[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-585957-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-585957-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","agreeing-on-objectives-of-geometry-for-teachers-courses-feedback-from-instructors-on-an-initial-list-13","AGREEING ON OBJECTIVES OF GEOMETRY FOR TEACHERS’ COURSES - FEEDBACK FROM INSTRUCTORS ON AN INITIAL LIST 13","","This paper reports an effort to vet an initial set of 10 student learning objectives (SLOs) for college geometry courses taken by prospective secondary teachers. A faculty online learning community of mathematicians and mathematics educators developed the list to reach stakeholder consensus. Feedback was collected via a survey in which 121 college geometry instructors ranked proposed SLOs plus distractors, and the proposed objectives were largely among the highest ranked by the sample. The study frames SLO alignment as a response to tensions in course content, stakeholder needs, and assessment variability.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/agreeing-on-objectives-of-geometry-for-teachers-courses-feedback-from-instructors-on-an-initial-list-13/585957/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/agreeing-on-objectives-of-geometry-for-teachers-courses-feedback-from-instructors-on-an-initial-list-13/585957.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jordan Avery","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-10","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the main goal of the study?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"To vet and build consensus around an initial list of 10 student learning objectives (SLOs) for geometry courses for prospective geometry teachers.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How was instructor feedback collected?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Through a survey where 121 college geometry instructors ranked potential SLOs, including the 10 proposed SLOs and 11 distractor objectives.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"Why is reaching agreement on geometry course objectives challenging?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Because multiple stakeholders have different priorities, and course content and student learning outcomes are complicated by variability in curricula and instructional settings across institutions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},585957,1792317358,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":111,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":117,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882367,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","AGREEING ON OBJECTIVES OF GEOMETRY FOR TEACHERS’ COURSES:  \nFEEDBACK FROM INSTRUCTORS ON AN INITIAL LIST13  \nMichael Ion University of Michigan [mikeion@umich.edu](mikeion@umich.edu)  \nInah Ko University of Michigan  \n[inahko@umich.edu](inahko@umich.edu)  \nPatricio Herbst University of Michigan [pgherbst@umich.edu](pgherbst@umich.edu)  \nCarolyn Hetrick University of Michigan [hetrickc@umich.edu](hetrickc@umich.edu)  \nWe report on an effort to vet a list of 10 student learning objectives (SLOs) for geometry courses taken by prospective geometry teachers. Members of a faculty online learning community, including mathematicians and mathematics educators who teach college geometry courses taken by prospective secondary teachers developed this list in an effort to reach a consensus that might satisfy various stakeholders. To provide feedback on the final list of 10 SLOs, we constructed and collected responses to a survey in which 121 college geometry instructors ranked a set of potential SLOs, including the 10 proposed SLOs as well as 11 distractors. The 10 SLOs were, for the most part, among the highest ranked by the sample.  \nKeywords: Geometry and Spatial Reasoning, Research Methods  \nSecondary mathematics teachers’ mathematical preparation is a critical issue influencing the quality of mathematics instruction. Mathematicians are essential stakeholders within higher education because these courses are often offered within mathematics departments; nevertheless, they are not the only stakeholders. Additional stakeholders include the teacher education programs that require students to take these courses and mathematics education scholars, who often operate at the nexus of disciplinary knowledge (i.e., mathematics) and teacher preparation. Numerous practical considerations guide the ongoing joint investment of mathematics departments and teacher education programs in such courses. Mathematics departments frequently face difficulties in being able to provide courses required for teaching accreditation. Related difficulties—particularly vis- à -vis college geometry courses (see Grover & Connor, 2000)—include finding faculty members who are willing to teach those courses and shaping the curriculum of those courses to attend to both the sensibility and knowledge generated by the discipline of mathematics and the need to develop capacity to handle the mathematical content of high schools. Still, mathematics departments are inherently invested in the articulation of secondary mathematics with undergraduate mathematics curricula, and so they continue to actively navigate dilemmas related to the varied constituencies of mathematics courses taken by prospective teachers. In prior work, we identified in our interviews with university geometry instructors describing their positions as having to manage five different tensions (Herbst et al., 2023) . One of them, the content tension is subtended by two distinct perspectives that could guide the design of mathematics coursework taken by preservice mathematics teachers. The first emphasizes that those preparing to be high school mathematics teachers should study the same  \n13 This research has been supported by NSF grant DUE-1725837 to P. Herbst and A. Brown. All opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation.  \nLamberg, T., & Moss, D. (2023). Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2). University of Nevada, Reno.  \n740  \nArticles published in the Proceedings are copyrighted by the authors.  \nmathematics curriculum as mathematics majors, which can provide a comprehensive understanding of the field and its development then can be applied to the school curriculum (Matthews & Seaman, 2007) . The other perspective emphasizes that high school mathematics teachers should focus on the mathematical knowledge needed for teaching, which includes und","cbCaiuRKEUf5RRbR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuRKEUf5RRbR","pdf",307335,"English","# Objectives and stakeholder consensus\n## Survey-based vetting of proposed SLOs\n## Stakeholder tensions in course design\n## Challenges in aligning curricula and assessment","[{\"question\":\"What is the main goal of the study?\",\"answer\":\"To vet and build consensus around an initial list of 10 student learning objectives (SLOs) for geometry courses for prospective geometry teachers.\"},{\"question\":\"How was instructor feedback collected?\",\"answer\":\"Through a survey where 121 college geometry instructors ranked potential SLOs, including the 10 proposed SLOs and 11 distractor objectives.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is reaching agreement on geometry course objectives challenging?\",\"answer\":\"Because multiple stakeholders have different priorities, and course content and student learning outcomes are complicated by variability in curricula and instructional settings across institutions.\"}]","AGREEING ON OBJECTIVES OF GEOMETRY FOR TEACHERS’ COURSES - FEEDBACK FROM INSTRUCTORS ON AN INITIAL LIST 13 | PDF",1792056437]