joint appointment is partially housed within COEHD. Curt is a Professor of Mathematics at UM and is one of MMSTEC’s principal investigators. Curt served as the Associate Chairman of DMS prior to MMSTEC and during the first three years of the funding period. Dean and Curt are both active participants in several education initiatives on campus. Their administrative capacities and longevity at UM give them insight into the outcomes of the position. Additional data for this paper came analysis of grant related documents and personal reflections.

Why a Joint Appointment?

At UM, DMS offers three programs of study (Minor, Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts), but the majority of the courses the department offers are service courses. Service courses accommodate UM’s general education needs and the needs of other programs (e.g. engineering, physics, etc…). The CETP grant was seen by administrators at UM as an opportunity to support teaching and learning in mathematics. Dean recalled:

There was such a keen interest on the part of many people on campus, virtually all the deans because we all have programs whose foundation is in mathematics… , to find ways to bring more support to math because we knew that it was in our interest to do so. So, when MMSTEC came along, we were very anxious to see mathematics be a big player in it, a recipient of some of the resources MMSTEC could bring. In my own thinking I moved very quickly to a joint appointment model, …that could help the math department do an even better job in serving the rest of our programs.

DMS has gone trough a transition period over the last 5 years that has included 4 changes in Chairperson, three of whom were from outside of the department. Dean aptly summarized this tumultuous period saying, “There was no secret on campus the trouble the department was in.” In particular, the relationship between DMS and COEHD was strained. The difficulties centered on the two content courses DMS teaches for pre-service elementary teachers. Until about 5 years ago a mathematician with a strong interest in mathematics education taught these courses. Curt recounted that this “well meaning [mathematician] worked extremely hard, …but did not make a connection with the students nor the faculty in Education because he set his sights too high [mathematically] for the students.” Summarizing the recent relationship between the DMS and COEHD Curt said, “The recent history here has been of math education people [in DMS] really not being very much involved with the College of Education, or their involvement not as helpful as it maybe it could have been from the College of Education standpoint.” The rancorous feelings that have existed between these departments was apparent to me early on, although it was clear that both sides had high expectations that a joint appointee would help rebuild this relationship to better serve students.

Reflecting on preliminary MMSTEC planning discussions, Dean recalled that other campuses within the University System had experienced similar disconnects between faculties in Education and Arts and Sciences. These differences were acknowledged directly in the grant proposal which stated as a goal “We will lessen the cultural gap between Colleges of Education, Colleges of Arts and Sciences, and in-service teachers housed in partner schools by promoting conversations among these groups of people.” The joint appointees were seen by the grant’s writers, and NSF, as a means to achieve this goal. This is reflected in the Cooperative Agreement signed with NSF that states “These three new hires will build a bridge between Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Colleges of Education.” So far at UM this broad goal has been met, that is one of several outcomes discussed in the subsequent section.

Outcomes at UM

As a joint appointee I am a member of the faculty of DMS and the faculty of COEHD. On a practical level this means I attend faculty meetings for both departments and participate in service activities for both. For example, as a faculty member of COEHD I am working with the Teacher Education Faculty to prepare for NCATE Accreditation Review. This involves careful documentation of courses for pre-service teachers and implementing improvements based on evidence collected. As a member of DMS faculty I recently served on a hiring committee. Most of my time on campus is spent in the DMS because that is where my office is; the COEHD is housed in a nearby building. I make it a habit to visit the COEHD when I am walking around campus and feel these visits have made me visible to COEHD faculty who don’t see me on a day-to-day basis. These visits often lead to conversations with faculty and staff, and in my opinion this has helped build relationships. Both Dean and Curt commented on my efforts to make this position work. Dean said “I think it is a commitment on your part to make it work, and to ensure that the contact in the college is continuing, there is some depth to it, and you’re just engaged with us.” When I asked Curt why the position has worked his first comment was “you’ve taken seriously the split nature of your appointment and the commitments you have to both departments.” As a result of these efforts, the previously autonomous relationship between DMS and COEHD is now growing into a symbiotic relationship that is further demonstrated through the following examples.

There is a collaborative effort between DMS and COEHD to revise the content courses for pre-service elementary teachers. A committee comprised of myself, the mathematics educator from COEHD, a mathematics educator from DMS (hired this past year), and a full-time MMSTEC supported lecturer in DMS who has successfully taught these courses for several years, have met on several occasions to discuss the mathematics content needs of pre-service elementary teachers. The committee has recommended to COEHD that the two courses DMS offers for pre-service elementary teachers be required for all elementary education majors. Currently elementary education majors are required to take two mathematics courses, but one is an elective. Our recommendation is in committee being turned into a motion that will be voted on by COEHD faculty soon; discussions with faculty and administration suggest the view of the COEHD is favorable. The committee is also working to develop specific learning outcomes and assessments for each course. In the past the DMS faculty member teaching the courses controlled the content resulting in the situation described earlier, autonomy and feelings in the COEHD that the needs of their students were not being met. Now, through a collaborative effort these courses are being reconsidered and reconstructed.

