Those who can, teach: addressing the crisis in mathematics in UK schools and universities

PAUL COOPER1 and RAY D’INVERNO2

THOSE WHO CAN, TEACH: ADDRESSING THE CRISIS INMATHEMATICS IN UK SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES �

ABSTRACT. The crisis in UK mathematics education, both in schools and universities,has been widely reported in the national media. A recent study shows that 26% of full-timemathematics teachers in UK schools have no qualification in the subject, and that 31%of all UK schools’ mathematics teachers are now over the age of 50. The crisis in schoolmathematics has impacted on much of the university sector, with some departments underthreat of closure and widespread difficulties experienced in student recruitment. The avail-ability of attractive careers for mathematics graduates impacts upon the numbers choosingto enter teaching, thus risking a spiral of decline. Furthermore, studies suggest that UKmathematics graduates often lack confidence in several key skills essential for teaching,such as presenting information effectively, working in teams, and written communication.This paper recounts the development of a unit of study in the Faculty of MathematicalStudies at the University of Southampton, England, in conjunction with a new initiative, theUndergraduate Ambassadors Scheme, which seek to address the crisis in UK mathematicseducation through the training and placement of final year undergraduates as teachingassistants in local schools. This with a view to promoting mathematics to the broadestpossible constituency as a university choice, whilst simultaneously developing those keytransferable skills in which undergraduates regularly feel least confident, and allowingundergraduates to experience a flavour of teaching as a career option.

KEY WORDS / PHRASES:Teacher training and preparation, UK mathematics crisis, Undergraduate AmbassadorsScheme, Undergraduate skills development, University and schools collaborations, Uni-versity of Southampton

1. INTRODUCTION

The crisis in mathematics education within UK schools has been welldocumented, even in the higher education press. In March 2003, AlisonWolf wrote of the ‘impossible’ situation facing schools seeking to recruitsufficient maths teachers, and of the ‘threatening downward spiral’ if this

� This short communication gives an initiative aimed at solving, least partially, theproblem of shortage of qualified secondary school mathematics teachers. The documentraises many important issues in relation to recruitment and preparation of mathematicsteachers. Readers are invited to send their comments and opinions, in the form of longercommentary papers or shorter letters to the Editor. (Editor’s Note)

Educational Studies in Mathematics 56: 343–357, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

344 PAUL COOPER AND RAY D’INVERNO

continues to result in fewer mathematics graduates and consequently fewerwho might enter teaching (THES, 7.3.03: 17, cf. THES, 15.11.02: 18–19).

Universities, of course, are far from immune to falling student num-bers, and it is clear that with some 26% of full-time mathematics teachersin UK schools having no qualification in the subject, and with 31% ofall UK school mathematics teachers being now over the age of 50, theprospects for the discipline within the academy are precarious (The Times,26.9.2003). However, universities cannot compel their graduates to enterteaching, and the attractive career options available to mathematics gradu-ates dissuade many from doing so. But this is only one factor influencinggraduates’ career choices. Another may be the extent to which mathemat-ics graduates feel appropriately equipped to enter the teaching profession.A survey of finalists’ opinions, undertaken by the Faculty of MathematicalStudies at the University of Southampton in May 2002, eliciting quantitat-ive and qualitative data, indicates that whilst most finalists consider theirskills in problem solving, independent learning, and information techno-logy to be highly developed, many are concerned over their verbal andwritten communication skills, abilities to work in a team, and abilities topresent information effectively.1 These concerns seem to have struck homewith particular force as the students contemplate their imminent entry intothe jobs market (cf. THES, 17.1.03: 4). This research suggests that, al-though entirely understandable, the common preoccupation with purelymathematical content in many UK mathematics degree programmes, to-gether with perhaps an emphasis on traditional teaching methods, mayin fact serve to constrain students’ development of a broader range ofskills and attributes, and hence jeopardize the future reproduction of thediscipline outside the academy.

During 2002–03, the issues of the future of mathematics within andoutside the academy, the Faculty’s desire to appeal to students from under-represented social groups, and the extent to which we best prepare ourmathematics graduates for the challenges beyond university, were all top-ics of considerable debate. Also at this time, the then Dean of Facultymet with the author and broadcaster Simon Singh to discuss his devel-opment of the Undergraduate Ambassadors Scheme (UAS).2 This newinitiative proposes to place final-year undergraduate mathematicians intolocal schools to promote mathematics as a university choice for studentsof all backgrounds, whilst simultaneously developing the undergraduates’skills and allowing them to explore the possibility of teaching as a career.The Faculty agreed that it would support the UAS and develop a formalunit of study through which a number of students would participate inthe scheme.3 This unit would focus not upon mathematical content per

ADDRESSING THE CRISIS IN MATHEMATICS 345

se, but principally upon equipping mathematics undergraduates with theskills and confidence to teach, and thereafter allowing them to developand apply these skills, together with their mathematical knowledge, ina teaching context. Responsibility for this initiative was handed to Rayd’Inverno and Paul Cooper. This paper recounts our experiences and thoseof the 13 students taking this unit in its inaugural year at the University ofSouthampton.

2. PLANNING AND PREPARATION

The unit of study developed and approved by the Faculty, through which itwould participate in the UAS, was entitled MA350: Communicating andTeaching Mathematics. From the outset, it was apparent that the effortinvolved in planning and preparing MA350 would be fairly considerable,although this early effort was largely offset by the effective absence ofany formally taught content throughout the duration of the unit proper.Furthermore, this initial effort was much as typically required in creatingany completely new unit of study. The Unit Coordinators’ input was there-fore ‘front-’ and ‘end-loaded’, at the planning and assessment stages of theunit respectively, with only tutorial support for the students being providedwhilst they undertook their school placements.4

The most obvious issues initially were to establish whether or not therewas a demand for MA350 amongst students entering their final year, andwhether any local schools would be willing to provide placement oppor-tunities. The former issue was addressed via a plenary email asking stu-dents for expressions of interest. This elicited around 20 responses. How-ever, it had already been decided in preliminary discussions and explorat-ory meetings with staff at local schools, that 10 or so students might bethe ideal total with which to run the unit initially. This number seemed aptbearing in mind our uncertainty as to the workload that MA350 might im-pose both upon the University and the participating schools, and accordedwith provisional indications of the number of places available to studentsin the five local schools we approached. It was clear, therefore, that wewould have to apply a selection process to our student applicants.

Students were selected via a two-stage process. First, we asked allthose interested to provide a short written submission detailing why theywished to undertake MA350 and what relevant experience they felt theyhad. Second, we undertook a series of brief interviews. The candidateswere provisionally ‘ranked’ on the basis of their written submissions. Eachwas then questioned as to, for example, why they felt their previous exper-ience was relevant, how well they felt able to integrate within a team of


teachers, how they might respond in the event that they had explained amathematical concept that had plainly not been understood by students,and how they might react to potentially challenging behavioural issues ina school environment. We subsequently felt that around 14 students mightbe very well suited to the unit, and so we went back to the five schools thathad agreed to participate to ask whether they would provide extra places.In the event we secured a total of 13 places and hence accepted 13 studentsonto the unit.5

We attempted to allocate students to particular schools on the basisof factors including academic suitability and personal attributes such asenthusiasm, and what we perceived as their likely capability to cope withmore or less challenging school environments.6 Our next task was to ad-dress the legal requirement of securing Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)clearance for our students to work with children. This was set in mo-tion sufficiently early that the students were CRB-cleared in advance ofcommencing their placements at the schools.

The unit itself would run in the second semester of the 2002–03 aca-demic year, from February to around late May. Our discussions with theparticipating schools secured agreement that the students would attend onplacement for around four hours per week, at mutually convenient, pre-arranged times. Following an initial period observing mathematics teach-ers, students would work as classroom assistants and would be encouraged,if possible, to undertake some whole-class teaching, and to participate inactivities such as revision or consolidation classes, whilst also advocatingthe merits of studying mathematics at university. The students would alsodevelop and administer a ‘special project’ during the placement. It wasclear, however, that the scope of the activities in which students were likelyto be involved would probably vary significantly, as the profiles and statusof the schools were quite distinct. This variation was reflected in pupils’typical academic attainments, and in the schools’ levels of staffing and re-sources. The diversity of the placement schools, together with other factorssuch as the age groups with whom students would be working, the relevant‘key stages’ of the UK National Curriculum, the expected differences inpupils’ levels of mathematical ability, and the anticipated variety of theactivities in which the students would be involved, had implications for thefinal phase of preparations for MA350, namely the pre-placement trainingprovided for the students.

The UAS administration provided us with extensive documentation toassist in the preliminary training of the students, together with the oppor-tunity to have this training delivered by an outside agency, should we sochoose. Whilst it was clear that this documentation was in pilot form, in


the event we felt it was perhaps too extensive and contained much that,even were we able to get through it, might not be directly beneficial tothe students in the contexts in which we expected them to be engaged,although we did feel that the bulk of the handbook for students was po-tentially relevant. We therefore decided to deliver the training ‘in house’and to adapt a half-day programme of induction into generic principles ofeffective learning and teaching, which had been previously developed byPaul Cooper and successfully delivered to PhD students across the Univer-sity’s Faculty of Science, and to combine this with elements of training inwhich Ray d’Inverno has long experience.

The training comprised an interactive session of around five hours’duration. The key issues considered included effective session / lessonplanning, identifying and distinguishing learning aims and outcomes, pro-moting effective group working and problem solving, presentation skills, aconsideration of modes of academic assessment, and providing construct-ive and helpful feedback to students. In addition, we included discussionsof risk assessment in respect to any activities in which the students mightbe involved, and of how to ensure that behaviour always remains appro-priate in dealing with school children. We also provided the students withdetails of the assessment for MA350, including guidance as to the assess-ment criteria. The training culminated with a series of short, small-grouppresentations by the students on issues considered during the session. Stu-dents were encouraged throughout to consider how they might best com-bine the training provided along with their mathematical knowledge in ateaching context at their placement schools.

Whilst maintaining an engaging and motivating momentum throughouttraining of this duration is a tiring experience, the session was nonethe-less highly successful. The students were most keen to engage with thematerial and to undertake their school placements, and, as the group werein large measure self-selected, their enthusiasm remained high throughout.Discussions with the students confirmed that all had already visited theirschools and met with the teachers alongside whom they would work. Withthe training completed, it was clear that our preparations were concludedand that the students we ready to begin their school placements.

As we have remarked earlier, our involvement with the students whilstactually on their placements represented the least demanding part of MA350,at least for the Unit Coordinators. During this time, our role was to ensurethat we were available to answer any queries that students might have andto meet with the group collectively on four occasions for about an hour,to discuss progress. We sought to ensure that everyone was satisfied withthe way their placement was unfolding, to take soundings as to the sorts


and levels of activities with which the students were involved, and to stressthat students must begin developing their ideas for a ‘special project’ indiscussions with teachers at their schools. The ‘special projects’, of whichmore presently, did generate some queries, and these were explored eitherin the group tutorials or via exchanges of emails between the students andthe Unit Coordinators.

It was clear that each of the students was fully engaged with their hostschool and receiving, in most cases, very considerable levels of support.Reflecting the limited extent of our direct input into the placement, we shallnow detail the assessment of MA350 and then evaluate the effectivenessof the unit overall, and return to a discussion of the placement experiencein our evaluative remarks.

3. ASSESSMENT OF MA350

During the pre-placement training, the students were advised that the as-sessment for MA350 would comprise four elements:

1. An end-of-unit report (30%)2. A ‘journal of activity’ (20%)3. An end-of-unit presentation (20%)4. An assessment of your overall performance by a teacher at the school

(30%)

These details were accompanied by guidance as to how to approach eachof the assessed elements for which the student is responsible, although theanticipated variance in the students’ circumstances and activities requiresthat the guidance and assessment criteria should be sufficiently flexible toensure no student is disadvantaged by their particular placement experi-ence. Thus, in respect to the ‘end-of-unit report’, for example, the adviceto students is as follows:

Your report will be circa 2500 words in length and should take the form of aconstructively critical self-evaluation of your performance on the unit. The focusshould be very much more on ‘evaluation’ than simply ‘description’. You mightwant to consider the targets or goals that you set yourself at the outset of theunit, together with perhaps the skills that you were seeking to enhance (thesemight include those of verbal & written communication, team-working, personalorganisation, initiative-taking, leadership, self-evaluation, etc.). You could dis-cuss the research and preparation you undertook for the unit, and your successesor shortcomings in meeting your goals, together with your skills development,giving examples as appropriate. You might also want to evaluate the success ofyour ‘special project’. This will probably be an unfamiliar mode of assessmentfor many of you. The focus here is upon honest, reflexive, self-evaluation rather


than simply trying to ‘get the right answer’. You will receive as much credit fordiscussing your shortcomings honestly as you will for your successes.

The importance of taking a ‘reflexive’ approach to their experiences duringthis unit had been stressed to the students during the training session, andis reflected in the above guidance. The Unit Coordinators are aware thatsuch an approach to learning and assessment is one with which manyUK mathematics’ students are not ordinarily familiar. We were thereforeanxious to see what the students would make of the assessment tasks.

Despite the students’ unfamiliarity with the assessment methods and thefact that a significant element of each student’s mark comprised a teacher’sassessment, of which more presently, the assessment load for this 15-creditunit was made intentionally demanding. Each student provided at least the2500 words stipulated of the final report, together with a journal of theiractivities that, in every case, exceeded this word length. The ten-minute in-dividual presentations can be roughly equated to around 1000–1500 words,and thus the minimum equivalent word length provided by each studentexceeded six thousand words. With the exception of the assessment con-tributed by the teacher’s report of the student’s performance, all otherassessment components were double-marked by both Unit Coordinators.

Moreover, our concerns as to whether or not the students would adaptsuccessfully to unfamiliar modes of assessment were answered with someof the most insightful and candid discussions of their learning experiencesthat either Unit Coordinator has encountered, and which were presentedoften with considerable style. The students’ end-of-unit presentations sim-ilarly displayed high quality, and were roundly praised by representativesof the UK Government’s Department for Education and Skills (DfES) whovisited the University to witness this element of the assessment. Indeed,the quality of the students’ work was such that 10 of the 13 students wereultimately awarded the highest class of marks for this unit.

4. EVALUATING MA350

Even whilst planning and developing MA350, we were struck by the en-thusiastic response of the teachers at the local schools whose cooperationwe sought, by the students’ enthusiasm for the unit, and by their highlymotivated approach to the pre-placement training. By the time we cameto consider the students’ assessed work and to observe the end-of-unitpresentations, it was clear that the unit’s learning outcomes had been metwith considerable success, and that, at least in purely pedagogic terms, theunit had functioned extremely well. We were eager, though, to ascertain


what the students and the collaborating schools had made of the experienceat an evaluative level, as this has real implications for the possibility ofrepeating the unit and perhaps expanding the number of students takingMA350 subsequently.

We are aware, of course, of the demands placed upon our colleaguesteaching in schools. We therefore sought opinions of MA350 from oneteacher at each collaborating school, via a brief questionnaire, requestingnumerical scores against five key questions, and providing an opportunityfor qualitative comment at the foot of the document. The participatingschools were asked a total of six questions:

1. In your opinion, were the students adequately prepared to conductthemselves appropriately and constructively at the school during theirplacement?

2. To what extent did the students contribute beneficially to the educa-tional activities of the school?

3. In your opinion, were the students able to foster constructive workingrelationships with the pupils during the placement?

4. How satisfactory would you consider the demands made of yourselfand your colleagues in assisting the University with providing this unitof study?

5. Do you consider MA350 to be a helpful introductory experience forstudents contemplating a career in mathematics / science teaching?

6. Would your institution be willing to assist with the University’s provi-sion of this unit of study again?

In respect of questions one to five, the teachers were asked to circle anumerical grade from 1–5, with five representing the highest level of sat-isfaction. The average scores awarded for each question ranged between3.6 (question 4) and 5.0 (question 5), whilst for questions one through fivecollectively the average was 4.40. Only three individual marks of ‘3’ weregiven against any question, two of which pertained to the demands thatthe teachers felt this unit had made upon them (question 4). There were13 maximum scores of ‘5’ awarded. Question six was answered by simplycircling ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In every case, the teachers answered ‘yes’ to questionsix.

The teachers’ qualitative comments were only brief, with the most com-mon remarks suggesting that a plenary meeting should be scheduled toclarify expectations and air any queries in advance of the students’ place-ments. This appears a most constructive suggestion. We feel that havingnow run MA350 we are well placed to organise such meetings in futureand to consider the sorts of issues that may arise during the unit.


It was from the students, however, that we sought the most rigorousfeedback. Whilst we had taken several opportunities to question studentson their impressions of MA350, both individually and in groups, we wereaware that their views might alter once the unit and all the elements of as-sessment had been completed. Also, as their remarks were made directly tothe Unit Coordinators, these might have been tailored to provide an overlyfavourable impression for our benefit. We therefore request that each stu-dent complete an anonymous questionnaire at the end of the unit, providingboth a quantitative and qualitative assessment of their experiences. Elevenof the 13 students responded. The questionnaire again employed the 1–5numerical scale utilised in the teachers’ questionnaire, but each questionrequested additional qualitative analysis.

We begin by asking the students for their perceptions of the trainingsession, and specifically the appropriateness of its content. Four of thestudents gave this five out of five, whilst five awarded four and two, three.The average numerical score was 4.18. The students’ comments reflectedthe positive tenor of their numerical scores:

“. . . generally gave us a good basis for going into the school – more to let usknow what was in store. Made us all feel more comfortable with each other too,ready for presentations and tutorials. Pointed out things I hadn’t thought of like. . .lesson planning.”“It’s not until working at the school that I found even the small pointers were of agreat help.”“I felt that most of the training was extremely relevant & helpful, for exampleI had never really thought about how to give feedback, so I found some of thematerial very thought-provoking.”“I thought there was a good variety of material covered on the day, and thehandouts were especially useful.”“Planning and preparation, and presentation skills very useful.”“I found the training session to be very useful for lesson planning skills as I neededto do a lot of this in the school.”

One or two students do, however, observe that the training session wasperhaps too long and might have been better split into two shorter periods.It is also suggested that not all of the skills and issues considered were usedby all the students during their placements, for example some students hadno opportunity for whole-class teaching. Whilst this is unfortunate, thetraining was always intended to prepare the students for a potentially broadrange of roles and activities, whilst recognising that they might not in factbe exposed to all these. Nonetheless, it seems that, overall, the studentsconsider the training to be useful and appropriate.

We then ask the students to consider the placement experience itself,and specifically whether or not they felt well supported and had beenmade good use of by their host school. The students’ responses here mirror


exactly those for question one, with four awarding five, five awarding four,and two, three, giving again an average of 4.18. Whilst generally very pos-itive, the students’ comments are, however, rather more mixed in respectof the placement experience:“Support from staff was excellent. . . I gained a well-rounded insight into teachingas a vocation. I felt that my experiences in the classroom were, for the most part,beneficial to both the pupils and myself.”“Fantastic level of support for special project and all other activities.”“The level of support at the school was good – they were very accommodating. . .”“Teachers were very helpful. Always approachable and asked a lot of questions. . .Feedback was very good.”“School really supportive and encouraging.”

Perhaps reflecting the differing stresses upon staff at the various schools,however, together with some unfamiliarity with what was expected of theplacement students, certain of the students’ remarks are not as unreservedlypositive:“Having chosen what subject area to focus on for my special project, I was prettymuch left to it. . .”“. . .unfortunately, there was a lack of support with the special project.”“Greater encouragement to attempt whole-class teaching would have been appre-ciated. I wish I had made more of the opportunities I had been given.”“I wasn’t really given an opportunity for whole-class teaching. . .”“The support I received was not really what I would have hoped, but this was notreally the placement’s fault, rather the circumstances.”

It seems that the students’ ‘special projects’ comprise a fairly commonarea of concern. Our intention in requiring a project is to ensure that thestudents engage critically and in an original manner with the UK NationalCurriculum, and seek to enhance the curriculum in an innovative way.This can be an extremely demanding task, even for experienced teachers,and the students clearly felt some pressure in this regard. Nonetheless,several projects do indeed display high levels of imaginative engagementwith curricular content, with one student developing worksheets encour-aging pupils to relate Fibonacci numbers to natural phenomena such asflowers, another developing a board game to illustrate ‘transformations’,and another preparing a crossword to introduce key concepts in space andgravity.7 It is clear, though, that not all staff at the schools had sufficienttime to assist in developing the students’ ideas, although it is less clear howstructural issues such as pressures on staff time in schools can be addressedby the University. Whilst several students suggest their main concerns overthe ‘special project’ relate to having little opportunity to discuss sugges-ted activities, the projects completed by the inaugural cohort may wellprovide ideas and exemplars both for subsequent groups of students andhost institutions.


Question three asks the students to consider the level of support providedby the Unit Coordinators throughout the duration of their placements. Thissupport principally takes the form of group tutorials, although we werealso available to discuss matters either face-to-face or online. Only onestudent gave this a score of five, whilst seven awarded four, and three,three, giving an average of 3.82. Whilst this score is somewhat lower thanmost of the others, it appears that the students certainly have no complaintsover the levels of support they receive, indeed perhaps the reverse! Rather,it is the timing of the group tutorials that is often perceived as difficult,and that the group tutorial format may result in meetings that are over-long. One or two students suggest that there are actually too many tutorialsand that they would have preferred to communicate by email, or to havea designated period during which they can access tutors to discuss issues.The Unit Coordinators recognise these concerns and that the timing ofthe group tutorials is indeed awkward for some. However, we were con-cerned to ensure that levels of support for students in the inaugural yearof MA350 were in no way deficient. It seems, though, that there may bescope for reducing the formal requirement for students to attend tutorialsin subsequent years, and perhaps to make greater use of the alternativesupport mechanisms suggested.

The fourth question considers the range and appropriateness of the as-sessment methods for MA350. Only one student gave this a score of five,whilst five gave four, four, three, and one, two, giving the lowest over-all average of 3.56. Whilst ostensibly a disappointing score, the students’remarks are largely positive:

“I think the methods of assessment are ideal. . .”“The variety of assessment methods was good. . . I enjoyed producing the writtenwork, it was a welcome departure from the reams of equations I am accustomedto writing.”“The journal was a good idea, I enjoyed doing that. . .”

It is clear, though, that a number of students feel some unease at the as-sessment of MA350, although it appears that this has much to do with theunfamiliar nature of the assessment methods and the relative absence ofclear ideas as to what exactly examiners are looking for in work of thiskind, certainly when compared to more typical mathematics units:

“I didn’t really know what exactly we were required to write for the journal. Howwill the journal be assessed? What constitutes a good journal?”“Would have been good to have more idea of what a good report / journal / projectpresentation is. This will be better when you have examples to show, maybe?”“I found it hard to write the journal / report when we had no real criteria to follow.A more detailed mark scheme would be useful in future.”“Assessment was very subjective compared to the rest of the Maths’ courses. . .”


