Accelerating Progress Towards Asset-based Mathematics Teacher Preparation Through a Networked Improvement Community: It’s All About Partnerships

Preparing secondary mathematics teachers who are committed to using asset-based pedagogical practices requires a network of partnerships among stakeholders.¹ Asset-based pedagogical practices build on the resources that children and youth from a wide range of backgrounds bring with them into learning settings.²  For over a decade, a consortium of universities called the Mathematics Teacher Education Partnership (MTEP) has been collaborating to improve the preparation of secondary mathematics teachers.³ The MTEP uses a networked improvement community (NIC) model,⁴ which incorporates improvement science techniques with a networked design. The NIC model incorporates four key design characteristics: (1) setting a common aim for the work, (2) understanding the problem context, (3) undertaking improvement cycles in which data guides the decision-making, and (4) networking with others in order to accelerate progress. A second-generation network (MTEP 2.0) was launched in Fall 2020, focusing on supporting secondary mathematics teacher preparation programs as they seek to improve their work using the NIC model. Funding from the National Science Foundation allows the leadership team to both scale up and study MTEP 2.0. In the following sections, we discuss how to form effective partnerships to support improvement efforts, using MTEP 2.0 as an example. We include quotes from interviews with participants in the network from our data collection to further illustrate those points.

Challenge: Who are your partners in pursuing asset-based goals?

The first step in establishing a NIC is to create a team that includes a wide range of potential partners who can contribute to the improvement effort in different ways. At the higher education level, this often begins by building relationships with faculty members within a department or even across departments with related goals. In the case of MTEP, this includes mathematics teacher educators, often housed in a college of education, as well as mathematicians who have a common commitment to addressing issues that impact teacher candidates and all the students they will teach. However, there may be others within the university community who can contribute; in the case of MTEP, this may include people who are responsible for clinical placements or even administrators. For example, a mathematics teacher educator stated:

Having those conversations between the School of Education and the College of Arts and Sciences was not always seamless, but because of MTEP, I’ve been able to strengthen the collaboration internally between the School of Education and the College of Arts and Sciences, specifically for our mathematics program.

In addition, there may be additional opportunities to build partnerships outside of the university; in the case of MTEP, this particularly includes schools, mentor teachers, building principals, and district administration, as well as other community partners. At another level, MTEP universities frequently partner with nearby institutions to promote sharing of resources and expertise. Partnerships between Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal or Indigenous Colleges, and Predominantly White Institutions are particularly useful, given their different institutional foci, community partnerships, and levels of resources. In some cases, MTEP partnerships may span the universities across an entire state or region. Partnerships may also include the state department of education or other entities. In this way, a powerful coalition is brought together that is positioned to deal deeply with what it will take to make the necessary improvements to promote greater focus on issues that impact the mathematics education of all students. Across all levels of partnership, MTEP encourages its teams to periodically ask questions such as: Whose voices are represented currently? Who else should be “at the table”? Does your team reflect the full range of those concerned about mathematics teacher preparation and focused on ensuring the mathematics education of all students? We encourage other groups to consider these questions as they begin (or continue) to gather the partners they need to promote improvement efforts that have a strong focus on issues that impact all students.

Challenge: How do you build effective partnerships that are rooted in asset-based goals?

It is not enough to simply convene the right partners, how they are engaged is central to building an effective partnership. An asset-based perspective must be reflected not only in the membership and focus of the partnership but also in how it is formed and operated. Too often university faculty approach potential partners in a transactional manner that focuses primarily on their institution’s needs. The development of a partnership must reflect a commitment to developing bi-directional relationships that not only serve the university’s goals but also honor those of its partners.

Creating a partnership that values variety in perspectives can begin with the second stage of developing a NIC, which includes developing a common vision, including an aim and theory of action. With MTEP 2.0, we encourage teams to begin this process with a root cause analysis, in which they seek to understand why they are getting the outcomes they are currently getting,⁴ specifically incorporating a focus on asset-based pedagogy. This allows the team to begin to develop a shared understanding of the problem space, which can then lead to the identification of drivers for change toward a well-defined aim for the NIC’s improvement efforts. For example, this diagram illustrates the aim and drivers identified by MTEP 2.0 to meet its aim.

View the more detailed graphic here: MTEP Driver Diagram

However, this process must be carried out in a manner that values all voices. For example, rather than viewing the schools merely as a provider of clinical experiences for their students, MTEP 2.0 programs are encouraged to build strong bi-directional relationships in which the needs and priorities of the schools are honored, and a common vision of mathematics teaching is built that supports the success of all students. As institutions of different types seek to form partnerships, the strengths and challenges each faces must be acknowledged and valued.⁵ Across all partners, care must be given to ensure that bi-directional relationships are built that value and support progress towards a mutual commitment to transforming secondary mathematics education with an asset-based perspective. We encourage other groups to consider how they can engage their partners in a bi-directional manner as they begin (or continue) to craft the vision for their improvement efforts. As a state department representative to one team observed:

MTEP, both in its research and in its practice, is highly important to our [state education agency] as we try to attract as many teachers as we can. But it’s also about who we attract… to make sure that they’re able to meet the needs of all our students as well.

Challenge: How can we more effectively collaborate in our efforts to promote asset-based goals?

Generating a common vision of an aim and theory of action for improvement typically leads to proposed change ideas. However, exploring change ideas without regard to their efficacy is not likely to promote real progress, where decisions about what to pursue are based on anecdotes and personal reflections. On the other hand, typical research methodology may not lead to usable results for a significant period of time, as identification or design of valid and reliable instrumentation along with data collection and analysis is a lengthy process. By the time the effectiveness of an approach can be established, so much effort may have been expended that it will be difficult to abandon the approach if it proves ineffective.

Improvement science can fill that gap with its emphasis on making practice-based decisions based on data, the third pillar in the NIC design. MTEP 2.0 teams conduct Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles (cf. [3]) to ensure that the changes they are making are indeed improvements. PDSA cycles can assess smaller increments within a developmental trajectory in order to make any necessary adjustments using readily obtained data, rather than waiting until the end of the development process.

A team’s progress towards an asset-based perspective can be closely examined in the data that are collected. For example, one MTEP 2.0 team was focused on recruiting a larger pool of teacher candidates. As they began initial marketing efforts, they focused on whether they had more inquiries about their program, because waiting to see if the number of applicants to the program increased would not be apparent for some months. Simultaneously, they gathered data on the backgrounds of those inquiring to ensure they represented the broadest possible range of potential candidates. We encourage other groups to consider how they can incorporate collecting relevant data to foreground their progress toward asset-based goals in improvement efforts. The power of improvement science was noted by a mathematician on one of the teams:

I feel that the MTEP community provides a balance between knowing what’s going on nationally and giving us that understanding of what can be done at the local level. That’s where the PDSA cycles come in. It doesn’t feel like it’s out of reach.

Challenge: How do you support ongoing effective partnerships that foreground asset-based goals in transforming secondary mathematics education?

Finally, individual improvement efforts are all too siloed without an opportunity to learn from others engaged in similar work. The national MTEP 2.0 network addresses this final pillar of the NIC design by providing a range of activities and supports to accelerate mutual learning and growth among the universities and their partners towards the goal of increasing asset-based secondary mathematics education across the nation. Our membership values the opportunities provided in MTEP 2.0 convenings to discuss common problems they are facing, as well as potential solutions they are exploring. This kind of networking truly can accelerate the progress of each team in the network.⁴  We encourage other groups to consider seeking out collaborations with others involved in parallel work, either formal collaborations such as the MTEP 2.0 network or more informal collaborations. Note that MTEP 2.0 is studying how local teams can become more effective, as well as the role of the network in supporting their work. As one of the MTEP 2.0 program leaders reflected:

I’ve learned quite a bit about recruitment. There is this knowledge base built by MTEP about recruitment. MTEP has been critical in pointing to resources and providing a structure by which we work and function.

Conclusion: What can you do to get started?

Long-term progress in achieving asset-based goals in STEM education will require mutual learning and community-building across multiple levels of the system, from local partnerships to national collaborations. In this article, we have demonstrated how the NIC model can help to guide the formation of effective partnerships that are rooted in an asset-based perspective, both in their aim and in their practice. Whether or not you decide to formally launch a NIC, we feel that the principles outlined above will provide useful insights into how you might get started.

Acknowledgments:

The work in this paper is funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DUE-2141730 and 2141737). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.