I have made it a point to update COEHD faculty on MMSTEC mathematics related activities through announcements at faculty meetings and COEHD’s email list-serv. A recent announcement led to a discussion with a faculty member, Nancy, who teaches classes on early childhood development. Through this discussion we found shared concern about pre-service teachers disposition towards mathematics. We agreed that many pre-service elementary teachers have a negative disposition towards mathematics. I described hands-on mathematical activities I use to teach pre-service teachers, and a recent mathematical experience I had with students at the local elementary school to Nancy. We agreed that involving students in hand-on mathematical activities is one way to influence their disposition towards mathematics. Nancy thought the students in her “Curriculum for Young Children” class would benefit from participating in the activities I described and invited me to teach her class for an evening. Dean used this example when discussing the benefits of my position, “By coming to our faculty meetings and being an active participant there, that stimulated a linkage that is going to help very directly some our early childhood people. That’s where the math phobias begin.”

The common theme of the examples above is collaboration between DMS and COEHD. Dean summarized the importance of collaborations for Education faculty in broad terms:

A true benefit is to have people from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences demonstrate through their presence here and through their active involvement with our students and our faculty that they really consider teacher preparation important. How we’re preparing tomorrow’s teachers for the schools that sent their best and their brightest to this university; it’s really important. The more bridges of that nature that can be built the stronger our program will be for our students.

Dean was referring to me in general terms when he said “people from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.” This subtle distinction recognizing me as a member of the faculty of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, i.e. DMS, is important because the efforts I am involved in are seen as collaborations between DMS and COEHD. Dean’s comments suggest he believes these efforts are building a bridge that is valued by his faculty. Even though I am recognized in this way as a member Arts and Sciences faculty, I am also seen as a member of the COEHD faculty. In a recent meeting of the Teacher Education Faculty of the COEHD I reminded the committee that I was on the faculty in Arts and Sciences and an Associate Dean said “We just see you as one of ours.”

A surprising result that emerged from both interviews given the recent history of DMS, was the evolution of attitudes about DMS. Dean alludes to the change in views in the following exchange:

JD:One thing that you mentioned earlier was the Deans, do you get any sense that there’s a

JD paused and Dean completed his thought.

Dean:A change in attitude on the part of the Deans?

JD:Yeah.

Dean:I would say it is a dramatic change. Absolutely. Absolutely.

JD:Certainly there are a number of factors that have contributed to that?

Dean:Yes, there certainly have been, but… I think this position has contributed.

Curt echoed similar thoughts:

JD:What do you think have been the benefits or outcomes of this position? …

Curt:I think the things I mentioned earlier are working out. We have new blood working on these courses, the [course for pre-service elementary students] and upper level courses for education majors. That is happening now; I think that is a huge benefit. I think just establishing the position in the department has strengthened our visibility as participating in math education initiatives which to my surprise has made us look very, very good to those who look at us from outside, not only locally but across the country. We’re very quickly becoming known as a department in which good math education things are happening. That certainly is partly a result of the fact that we got this position, that we have more blood in here doing this kind of work.

Both Dean’s and Curt’s voices became spirited when they talked about this metamorphosis. I sensed each was proud of the role they played in establishing the position because both agreed that the joint appointment position has contributed to this new view of the DMS.

The examples in this section give strong evidence that the grant’s goals of lessening the “cultural gap” and “building bridges between Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Colleges of Education” are being met at UM. They also suggest that the joint appointment position was an important ingredient of this evolution.

MMSTEC’s Opportunities

In this section I will focus on the effects the grant has had on me, in particular the opportunities MMSTEC has created for me. These opportunities have direct implications for the continuing impact of the grant beyond the funding period. To understand these effects it is necessary to describe some grant related activities.

One of MMSTEC’s primary goals is to support and strengthen mathematics and science teaching at all levels, including the preparation of teachers. To help achieve this broad goal we have created Cross-Tier Teaching Teams (CTTTs). CTTTs are groups of teachers and future teachers that span the range of interests from middle school through college and university level mathematics. The bond that brings these groups together is shared interest in the teaching and learning of mathematics or science. At UM, CTTTs have formed around the themes of mathematics, environmental monitoring, and technology in science education. Each of the CTTTs functions in a slightly different manner, but in general CTTTs meet a three times during each academic semester for 3 hour sessions that involve hands-on learning experiences, discussions of teaching and learning, and of course, food. CTTTs are not unique to UM, each of the three primary campuses involved in the grant has CTTTs. Twice a year CTTTs from across the grant meet for statewide meetings. In January we hold a two-day “Mid-Year Conference” and in June we have a 3-4 day “Summer Academy.” These statewide meetings are advertised widely and open to anyone who wishes to attend, costs for hosting the conferences are paid by the grant. Each conference has a theme, or themes, focused on improving the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. The following passage from MMSTEC’s Annual Report 2004 gives insight into these events: