Return to Table of Contents

Introduction

Mathematics education has long struggled to define itself as an academic discipline and research area. Details of this saga have been traced and documented (Kilpatrick, 1992) but the lack of self identify continues to both challenge and frustrate mathematics educators (Sierpinska & Kilpatrick, 1998; Silver & Kilpatrick, 1994). It is ironic that while the field of mathematics education lacks a clearly articulated identify, the roles of and demand for mathematics educators continue to expand.

The role of mathematics educators has and continues to evolve over time. Historically, mathematics educators' role tended to be as faculty in (1) mathematics departments whose primary function was to teach mathematics and/or work in mathematics teacher education; and (2) colleges of education with the expectation of research related to mathematics education. A newly emerging job-placement for doctorates in mathematics education is within mathematics departments actively seeking mathematics educators not only to teach mathematics and mathematics education classes but also to engage and lead research in the teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics. This trend confirms a growing acceptance and expectation of scholarship based on research in mathematics education for faculty in mathematics departments. In addition to careers in higher education, there are increasing opportunities for people with doctorates in mathematics education in large school districts (including both classroom teachers and district coordinators) as well as in leadership roles in city, regional, and state departments of education.

These diverse and growing employment opportunities for mathematics educators exceed the current supply, and have led to the need for more people with doctorates in mathematics education. The shortage has been exacerbated by a multitude of other factors, including the aging of college/university faculty in mathematics and mathematics education; new areas of specialty in mathematics education due to the rapid and dramatic changes in technology to support the learning and teaching of mathematics; a decrease in the number of students studying advanced mathematics in higher education; a shortage of certified mathematics teachers in middle, junior, and senior high schools; and the increasing requirements of studying more mathematics at the secondary and post-secondary levels.

It would seem as if a clear characterization of the discipline of mathematics education would be a prerequisite for advanced study leading to a doctorate in mathematics education. Yet despite the lack of consensus on what constitutes mathematics education, doctoral programs in mathematics education have evolved throughout the 20^th century (Donoghue, 2000). These programs have taken many different forms, as the focus of preparation varies greatly from one institution to another. While one program may consist of a large component of mathematical content together with selected graduate courses in education, another program may reflect a more balanced set of courses in mathematics and mathematics education. Some programs reflect a mentoring model involving graduate students in research projects and thereby providing a research practicum or internship, while another program may provide research preparation via course work only. One program may graduate a cadre of students annually with doctorates in mathematics education, while other programs produce one graduate every few years. Each program is autonomous and often oblivious to other mathematics education programs around the country. All of these factors contribute to a very diverse preparation for people holding doctorates in mathematics education. The challenges of characterizing doctoral programs in mathematics education are closely related to, and perhaps only surpassed by, the difficulties encountered in defining mathematics education as a discipline.

While data reporting trends in the quantity of doctorates in the mathematical sciences have been reported (NRC, 1998), no parallel data are available for doctorates in mathematics education. In an effort to gather information about current doctoral programs in mathematics education a survey was conducted. This paper outlines the methods used to collect information regarding doctoral programs in mathematics education and reports the results of those methods.

Our goals in the survey were to learn what institutions offer doctoral programs with a major area in mathematics education, and to gather information about their faculty, students and program. Thus, related questions included: How many mathematics education faculty contribute to the program? How many doctoral students are in the program? How many doctoral students graduate annually? What programs of study do these institutions require? Answers to these questions would provide a snapshot of doctoral programs in mathematics education.

It seems reasonable that doctoral programs of the sort we wanted to learn about would produce students who do their dissertation research in mathematics education. Therefore, if these dissertations could be identified, it would be easy to link them to the specific university awarding the degree and determine which institutions are producing doctorates in mathematics education. That task turned out to be much easier said than done.

Our first approach was to examine the annual listings of doctoral dissertations published in each July issue of the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. The listings include dissertations found by using the keywords "Education: Mathematics" in the search. The July 1994 JRME listed dissertations for 1993. However, this was the last annual listing of dissertations in JRME so a separate search was conducted using the Dissertations Abstract (DISS) database for the years 1994-1997. This process yielded dissertations published by institution over the 18-year period from 1980 to 1997. An examination of the listings revealed that although these dissertations were related to mathematics education, the studies reported were not all carried out by people specializing in mathematics education. In fact, people other than mathematics educators did most of the dissertations listed in JRME. A wide range of disciplines were represented including educational psychology, sociology, technology, elementary education, administration, counseling, and special education. It appears that mathematics teaching and learning provides the context for doctoral research in these other areas. While this annual listing of dissertations seemed like a good source to identify doctorates in mathematics education, we felt another approach was needed.