Whilst we acknowledge the students’ concerns, it is clear that despite theirmisgivings and the effort required to complete the work successfully, thestudents did ultimately produce work of a very high quality. It is clear alsothat some of their suggestions, such as the provision of ‘mark schemes’,do not translate readily to certain of the assessment methods employedin MA350. Overall, we are confident that the balance and nature of theassessment for this unit is judicious. However, we will certainly devotegreater attention to explaining the assessments to students during the pre-placement training and the mid-unit tutorials. We feel also that our decisionnot to make the ‘special project’ the bearer of significant marks in itsown right, and rather to incorporate discussion of this into the journal andpresentation, is vindicated by the variability experienced by the students inpreparing for and implementing this aspect of their work.

We do, though, have some reservations over the final aspect of theassessment, namely the teachers’ contributions. Despite providing eachschool with guidance on what to consider in marking the students’ con-tributions, it is clear that certain schools are more or less generous thanothers, that certain students enjoyed more diverse placement experiences,and that applying any sort of moderation to the teachers’ assessments is al-most impossible for the Unit Coordinators located in the University. We arecurrently reviewing this assessment component, and shall certainly discussthis with the schools in advance of the next MA350 cohort. We may, forexample, elect to receive the teachers’ assessments on only a ‘formative’,rather than ‘summative’, basis, or to reduce the percentage value of theteachers’ assessments, thus mitigating the potentially distorting effects ona student’s overall mark for the unit.

The penultimate question asks the students to consider the extent towhich they feel their transferable skills and employability to have beendeveloped through taking MA350. The students’ scores here are most grat-ifying, with nine students giving a maximum score of five, and two, four,giving an average of 4.82. As this score implies, the students’ commentsare extremely positive, with no significant criticisms being advanced inthis regard:

“The assessment has re-introduced me to writing essays and producing writtenself-assessment. My confidence in myself and my own ability has increased.”“My confidence has improved tremendously, but it has also helped with initiative-taking, self-evaluation, and presentation skills. . .”“My team work, confidence, and communication have improved considerably,which would not have occurred through average maths degree topics.”“It’s the only chance I’ve had to improve my essay writing and presentationskills.”“I feel that I am now proficient at tasks such as lesson planning, setting and


marking homework, and providing feedback. These skills are going to be of greatuse to me when studying for my PGCE next year.”

Finally, we ask the students to provide a score for their overall rating of theunit, and for comments on its best or worst features. Eight of the studentsawarded the unit the maximum ‘five’ overall, whilst the remaining threegave four, giving an average of 4.73. Once again, the students’ commentsare as positive as this score implies:

“. . .it helps with so many communication skills used in most careers and aidspersonal development in ways that no other modules currently do.”“The course as a whole requires a lot of work, but the unit is very enjoyable.”“I would definitely recommend this unit to other maths’ students, it offers a uniqueexperience. . .”“Definitely recommend unit. Develops many different skills to other units.”“This unit has been invaluable to me in improving key skills and giving me a realinsight into teaching as a career.”“I would recommend MA350 to mathematicians who want to do a PGCE (Post-graduate Certificate in Education), but also to non-PGCE people because it’s goodfor general skills. . .”“I loved MA350!”

