phd research proposal mathematics education

• Mathematics Education

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Advance Your Career

The Ph.D. program emphasizes research and requires a written dissertation for completion. The program is individualized to meet the needs of graduate students. The student must develop, with the guidance from the major professor and committee, a program that is applicable to their background and interest. The average Ph.D. program requires 4-6 years beyond a master’s degree. The program is comprised of coursework in four major areas.

• Mathematics or a related area
• Cognate Area
• Research Core

This residential program has rolling admission . Applications must be fully complete and submitted (including all required materials) and all application fees paid prior to the deadline in order for applications to be considered and reviewed. For a list of all required materials for this program application, please see the “ Admissions ” tab.

July 1 is the deadline for Fall applications.

November 15 is the deadline for Spring applications.

March 15 is the deadline for Summer applications.

*Those applicants interested in being considered for any available PhD funding should submit completed applications by December 1 for the following Fall semester.

Program at a Glance

• Major/Department: Curriculum and Instruction
• Research Area: Mathematics Education
• Degree Objective: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
• Program Delivery: Residential
• Does this program lead to licensure? * No , this is a non-licensure program
• Application Deadlines: July 1 (Fall), November 15 (Spring), March 15 (Summer)

Start Your Giant Leap with One Small Step

Request Information

Mathematics Education Courses

15-18 credit hours

In mathematics education, students engage in courses that cover topics in the cognitive and cultural theories of learning and teaching mathematics, and the role of curriculum in mathematics education.

A three (3) course sequence is required that consists of:

• EDCI 63500 – Goals and Content in Mathematics Education
• EDCI 63600 – The Learning of Mathematics: Insights and Issues
• EDCI 63700 – The Teaching of Mathematics: Insights and Issues

In addition, students are encouraged to take (6 – 9) hours of EDCI 620: Developing as a Mathematics Education Researcher

Related Course Work

Minimum of 6 credit hours

All students should have appropriate course work in mathematics, statistics, educational technology, or a related field. Students without a master’s level background in mathematics may be required to take more courses in mathematics. This will be determined by the student’s major professor and advisory committee.

9 credit hours

Students will take three graduate courses in a self-selected cognate area. Cognate area selection should be discussed with the student’s major professor and advisory committee. Possible cognate areas include: mathematics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, technology.

Research Core Courses

15 credit hours

All doctoral students in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction must complete five (5) courses from areas in research methodology and analysis before beginning their dissertation:

• EDPS 53300 – Introduction to Research in Education
• EDCI 61500 – Qualitative Research Methods in Education
• STAT 51100 – Statistical Methods OR EDPS 55600 – Introduction to Quantitative Data Analysis
• EDPS 63000 – Research Procedures in Education
• Advance electives in either quantitative or qualitative methods

In addition to a submitted application (and any applicable application fees paid), the following materials are required for admission consideration, and all completed materials must be submitted by the application deadline in order for an application to be considered complete and forwarded on to faculty and the Purdue Graduate School for review.

A completed master’s degree is required prior to admission.

Application Requirements

Here are the materials required for this application

• Transcripts (from all universities attended)
• Minimum undergraduate GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale
• 3 Recommendations
• Academic Statement of Purpose
• Personal History Statement
• Writing Sample
• International Applicants must meet English Proficiency Requirements set by the Purdue Graduate School

We encourage prospective students to submit an application early, even if not all required materials are uploaded. Applications are not forwarded on for faculty review until all required materials are uploaded.

How to Apply

When submitting your application for this program, please select the following options:

• Select a Campus: Purdue West Lafayette (PWL)
• Select your proposed graduate major: Curriculum and Instruction
• Please select an Area of Interest: Mathematics Education
• Please select a Degree Objective: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
• Primary Course Delivery: Residential

This program does not lead to licensure in the state of Indiana or elsewhere. Contact the College of Education Office of Teacher Education and Licensure (OTEL) at [email protected] before continuing with program application if you have questions regarding licensure or contact your state Department of Education about how this program may translate to licensure in your state of residence.

• Ackerman Center
• Serious Games
• CnI Online Fac
• Curriculum Studies
• Education for Work and Community
• Elementary Education
• English Education
• English Language Learning
• Learning Design and Technology
• Literacy and Language Education
• Science Education
• Social Studies Education
• Applied Behavior Analysis
• Counseling and Development
• Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
• Educational Psychology and Research Methodology
• Gifted Education
• Special Education

Laura Bofferding

Amber brown, signe kastberg, rachael kenney, jill newton, questions contact the office of graduate studies at [email protected] ..