Next we examined two documents prepared by the National Research Council. The Summary Report 1996: Doctoral Recipients from United States Universities and the Summary Report 1997: Doctoral Recipients from United States Universities provide data on conferred research doctorates from almost 400 colleges and universities in the United States (NRC, 1998, 1999). Data are collected through surveys, distributed via the graduate deans of each institution, to students who are completing requirements for their doctorate. These reports summarize research and applied-research doctorates in all fields, including Ph.D., D.Sc., and Ed.D., with the Ph.D. label being generically used to refer to any of these degrees. While not all parts of the survey are completed by every graduate, all doctoral recipients provided their gender, Ph.D. major field, and year (National Research Council, 1998, p.2).

One item on the NRC survey asks graduates to identify the field of specialization for their Ph.D. field from a given list of codes. Graduates who identified "Mathematics Education" as their major area (code 874) were considered to have earned a doctorate in mathematics education. It can be argued that self-reporting provides reliable and valid data (who better to identify her/his major field than the person receiving the doctorate). However, the organizational structure of an institution may lead some mathematics educators to code their area of emphasis in other ways, such as "Curriculum and Instruction" or "Elementary Education" and therefore be lost from this survey. The resulting list of ‘mathematics education doctorates’ may be conservative, yet it provides an identifiable list of people who classified mathematics education as the major field for their doctorate.

The Summary Reports disclosed that 100 doctorates were earned in mathematics education (35 males and 65 females) from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996 and 88 (37 males and 51 females) from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997. The names of institutions conferring these degrees were not identified in the Summary Reports. However, a special request was made to the NRC for the number of doctorates in mathematics education by institution from which these degrees were received during the period from 1980 to 1997. These data are summarized and provide the basis for discussion in this paper.

The Summary Reports provide different perspectives of doctoral recipients, including gender, age, ethnicity and specialty area. Our examination of these data included mathematics and education as separate categories, but focused primarily on mathematics education.

How does the number of doctorates in mathematics education compare to the number of doctorates in mathematics? Table 1 reports the breakdown of doctorates in different areas of mathematics as reported in the NRC Summary Reports. These data suggest, as a comparison, that about as many doctorates are earned in the subfield of Analysis each year as in Mathematics Education (see table 2). These data also provide interesting benchmarks for discussion that will surface again later when information about the job market is addressed.

Table 2 shows the number of doctorates in the education categories of the Summary Report 1996 and the Summary Report 1997. This table provides a panoramic view of the range of specialty areas at the doctoral level in education and illustrates that the number of doctorates awarded in different specialty areas varies greatly. While mathematics education is reported as a separate specialty field, it is likely that other people with considerable interest and expertise in mathematics education are counted in some other fields such as Curriculum and Instruction, Elementary Education, or Secondary Education. The data in Table 2 show that the majority of recipients of doctorates in education, including mathematics education are female. While 116 of the 188 (62%) of the doctorates awarded in 1996 and 1997 in mathematics education went to females, Table 1 reports that only 491 of the 2234 (22%) of the doctorates awarded in mathematics, over the same time period, went to females.

Table 2. Number of Doctorates in Education and Teaching Fields for 1995-96 and 1996-97

Table 3 focuses on the subset of doctorates in mathematics education. It reports every institution (a total of 117) that awarded at least one doctorate to someone who identified mathematics education as her/his major field from 1980 to 1997 as given by the NRC Summary Reports. Table 3 also reports the number of doctorates awarded annually by each of these institutions. These numbers vary across years, but the total did not exceed 100 in any given year. Table 3 also includes a summary of the number of dissertations related to mathematics education listed in the JRME or in the Dissertation Abstracts database (DISS) for the same time period. While the number of dissertations reported in JRME or DISS exceeds the number of reported graduates by the NRC for every institution, their Pearson's correlation coefficient is 0.836. As noted in Table 3, 1271 mathematics education doctorates were awarded from 1980-1997 from these 117 institutions. During the same period, 4157 dissertations related to mathematics education were documented. The 1-3 ratio of graduates with doctorates in mathematics education dissertations related to mathematics education (NRC to JRME) is a vivid reminder of the amount of doctoral research in mathematics education done by people in fields other than mathematics education.