5. CONCLUSIONS

It is evident throughout this discussion that MA350 is a considerable suc-cess, and we should like to commend Simon Singh on his vision andcommitment in developing the Undergraduate Ambassadors Scheme. TheUAS, certainly as represented by the University of Southampton throughMA350, realises a number of important outcomes. It enthuses our studentswith a desire to consider teaching as a career, with 11 of the inaugural co-hort of 13 suggesting very strongly that this is now their aim. MA350 alsoprovides our students with an introductory insight into teaching that doesnot require their initial commitment to the 10 months or so of a Postgradu-ate Certificate in Education (PGCE), and has, we believe, prepared themsoundly for this next step. And, as is evident in the students’ increasinglypositive demeanour over the duration of the unit and in their evaluativecomments, it has simultaneously developed the students’ transferable skillsand personal confidence to an extent that no other mathematics unit atSouthampton presently does.

Moreover, MA350 represents a proactive and concerted attempt on thepart of the School of Mathematics to address its commitment to ensuringthat suitably qualified, highly motivated, and appropriately skilled gradu-ates leave the University with a commitment to furthering the discipline ofmathematics at a time when it is in crisis nationally. Indeed, such has been


the success of MA350 that it is hoped it will also be offered to students ofthe sciences at Southampton in subsequent years and that the number ofpartner schools will expand progressively. Furthermore, the authors wouldadd that our experiences of developing and coordinating MA350 havebeen greatly rewarding and we look forward to its continued flourishingin future.

NOTES

1. The University of Southampton has recently restructured its faculties and schools, suchthat the Faculty of Mathematical Studies became the School of Mathematics from 1stAugust 2003.

2. Simon Singh is, inter alia, the author of The code book: the secret history of codes andcode-breaking. If you would like more information on the Undergraduate Ambassad-ors Scheme, please contact Ravi Kapur: [email protected]

3. The term ‘unit of study’ is used here to denote a discrete unit of learning correspondingtypically to one eighth (or 15 credit points) of a student’s taught component in a givenacademic year.

4. We should note that individual students were encouraged to approach either of the UnitCoordinators in the event that they wished to discuss a particular issue, although nosubstantive problems were reported or encountered.

5. We would stress, of course, the need for tact and sensitivity in dealing with thosestudents who are not selected to participate in the unit. This was soon revealed asan issue for the authors in the inaugural year, as we decided ultimately not to selectat least one student who had made clear an intention to progress subsequently to aPostgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE).

6. The partner schools are very mixed in character and include a challenging boys’ com-prehensive, a mixed comprehensive which draws a large proportion of pupils froma large working class housing estate, a girls’ comprehensive whose intake might betypically characterised as having low educational aspirations, a girls’ comprehensivewith very high educational aspirations though socially mixed, and a selective girls’school which is well resourced and high-achieving.

7. The students’ ‘special projects’ were all, in the event, highly accomplished and wellconceived. Several students opted to develop a range of class ‘starters’ for particularmathematical topics at the key stage level they were involved in. These appear to havebeen largely very well received by the schools and allowed the students to engagein at least a couple of short sessions of whole-class teaching. Other students pursueddifferent avenues, such as investigating learning styles in respect of mathematics, orinvestigating a particular software application for teaching that was perhaps not usedor understood by the school’s teaching staff, and then delivering a staff developmentsession on the programme’s uses.


REFERENCES (TO ARTICLES IN UK NATIONAL PRESS):

15th November 2002 Times Higher Education Supplement, ‘Oneproblem that remains to be solved’, MartinInce, pp. 18–19

17th January 2003 Times Higher Education Supplement, ‘Whystudents shun maths career’, Alison Utley, p. 4

7th March 2003 Times Higher Education Supplement, AlisonWolf, p. 17

26th September 2003 The Times, ‘Science teachers could be historywithin a decade’, Glen Owen

1School of Humanities,University of Southampton,Southampton, Hants, U.K.SO17 1BJTelephone +44 (0)23 8059 3945E-mail: [email protected] of Mathematics,University of Southampton,E-mail: R.A.d’[email protected]

Those who can, teach: addressing the crisis in mathematics in UK schools and universities

Documents

Transcript of Those who can, teach: addressing the crisis in mathematics in UK schools and universities