Background/Context At a time when educational research is recognized as capable of improving teaching and learning, it is under attack for falling short of this promise. Part of the solution lies in improving the preparation of educational researchers. Toward this goal, the UW-Madison School of Education (SOE) participated with the Spencer Foundation in developing a model program now called the Wisconsin-Spencer Doctoral Research Program. The program endeavored to educate selected students in interdisciplinary research and, as a result, indirectly affect the structure of doctoral education in participating departments. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study The Spencer Foundation announced that its funding would end in 2007, requiring the SOE to make decisions about continuing the DRP and about doctoral education more generally. Therefore, the dean requested an extensive evaluation of the program's impact. The resulting study analyzed faculty members’ and student fellows’ assessments of the DRP's contribution to graduate education. Setting Research was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Population/Participants/Subjects The study included three populations: SOE faculty members on campus in 2001–2002 (n = 85), fellows admitted to DRP in 1997–2001 (n = 46), and fellows who had received their PhDs (n = 9). Thirty-four percent of faculty, 85% of fellows, and 100% of graduates participated. Intervention/Program/Practice The DRP's guiding principles were interdisciplinarity (literacy in/respect for diverse inquiry approaches), methodological rigor, theoretical orientation, concern with practice, and research experience. The program was implemented through key components: four years’ funding for five fellows, professional expense funds, fall and spring proseminars, advanced research seminar, systematic training in methods/theory, mentor committee, annual progress reporting, participation in research, presentation of research, and community. Research Design We evaluated the DRP's effectiveness in a case study approach that included both qualitative and quantitative data. Data Collection and Analysis Data collection included surveys (with Likert, multiple-choice, and open-ended items) of faculty and fellows, and semistructured interviews of faculty with key roles in the program and fellows who had graduated. Findings/Results The DRP was at least partially effective in achieving its goals. Students and faculty shared positive views of funding and the interdisciplinary focus, and there was some evidence of changes in departmental programs. Challenges included the top-down implementation approach taken in a faculty-governed institution and attempting to change departments with a student-focused program. Conclusions/Recommendations This study raises questions about the DRP's development and implementation, but it concludes that the DRP provided a good educational experience for many fellows, changed some faculty members’ beliefs, and acted as a catalyst and an opportunity to seriously consider graduate education for the 21st century.

Dans ce texte, les auteures présentent deux approches des mathématiques : l’approche philosophique des mathématiques (APM) et la cognitively guided instruction (CGI). Des résultats de recherche montrent que l’utilisation de l’APM tend à augmenter l’anxiété des filles à l’égard des mathématiques (Lafortune). D’autres montrent que les filles ont tendance à avoir recours davantage à des algorithmes enseignés et les garçons, à des algorithmes inventés (Fennema). Les résultats de ces recherches sont discutés et des solutions sont proposées.

One area in which gender differences in mathematics have been studied minimally deals with strategies used to solve mathematical problems. The limited evidence available suggests that there may be some gender differences in problem-solving strategies. Differences have been found in grades 1-3, with girls tending to use observable strategies (such as counting) and boys tending to use mental strategies (Carr & Jessup, 1997). Gallagher and DeLisi (1994) studied high-ability secondary school students and reported that while there were no overall differences in the number of selected SAT items answered

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21. Smith, J. P. & Thompson, P. W. (in press). Additive quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. Kaput (Ed.), Employing children's natural powers to build algebraic reasoning in the context of elementary mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thompson, P. W. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25,165-208.