Table 3. Number of Mathematics Education Doctoral Degrees by Year (1980-1997) and Dissertation Totals

An examination of Table 3 shows that over the 18-year time period, the vast majority of institutions were producing less than one doctorate in mathematics education each year. Only the five largest programs (Teachers College, University of Georgia, University of Texas, Ohio State University, and Georgia State University) consistently produced several graduates annually. Pooling the data from the 15 largest programs (the previous five and New York University, Florida State University, University of Maryland, Temple University, Rutgers University, University of Iowa, Indiana University, State University of New York at Buffalo, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Boston University) show that these institutions (hereafter referred to as Group 1) produced about half of all of the doctorates awarded during this period, 668 out of 1271.

While size should not be the determining criterion in recognizing doctoral programs in mathematics education, it cannot be overlooked. The fact that over one-third of the institutions shown in Table 3 produced a total of two graduates or fewer who declared mathematics education as their major field raises the question "what constitutes a program?" If only one or two graduates are produced over an 18-year period, can a program exist? No institution can afford to have regular graduate offerings without a cadre of students. In fact, most institutions of higher education require certain minimum course enrollments, and once the number of students becomes too low, regular course offerings cease to exist. When this happens, programs dissolve and are replaced by less well-defined efforts (often independent study) to provide the specialized preparation required for doctorates in specialty areas, such as mathematics education. This phenomenon is not limited to those institutions graduating one or two graduates, but is experienced in different ways by nearly all institutions. Thus, in an effort to get a clearer picture of the scope of faculty, students, and doctoral programs in mathematics education, a survey was conducted.

A survey instrument was prepared by the authors to obtain information on mathematics education doctoral programs. Earlier survey instruments (McIntosh & Crosswhite, 1973; Batanero, Godino, Steiner, & Wenzelburger, 1992) were examined. Using this information, together with suggestions from the Organizing Committee for the National Conference on Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education (see Appendix A), a survey was designed to collect information providing different perspectives of mathematics education doctoral programs, including data about faculty, students, and programs. A paper copy of the survey was prepared (see Appendix C) along with an electronic version for the web.

An announcement of the National Conference on Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education and the availability of the survey were reported in several publications (NCTM Newsletter, 1999; JRME, 1999; AMTE Newsletter, 1999.) An attempt was made to identify a mathematics education faculty member at each institution that awarded at least two doctorates in mathematics education from 1980 to 1996 (NRC, 1998). It should be noted that this process might have omitted some emerging programs in mathematics education, which is recognized as a limitation in describing current programs. Locating a faculty member with expertise in mathematics education was not easy and often required personal contact (via e-mail or phone) with department chairs or deans. A letter and accompanying survey were sent to this faculty member.

Only one faculty member from each institution was asked to complete the survey. Since the survey was designed to provide institutional data, we felt it was better to request that one faculty member complete the survey (which was a time-consuming task) than to duplicate much of the same information by asking all faculty members to complete the form. Consequently the survey data reflect a single individual’s interpretation of his or her institution’s doctoral program, and the extent to which this introduces bias is a limitation of this survey.

Surveys were mailed in March 1999. A survey form and cover letter describing the conference and the need for the survey data were mailed to a faculty member at the 81 institutions that had at least two graduates from the period of 1980-1996 according to the NRC’s Summary Report 1996. In an effort to increase the rate of return, a follow-up letter was sent in April. E-mail and telephone contacts were made later to a faculty member at every institution with at least eight graduates from the period of 1980-1996 that did not return the survey from the first or second mailings. From the 81 institutions that were invited to respond, nine surveys were completed electronically through the web and the remaining 39 were returned in paper format. In addition, four institutions (Northwestern University, University of Oregon, Harvard University, and Clark University) reported they currently had no doctoral program in mathematics education.

This procedure resulted in 48 returned surveys, including 14 of the 15 programs identified as producing the most doctorates in mathematics education from 1980 to 1997, and from 26 of the largest 30 programs. Thus, while the overall response rate was 64%, there was almost a 90% return from the largest 30 programs, and these programs reflect institutions that produced more than 75% of the doctorates in mathematics education from 1980 to 1997 (NRC, 1999). Institutions returning completed surveys are denoted in Table 1 (bold print).