Your browser is unsupported

We recommend using the latest version of IE11, Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

College of Education

Overview: phd mathematics & science education.

The PhD in Education:  Curriculum and Instruction offers students opportunities to study in three major areas of concentration:  (a)  Curriculum Studies ; (b)  Literacy, Language, and Culture ; (c ) Mathematics and Science Education .  Students in this PhD program apply to and are admitted to one of these three concentrations.  These concentrations have some common elements but they also differ in a number of important ways.  Therefore, each of these concentrations is described separately.  You should refer to the description of the concentration to which you have been admitted.  You should also refer to later sections of this handbook that provide additional information about conducting dissertation research successfully.

The MSE PhD program spans P-20 mathematics and science education in urban settings in and out of schools. The focus is on developing new knowledge that improves science and mathematics education and has an impact on the communities we serve. Students engage in coursework and research experiences that guide them to view issues of learning, teaching, curriculum, assessment, and policy through sociocultural and sociopolitical lenses where equity, social justice, race, language, culture, and identity are essential considerations.

Program faculty members are widely recognized as leaders in their respective fields. They have published extensively on the educational experiences of African American and Latino learners, and bring to their research and teaching strong disciplinary education in STEM fields. They also have considerable records of mentoring and preparing scholars from traditionally underrepresented groups, as well as preparing and collaborating with P-20 science and mathematics teachers and faculty.

Graduates of the MSE program are well prepared to assume a variety of positions in colleges, universities, organizations, and informal educational settings to improve the mathematics and science education of children, adolescents, and adult learners through research.

Overview of Requirements (Fall 2013) Heading link Copy link

The program requires a minimum of 98 semester hours beyond the baccalaureate degree and a minimum of 66 semester hours beyond the master’s degree.  These requirements include completion of a 12-hour Doctoral Studies Core, a 12-hour methodology requirement, 12 hours of the MSE program core, and 12 hours in one of the two disciplinary strands (i.e., mathematics education or science education). Students are required to pass written and oral portions of a preliminary examination and successfully defend their dissertation research.  Requirements are as follows for students who enter the program with an earned master’s degree.

• COE Doctoral Studies Core –12 hours
• Methodology Requirement – 12 hours
• Mathematics and Science Education Program Core – 12 hours
• Proseminar in Curriculum and Instruction – 2 hours
• Mathematics  or  Science Education Specialization – 12 hours
• Teaching Apprenticeship, Research Project, or Independent Study – 4 hours
• Preliminary Examination – Written Portion
• Preparation of a Dissertation Research Proposal
• Preliminary Examination – Oral Portion
• Dissertation Research – 12 hours (minimum)
• Dissertation Defense

Students who enter with a bachelor’s but not a master’s degree must take up to 32 hours of additional course work (the equivalent of a master’s degree) in an area of specialization.

Doctoral Studies Core (12 hours) Heading link Copy link

All doctoral degrees in the College of Education require a core of courses that focuses on different types of research in educational settings, research design, and the analysis of educational data.  These core courses will help you develop the  minimum  skills needed to evaluate research literature and to begin your own independent research.  You are encouraged to take these core courses early in your program; however, you may take other courses in the program before completing this set of courses.

The requirements of the Doctoral Studies Core are:

• ED 504—Urban Contexts and Educational Research (4 hours)
• ED 505—Introduction to Educational Research: Paradigms and Processes (4 hours)
• ED 506—Introduction to Educational Research: Designs and Analyses (4 hours)

Methodology Requirement (12 hours) Heading link Copy link

In addition to the Doctoral Studies Core above, you must take a minimum of three research methodology courses as described below.  Note also that you may choose or be encouraged by your faculty advisor to take additional courses in research methodology beyond these minimums in order to meet your personal scholarly and professional goals.

