PME 42 in Umeå, Sweden

From Maths-Education mailing list:
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) is an annual conference where scientific research in mathematics education is the focus. PME welcomes all who are interested in how students learn mathematics, how teachers teach mathematics, and how mathematicians, teachers and students do mathematics.
PME 42 will be held at Umeå University in Umeå, Sweden, from July 3 to July 8, 2018.
The First Announcement of PME 42 is now available. You can download it from the home page of the conference website: www.pme42.se
The ConfTool system, used for submissions and registrations, will open before the end of November.
For continuous updates about PME 42 you can follow or like the conference Facebook page: www.facebook.com/pme42
Best wishes,
Ewa Bergqvist and Magnus Österholm
Co-chairs for PME 42

Musings of a Mathematical Mom

[Reposted from Alexandra O Fradkin’s blog Musings of a Mathematical Mom; listed in reverse chronological order]

Counting crocodile legs

Drawing heads, tails, knees, and toes – useful?

Counting beads

Playing Broken Telephone

A figure with pointy things and a line, a line, and a line

Protecting against magic

Skip counting or word skipping?

Numicon – combining geometry and arithmetic

Discussing the meaning of “almost” with an 8 year old

From math-hater to mathematician and computer scientist: The story of Allison Bishop

A number talk that turned into an investigation

Funville Adventures live on Kickstarter!

Logical Fun, Part II

Get ready for Funville Adventures!

Games with the multiplication table

Logical Fun, Part I

Arithmetic games – is that boring?

Playing with symmetry in kindergarten

The joys of peas and toothpicks for all ages!

Math enrichment – what is the value?

3-digit numbers are tricky! Part II

Entertaining kindergartners with caterpillars, dots, and monsters

3-digit numbers are tricky!

Games with tanks and mirror books

Measuring everything in sight!

Functions in Kindergarten – A favorite

Avoid Hard Work! – A book for problem-solvers of all levels (toddler to mathematician)

Lots of fun with Tiny Polka Dot

Conservation of fingers and toes

Dots in a Square from Math Without Words

Double perfect squares

Four colors or more?

The Piaget Phenomenon

Time, symmetry, and unexpected turns

Why not count on our fingers?

Fibonacci Trees

Numbers on a Line

Evaluating students’ evaluations of professors

This paper contains some bizarre observations:

 
Michela Braga, Marco Paccagnella, Michele Pellizzari, Evaluating students’ evaluations of professors. Economics of Education Review 41 (214) 71-88.
Abstract: This paper contrasts measures of teacher effectiveness with the students’ evaluations for the same teachers using administrative data from Bocconi University. The effectiveness measures are estimated by comparing the performance in follow-on coursework of students who are randomly assigned to teachers. We find that teacher quality matters
substantially and that our measure of effectiveness is negatively correlated with the students’ evaluations of professors. A simple theory rationalizes this result under the assumption that students evaluate professors based on their realized utility, an assumption that is supported by additional evidence that the evaluations respond to
meteorological conditions.

Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related

An interesting paper:

Bob Uttl, Carmela A.White, Daniela Wong Gonzalez, Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness:  Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 54, September 2017, Pages 22-42.

Abstract: Student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings are used to evaluate faculty’s teaching effectiveness based on a widespread belief that students learn more from highly rated professors. The key evidence cited in support of this belief are meta-analyses of multisection studies showing small-to-moderate correlations between SET ratings and student achievement (e.g., Cohen, 1980, 1981; Feldman, 1989). We re-analyzed previously published meta-analyses of the multisection studies and found that their findings were an artifact of small sample sized studies and publication bias. Whereas the small sample sized studies showed large and moderate correlation, the large sample sized studies showed no or only minimal correlation between SET ratings and learning. Our up-to-date meta-analysis of all multisection studies revealed no significant correlations between the SET ratings and learning. These findings suggest that institutions focused on student learning and career success may want to abandon SET ratings as a measure of faculty’s teaching effectiveness.

The epigraph is great:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” H. L. Mencken

BiBTeX: 
@article{UTTL201722,
title = "Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related",
journal = "Studies in Educational Evaluation",
volume = "54",
number = "",
pages = "22 - 42",
year = "2017",
note = "Evaluation of teaching: Challenges and promises",
issn = "0191-491X",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007",
url = "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X16300323",
author = "Bob Uttl and Carmela A. White and Daniela Wong Gonzalez",
keywords = "Meta-analysis of student evaluation of teaching",
keywords = "Multisection studies",
keywords = "Validity",
keywords = "Teaching effectiveness",
keywords = "Evaluation of faculty",
keywords = "SET and learning correlations"
}

Theorem proving components for educational software

Call for Extended Abstracts & Demonstrations (2nd)
– – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ThEdu’17
Theorem proving components for Educational software
6 August 2017
http://www.uc.pt/en/congressos/thedu/thedu17
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
at CADE26
International Conference on Automated Deduction
6-11 August 2017
Gothenburg, Sweden
http://www.cade-26.info/
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THedu’17 Scope:

Computer Theorem Proving is becoming a paradigm as well as a technological base for a new generation of educational software in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The workshop brings together experts in automated deduction with experts in education in order to further clarify the shape of the new software generation and
to discuss existing systems.