Teachers College-Columbia University New York University University of Iowa

University of Pittsburgh Peabody College-Vanderbilt University Illinois State University

Texas A&M University University of Chicago George Mason University

It is important to note that some surveys were received that had portions of the data incomplete (such as number of males and females or ethnicity of students). This missing or incomplete data represents another limitation of this report. In such situations, we have typically cautioned the reader by indicating this as the ‘percent of those reporting.’ Selected information will be reported about faculty, students and programs in the sections that follow. Specific information provided by each institution is available in Appendix C.

Survey respondents were asked to list the name of each faculty member, areas of expertise, from where and when the highest degree was earned. Of the 48 institutions that returned surveys indicating they had a doctoral program in mathematics education, the size of the faculty ranged from 1 to 16, with the mean number of faculty being 5 and median of 4. A closer examination of the distributions of current faculty reported, identified by Group 1, 2, and 3, are given in Table 5. While some institutions reported only mathematics education faculty, others included faculty in areas such as psychology or mathematics. It should be noted that Table 5 contains all the information reported by the person completing the survey and no screening of data occurred.

Table 5. Faculty Distribution of 48 Programs Responding to the Survey

The survey also requested information regarding the institution where each faculty member received their doctoral degree and the year of completion. Over one-third of the mathematics education faculty (from institutions that responded) graduated from the University of Wisconsin, the University of Georgia, Indiana University, Ohio State University, Teachers College-Columbia University, or University of Maryland.

In addition, data on the year of highest degree earned yielded an interesting finding with regard to the age of current faculty. Of the 224 faculty listed, 211 (94%) also indicated the year when their highest degree was earned. From the information given in Figure 1, it appears the age of current faculty is fairly young since more than half graduated in the past twenty years. Examination of survey data on retirement however, revealed a different perspective.

Figure 1. Percent of faculty doctorates earned by decade

A follow-up survey question asked "How many mathematics education faculty are eligible for retirement within 0-2 years? 3-5years? 6-10 years?" Data indicated that 115 faculty of the 224 listed are eligible for retirement within 0-2 years, 37 are eligible within 3-5 years, and 29 are eligible within 6-10 years (see Figure 2). Thus, almost 80% of current faculty are eligible for retirement within the next 10 years. Consequently, although most doctorates were received in the last two decades, many of these were earned by people now nearing retirement. Further, other responses from the survey indicated that 38 of the 48 institutions anticipate hiring a total of approximately 75 faculty members in mathematics education within the next five years.

Figure 2. Percent of current faculty by years until eligible for retirement

Other survey questions investigated respondents’ perceptions regarding the current and future supply and demand of mathematics education faculty. As shown in Figure 3, 78% of the respondents believe that currently there are more mathematics education jobs than qualified candidates, and 85% gave the same response when asked to rate the future (5 to 10 year) supply and demand for doctorates in mathematics education.

Figure 3. Rating of supply and demand for doctorates in mathematics education

The survey responses provided by the 48 programs in the survey provides a picture of the student population in mathematics education doctoral programs. The programs in the survey currently have a total of 734 students (332 full-time and 402 part-time). The highest number of students in any one program is 64 (30 full-time and 34 part-time), and the lowest is 0. Group 1 programs account for 367 of the 734 (50%) students, Group 2 programs for 256 (35%), and Group 3 programs for 111 (15%). Table 6 gives a breakdown of the enrollment status, gender, and ethnicity of the students for each group of programs. It is interesting to note that the larger programs tend to have a lower percentage of female students, and a higher percentage of non-white students, than do the smaller programs.

Table 6. Percent of Current Graduate Students in Mathematics Education by Demographic Category

The survey data show that financial support of full-time doctoral students comes primarily from institutional funds such as teaching assistantships. Approximately 53% of the doctoral students support come from institutional funds, 26% from external grants, 16% from fellowships or scholarships, and 3% from other sources. The most significant difference in funding between the three groups of programs was that the larger programs reported a lower percentage of student support from institutional funds (Group 1, 42%; Group 2, 55%; Group 3, 62%), but a higher percentage of support from external grants, as well as fellowships, scholarships, or other sources (frequently the student’s outside resources).