The Methodology Requirement includes:

• ED 502—Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry in Education (4 hours)
• ED 503/EPSY 503—Essentials of Quantitative Inquiry in Education (4 hours)
• A third methodology course selected in consultation with your advisor (4 hours)

Math and Science Concentration Program Core (12 hours) Heading link Copy link

• CI 517 – The Sociopolitcal Context of Mathematics and Science Education (4 hours)
• CI 518 – Race, Identity, and Agency in Mathematics and Science Education (4 hours)
• CI 573 – Multimodality, Multiliteracies, & Science and Mathematics Education (4 hrs)

Proseminar in Curriculum and Instruction (CI 500, 2 hours) Heading link Copy link

CI 500 is designed to help you meet faculty members and be introduced to the wide range of research approaches used in the field of curriculum studies in general, including mathematics and science education.

Mathematics or Science Education Specialization (12 hours – Choose 3 Courses) Heading link Copy link

• CI 516 – Research on Mathematics Teachers and Teaching (4 hours)
• CI 519 — Research on the Learning of Mathematics (4 hours)
• CI 520 – The K-12 Mathematics Curriculum: Theory, Politics, and Reform (4 hrs)
• CI 566 – Research on Science Curriculum (4 hours)
• CI 567 – Research on Science Teaching and Teacher Education (4 hours)
• CI 570 – Research on Science Learning (4 hours)

Teaching Apprenticeship, Research Project, or Independent Study (CI 592, 593, or 596, 4 hours) Heading link Copy link

You should complete at least 4 hours from among the following options:

Teaching Apprenticeship (CI 592)

An apprenticeship in teaching is strongly recommended for those individuals intending to pursue a career in higher education.  The apprenticeship in teaching requires that you register for CI 592—Apprenticeship in Teacher Education and co-teach a university course under the direction of a faculty sponsor.  The course that you teach should be related to your interests and future career objectives.  A faculty member will be the instructor of record and will supervise you closely throughout the internship.  You will assume responsibility for course instruction, student interaction, and evaluation to the extent negotiated with the instructor.  In addition to this apprenticeship in teaching, you are also encouraged to seek opportunities to deliver guest lectures in other classes offered by the faculty.

Research Project (CI 593)

The research project is an important beginning experience in doing actual research in a chosen area of study.  The research project may also give you an opportunity to explore and pilot ideas for your dissertation research.  You may seek out any faculty to guide and oversee your research project.  Ideally, you would engage in all aspects of research from design through execution, analysis, and writing of results. Such work may lead to a presentation at a scholarly conference or to submission of a manuscript to a professional journal or other publication (e.g., a book chapter, journal paper, etc.).  See Section V on the possible need for IRB approval before conducting a research project. Collaborating with faculty on a larger research project may also be used to fulfill this requirement.

You should consult with your faculty advisor to determine when you are ready to embark on a research project.  You must then find a faculty member to help design and conduct the project.  This faculty member may be your program advisor or another faculty member who has particular expertise and experience to support the project.

Independent Study (CI 596)

In consultation with your advisor, and with the agreement and approval of a supervising faculty member, you may choose to register for an Independent Study (CI 596) project.   This option allows you to design, implement and analyze the results of a research problem in your area of specialization.

Annual Reviews Heading link Copy link

You are required to submit a formal progress report each year.  These reports provide you with an opportunity to reflect on whether you are meeting your goals while allowing faculty to assess whether adequate progress is being made.  Program faculty review and discuss these reports and provide written feedback to you about whether you are meeting expectations.  Recommendations for ways to enhance or sustain your progress are a likely result of this process.  If you are not making adequate progress you may be placed on probation and given directive feedback on how to proceed.

Preliminary Examination Heading link Copy link

The purpose of the preliminary examination is to determine your readiness to undertake dissertation research.  The examination has two parts: a written portion (written prelims) that focuses primarily on your program of study, and an oral portion (oral prelims) that focuses primarily on your dissertation proposal.  Passing the preliminary examination constitutes formal admission to candidacy for the PhD.

Written prelims should be taken when you have completed your coursework, or concurrently with your last course(s).  Oral prelims should be taken after you pass the written prelims  and  have completed your dissertation proposal.  Passing the oral prelims constitutes approval of your dissertation research direction.  Before beginning your dissertation research, you must also receive approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) if the research involves human subjects (see Section V).