Invited Talk

Francisco Botana, University of Vigo, Spain, “Theorem Proving   Components in GeoGebra”

Important Dates

  • Extended Abstracts: 18 June 2017
  • Author Notification: 2 July 2017
  • Final Version: 16 July 2017
  • Workshop Day: 6 August 2017

Topics of interest include:

  • methods of automated deduction applied to checking students’ input;
  • methods of automated deduction applied to prove post-conditions for particular problem solutions;
  • combinations of deduction and computation enabling systems to  propose next steps;
  • automated provers specific for dynamic geometry systems;
  • proof and proving in mathematics education.

Submission

We welcome submission of extended abstracts and demonstration proposals presenting original unpublished work which is not been submitted for publication elsewhere.

All accepted extended abstracts and demonstrations will be presented at the workshop. The extended abstracts will be made available online.

Extended abstracts and demonstration proposals should be submitted via easychair,
https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=thedu17
formatted according to
http://www.easychair.org/publications/easychair.zip

Extended abstracts and demonstration proposals should be approximately 5 pages in length and are to be submitted in PDF format.

At least one author of each accepted extended abstract/demonstration proposal is expected to attend THedu’17 and presents his/her extended abstract/demonstration.

Program Committee

Francisco Botana, University of Vigo at Pontevedra, Spain
Roman Hašek, University of South Bohemia, Czech Republic
Filip Maric, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Walther Neuper, Graz University of Technology, Austria (co-chair)
Pavel Pech, University of South Bohemia, Czech Republic
Pedro Quaresma, University of Coimbra, Portugal (co-chair)
Vanda Santos, CISUC, Portugal
Wolfgang Schreiner, Johannes Kepler University, Austria
Burkhart Wolff, University Paris-Sud, France

Proceedings

The extended abstracts and system descriptions will be published as a CISUC Technical Report series (ISSN 0874-338X). After presentation at the conference, selected authors will be invited to submit a substantially revised version, extended to 14-20 pages, for
publication by the Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (EPTCS).

Teacher Preparation: 25 May, De Morgan House, Russell Square

LMS Education Day 2017

Thursday 25th May, 11am – 3pm

De Morgan House, London

Teacher shortages in mathematics: how can HE mathematics departments help reverse the trend?

University mathematics departments depend on teachers to prepare their
own students, and they have an important role in training future generations of mathematics teachers. To do this effectively at a national level, it is critical that colleagues from across the sector understand the current state of Initial Teacher Training and the challenges that face teacher recruitment.

The day will be split into two parts. During the morning, participants will have the opportunity to learn about the challenges of teacher recruitment and find out how a number of maths departments have attempted to encourage students to think of mathematics teaching as a career. We are delighted that Simon Singh has agreed to introduce this session. After lunch, discussion, led by Tony Gardiner, will be focused around a document being developed by the LMS education committee on this subject for which input and feedback is sought. A detailed programme, including information about invited contributors, will follow in the coming weeks.

Whilst the theme for the day may seem somewhat removed from everyday teaching and learning activity within mathematics departments in HE, we do hope to get participants from a large number of mathematics departments to participate in the event and share their experiences and ideas.

The event is free to attend and a light lunch and other refreshments will be provided.

Please register interest in attending the event by emailing
Katherine.Wright@lms.ac.uk

Ronnie Brown: from Esquisse d’un Programme by A Grothendieck

I just came across again the following (English translation):
 The demands of university teaching, addressed to students (including
those said to be “advanced”) with a modest (and frequently less than mod-
est) mathematical baggage, led me to a Draconian renewal of the themes
of reflection I proposed to my students, and gradually to myself as well.
It seemed important to me to start from an intuitive baggage common to
everyone,  independent of any technical language used to express it,  and
anterior to any such language
– it turned out that the geometric and topo-
logical intuition of shapes, particularly two-dimensional shapes, formed such
a common ground.
(my emphasis)
It seems to me a good idea, and expressed with AG’s usual mastery of language.
Ronnie

Chinese maths textbooks to be translated for UK schools

The Guardian, 20 March 2017. Some quotes:

British students may soon study mathematics with Chinese textbooks after a “historic” deal between HarperCollins and a Shanghai publishing house in which books will be translated for use in UK schools.

 

HarperCollins signs ‘historic’ deal with Shanghai publishers amid hopes it will boost British students’ performance.

 

The textbook deal is part of wider cooperation between the UK and China, and the government hopes to boost British students’ performance in maths, Hughes added.

Most likely, an attempt to introduce Chinese maths textbooks in English schools will lay bare the basic fact still not accepted by policymakers. Quoting the article,

Primary school maths teachers in Shanghai are specialists, who will have spent five years at university studying primary maths teaching. They teach only maths, for perhaps two hours a day, and the rest of the day is spent debriefing, refining and improving lessons. English primary teachers, in contrast, are generalists, teaching all subjects, all of the time.

See the whole article here.

What Students Like

A new paper  in The De Morgan Gazette:

A. Borovik, What Students Like, The De Morgan Gazette 9 no.~1 (2017), 1–6. bit.ly/2ie2WLz

Abstract: I analyse students’ assessment of tutorial classes supplementing my lecture course and share some observations on what students like in mathematics tutorials. I hope my observations couldbe useful to my university colleagues around the world. However, this is not a proper sociologicalstudy (in particular, no statistics is used), just expression of my personal opinion.