The median minimum financial support reported was $8,775 while the median maximum financial support reported was $13,600. The lowest level of support reported was $0 and the highest was $32,000. Examination of support by groups shows that the median minimum and maximum reported by Group 1 programs was $8,775 and $12,500, by Group 2 programs was $9,950 and $14,500, and by Group 3 programs was $6,500 and $11,000 (see Appendix B.)

Apparently, some of the most difficult questions for survey respondents to answer concerned recent graduates. The survey asked for the total number of graduates in 1998, in 1997, and from 1992 to 1996. The total number of graduates in 1998 was 97 as reported by institution. In the Summary Reports (NRC, 1998, 1999) the 48 programs represented in the survey produced approximately 70% of all doctorates granted in mathematics education in 1996 and 1997. Using this percentage, we get an estimate of 139 for the total number of doctorates in 1998. That would represent a substantial increase in the yearly totals reported by the NRC (the highest number previously was 100 in 1996). This increase could be a sign that either the NRC's numbers are underreporting the number of doctorates granted in mathematics education or an upward trend is beginning. Another explanation could be that the respondents to the survey had difficulty pinpointing the year of graduation, thus counting graduates who actually received their doctorate in a different year. This difficulty might also explain why 34 of the respondents did not give a total number of graduates for 1997. For 1992 to 1996 the respondents (all but six) gave a total of 336 graduates, which was reasonably close to the Summary Reports total of 397 for the same period.

The survey also asked for names and first jobs of the students who graduated in 1997 and 1998. The 48 programs identified 203 graduates by name. It should be noted that some schools, in particular one of the largest, did not provide names for reasons that included privacy. Of the 203 graduates listed, 194 first jobs were identified. We categorized these jobs into one of the following eight groups:

U.S. Universities with doctoral programs in mathematics education (represented in Table 3), U.S. Universities without doctoral programs in mathematics education, U.S. Community or Junior Colleges, U.S. K-12 Schools, U.S. Commercial or Governmental Agencies, International Universities, International Governmental Agencies, and Unknown. The percentages for each of these categories are found in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Percent of 203 mathematics education doctorates completed in 1997-98 by first job

These totals are consistent with the information provided by programs as they ranked the jobs taken most frequently by their graduates. Table 7 shows the possible jobs listed on the survey and the number of first or second rankings received for each possibility. Both Figure 4 and Table 7 show the predominance of higher education jobs taken by graduates, but Figure 4 shows more clearly that the largest percentage of graduates (45%) are first employed at U.S. Universities without mathematics education doctoral programs.

Table 7. Frequency of First and Second Rankings of Positions

Figure 5 shows the number of reported graduates within each institutional group who took first jobs in each category. As already noted, that most frequent first job of graduates of doctoral programs in mathematics education is at a U.S. university without a doctoral program in mathematics education, but it is interesting that this is true even for graduates from Group 1 programs. It should also be noted that Groups 1 and 2 produce nearly all of the graduates who have first jobs in the international community, while Group 3 programs are more likely to produce graduates that take first jobs at U.S. K-12 schools. (13% of Group 1 graduates, 7% of Group 2 graduates, and 15% of Group 3 graduates take first jobs at U.S. K-12 schools).

Of the 48 responses to the survey, thirteen of the fourteen doctoral programs in Group 1 have been in existence for more than 30 years. The one program younger than 30 years, Georgia State University, is in the 10—30 year category. Approximately 55% of the programs in Groups 2 and 3 have also been in existence for over 30 years even though their production of doctoral candidates is considerably less than that of Group 1.

The degree program offered at most of the institutions that responded is the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.) with 92% of the respondents granting this degree. The Doctor of Education degree (Ed. D.) is offered at 44% of the responding institutions, with Group 1 having the highest percentage at 50%. The Doctor of Arts degree (D. A.) is not offered at any of the institutions. These doctoral programs in mathematics education are housed in numerous departments and colleges. Over two-thirds of the programs are housed in a school or college of education. Most of the remaining programs were housed in a school or college that combined education and either psychology, human development, or arts and science.

The doctoral programs are also housed in various departments within their respective schools or colleges, with Curriculum and Instruction being the most prevalent. There are only two Departments of Mathematics Education, one at the University of Georgia and the other at University of Texas at Austin. Two universities (Illinois State University and American University) reported their doctoral program was housed in the College of Arts and Science and situated in the Mathematics Department.

For students who wish to enter a doctoral degree program, there are minimum requirements at all reporting universities, although the institution’s requirements differ from the department’s requirements. The requirements reported most often at the department level are minimum GRE scores and minimum GPA, required in 75% and 71% of the responding universities, respectively. These are followed by three requirements that have close to the same frequency of responses: K-12 teaching experience (56% of responses), qualifying exams (54% of responses) and a prior BS/BA degree in mathematics (48% of responses). The largest program, Teachers College, cited only two departmental requirements, K-12 teaching experience and a qualifying exam.

There were differences in entrance requirements between the programs in the three groups (see Figure 6). At the department level, the most common requirements for entering programs in Group 1 that is represented in our data are minimum GRE (79%), minimum GPA (71%), and qualifying exams (71%). In Group 2 programs, the most prevalent requirements are minimum GRE (85%), minimum GPA (75%), English proficiency ( 60%), and K-12 teaching experience (60%). In Group 3 programs, the most common requirements are K-12 teaching experience (71%), minimum GPA (64%) and minimum GRE (57%).

Figure 6. Percent of departments in each group having each type of entrance requirement

At the institutional level, there were no major differences between programs of the three groups with the two most prevalent requirements being minimum GPA and English proficiency at 64% and 62% of responses, respectively. The Other category in both the departmental and institutional requirements included a mixture of individualized requirements, such as writing samples from the applicants or portfolios. The most noticeable difference between the departmental and institutional requirements is the greater number of requirements at the departmental level.

To successfully complete a doctoral program, most schools require residency (85%), comprehensive exams (96%), a dissertation (100%) and a defense of the dissertation (98%). One of the Group 1 programs, three from Group 2, and two from Group 3 also require a presentation of dissertation findings at a conference (see Table 8). The number of semester hours needed to complete a doctoral program ranges between 45 and 125, with wide disparity. There were five programs that stated the typical number of semester hours needed to complete a doctorate was 50 or less. Of these five, the University of Illinois has a master’s degree entrance requirement. While, the University of Connecticut stated that the 45 semester hours needed to complete the doctorate is after a master’s degree. The other three programs did not explain their reported number of semester hours.

Table 8. Percent of Programs by Group that have Each Graduation Requirement

Even though most doctoral programs are individually tailored to reflect the candidate’s background and interest, there are some areas in a program of study where candidates are expected to obtain a depth of knowledge (see Figure 7). What may be surprising about these responses is the relatively low emphasis placed on technology (average of 1.8), especially in Group 3, and general foundations (average of 1.9). Across the three groups, the area with the greatest difference in emphasis is research methods. It is particularly interesting that Group 3 programs report a major emphasis on research in mathematics education but only a moderate emphasis in research methods. As for mathematics content knowledge, this area receives on average a moderate emphasis, yet the assumption of most programs was a strong mathematics requirement for acceptance into the doctoral program.

Figure 7. Average emphasis given within programs by group

As Figure 8 shows, over 60% of the respondents stated that their successful doctoral candidates will have attained a master’s level in mathematics. A wider range of competence in mathematics is required among Group 2 programs than in Groups 1 or Group 3 programs.

Figure 8. Percent of institutions in each group requiring candidates to attain each level in mathematics coursework

With dissertations being required in all 48 programs studied, the survey also asked which type of dissertations are acceptable (see Table 9), as well as for the type most frequently submitted by doctoral candidates. Qualitative and quantitative dissertations were acceptable by all who answered this question. Qualitative dissertations, however, were preferred by a greater percentage of programs in Group 1 than in Groups 2 and 3, while a greater percentage of programs in Groups 2 and 3 preferred quantitative dissertations than programs in Group 1. The dissertation research design most frequently submitted by doctoral candidates is fairly evenly split between qualitative, quantitative, and a mixture of these two types.

Table 9. Types of Dissertations, in Percent of Responses.

The remainder of the survey invited respondents to give more insight into individual characteristics of their program. First, respondents were asked to describe any unique features that distinguish their doctoral program. While the responses varied, the overarching features included: (1) programs designed around varied career goals and needs of individual students, (2) apprenticeship or active participation in research and other projects, (3) opportunities to work closely and collaboratively with faculty, (4) depth of study of mathematics, and (5) opportunities to teach (co-teach) methods courses or work with teacher interns.

Another question asked for any special areas of emphasis in the doctoral programs. Special areas of emphasis reported by respondents include: (1) content preparation, (2) elementary teacher education and pre-service and novice teachers’ beliefs, (3) middle school teachers’ professional development, (4) equity and diversity issues, (5) urban education, and (6) preparation of doctoral students to teach in college mathematics departments or in higher education and research.

Respondents were also asked to address recent changes (in the last five years) and anticipated changes (in the next five years) within their program. Twenty-seven of 47 responded their programs have changed in the last five years. Recent changes included more emphasis on use of appropriate technology, addition of option for concentration in middle school mathematics education, and more emphasis in graduate research and qualitative methodology. More changes are anticipated by 36 of the 46 respondents. The majority of anticipated changes pertained to an increased emphasis in technology and the use of distance learning in their programs. Other predicted changes included the recruiting of more minority students and international students, new or increased focus on middle school education, and preparation for college teaching. One respondent best summarized their thinking on "change" by stating, "It is hard to imagine any program remaining unchanged. As faculty interests evolve and students change, new program emphasis is certain to evolve. The nature of these changes is not certain, which is what makes the future so exciting".

The survey information regarding the 48 institutions provides a current picture of doctoral programs in mathematics education in the United States. The picture is composed of information on faculty and students, as well as particular characteristics of individual doctoral programs in mathematics education.

Information about mathematics education faculty of these doctoral programs revealed several interesting findings. For example, the number of mathematics education faculty ranged greatly (from 1 to 16) and the majority of these faculty members had earned their degrees since 1980. Without a doubt, the most surprising finding was that one-half of the current mathematics education faculty are eligible for retirement within the next two years. Furthermore over three-fourths of current faculty are eligible for retirement within the next ten years. Since there is already a shortage of doctorates in mathematics education in the United States, the significant increase in projected retirements promises to enlarge the current problem. Furthermore, the rapid "changing of the guard" among mathematics education faculty in doctoral granting institutions is likely to change significantly the nature and structure of many of these doctoral programs.

The number of doctoral students in individual programs varied from 0 to 64. A majority of these students are white, as well as female. The full-time doctoral students receive, on average, $10,000 in support annually. Most of the graduates from these programs take first jobs in higher education, with the majority of these higher education positions being at institutions without a doctoral program in mathematics education. The larger institutions tend to have more graduates take positions outside of the United States than smaller programs, while the smaller programs tend to have more graduates take positions at K-12 schools and community colleges than the larger programs.

This survey, together with information reported by the NRC, JRME and DISS, provide much food for thought and reflection regarding the production of doctorates in mathematics education and the nature of their doctoral programs. For one thing, the survey highlights both the difficulties in obtaining accurate data about doctoral programs, as well as underscoring the need to obtain reliable data on a regular basis. Of course, our data provide only a snapshot at a point in time, and we realize they are not only incomplete but are quickly dated as programs change. The survey, however, does provide benchmark data that suggest critical issues in need of careful and thoughtful attention. Any significant legacy of this effort will be measured by the ways in which these survey data are used for discussion, and ultimately, action directed toward better defining and improving doctoral programs in mathematics education.

AMTE News (1999). Announcement of National Conference of Issues Related to Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education. 8(1), 8.

Batanero, M. C., Godino, J. D., Steiner, H. G. & Wenzelburger, E. (1992). The training of researchers in mathematics education–Results from a survey. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26: 95-102.

Donoghue, E. (2000). Evolution of mathematics education as a discipline and doctoral programs,

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (1999). Announcement of National Conference, 30(1), 118.

Kilpatrick, J. (1992). A history of research in mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 3-38) New York: Macmillan.

McIntosh, J. A. & Crosswhite, F. J. (1973). A survey of doctoral programs in mathematics education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 091 250).

National Research Council. (1998). Summary Report 1996: Doctoral Recipients from United States Universities. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999). Summary Report 1997: Doctoral Recipients from United States Universities. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

NCTM Newsletter (1999). Announcement of National Conference of Issues Related to Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education. 35(6), 7, January. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Sierpinska, A. & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds). (1998). Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identify. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Silver, E. A. & Kilpatrick, J. (1994). E pluribus unum: Challenges of diversity in the future of mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 734-754.

Return to Table of Contents