Written Prelims Heading link Copy link

You should begin making arrangements to take the written prelims when you have finished, or you are almost finishing, your coursework.  First, you must find a faculty member to chair your written prelims committee.  Your faculty program advisor can help with this task.  Your program advisor may serve as a your committee chair, or you may identify another Mathematics and Science Education program faculty member whose interests and expertise align more closely with your program of study and dissertation research.  You should work with the committee chair to identify and recruit at least two other members to serve on your written prelims committee. Your written prelims committee may, or may not, grow into your 5-member dissertation committee that evaluates your oral prelims, which is the defense of your dissertation proposal.  Thus, as you put together your written prelims committee, know the guidelines for the composition of the oral prelims committee, which is the same as your dissertation committee.

The chair of the written prelims committee will convene the other committee members to develop questions for the exam.  Generally, these questions ask you to integrate and apply knowledge and understandings gained from your coursework, research project, and independent readings with an eye onto your dissertation research direction.  You may choose to take the exam at the university or as a take-home assignment.  Written prelims are evaluated on a pass/fail basis.  If necessary, the entire exam or some portion can be retaken once.  After you have passed this exam, the chair will submit a form indicating this accomplishment to the College of Education Office of Student Services for inclusion in your file.

Dissertation Proposal Heading link Copy link

Your coursework, research project, independent readings, and written prelims should give you a good start on planning your dissertation research.  After passing the written prelims, you must complete a proposal for your dissertation research that you will defend during your oral prelims.

Dissertation research may be developed from the many possibilities related to your area of study and from a variety of research traditions.  The process of writing a dissertation proposal is challenging, but it provides great opportunities for creative and personally rewarding work.  Students often find it helpful to draw on their studies to date and avail themselves of the advice and support of their committee chair and members, other faculty, and fellow students whenever possible. Dissertation proposals may take many forms and be of varying lengths.  The organization, content, and length of the proposal are issues that you should decide in consultation with the chair of your dissertation committee.

When you and your committee chair agree that the dissertation proposal is ready for review and approval, you will work with the chair to distribute the proposal to members of your oral prelims committee (see below under Oral Prelims section) and schedule the defense of your proposal.  The proposal should be distributed to committee members for review at least three weeks before the scheduled date.  It is strongly recommended that a draft of the IRB application is included in the proposal.  As a rule, you should not submit your application to the IRB before the oral prelims are completed because committees may make recommendations for changing research protocols during the exam (i.e., proposal defense).  See Section V for information about IRB requirements and procedures.

Oral Prelims Heading link Copy link

The oral prelims are a hearing on the dissertation proposal with the primary function to assess and approve the dissertation research proposal.

Although the oral prelims committee can be later changed if needed, it should generally be expected to serve also as your dissertation committee and formed accordingly.  The dissertation committee should consist of five members including your chair who must be a Mathematics and Science Education program faculty. At least three members, including the chair, must be UIC faculty who are full members of the Graduate College.  Tenured or tenure-track faculty are usually full members of the Graduate College; clinical and visiting faculty generally are not.  Links to a listing of full members are available on the Graduate College website:  http://grad.uic.edu/cms/?pid=1000207 .  At least two committee members must be tenured faculty in the College of Education (i.e., associate professors or professors).  Also, at least two members must be Mathematics and Science Education program faculty.  The Graduate College also requires that a member is from outside the Program (see Section IV).  You should work with your oral prelims committee chair to identify and recruit at least four other members (possibly including any who have served on your written prelims committee) to serve on your oral prelims committee.

In order to formally constitute the oral prelims committee, you must submit to the Graduate College a Committee Recommendation Form.  This form may be obtained from the Graduate College’s website:  http://grad.uic.edu/cms/?pid=1000329 .    At the same time, you should ask the College of Education Office of Student Services (3145 EPASW) for a degree checklist (see Section IV).  A list of the courses taken is available through the my.UIC portal:  https://my.uic.edu/common/  . You must return the completed degree checklist with the signed Committee Recommendation Form to the College of Education Office of Student Services.   The completed form must be signed by the committee chair and submitted to the College of Education   Office of Student Services at least three weeks before the date of the examination.   Before submitting this form, you must be sure that the faculty members identified to serve on the committee have agreed to serve.  If you want to include a committee member who is  not  on the faculty at UIC or is  not  a member of the UIC Graduate College, the Graduate College must approve that member.  This approval process is initiated when the Committee Recommendation Form is submitted to the College of Education Office of Student Services.  A copy of the potential committee member’s full current curriculum vitae must be submitted with the Committee Recommendation Form.

The oral prelims are evaluated on a pass-fail basis.  If two or more members of the oral prelims committee assign a failing grade, the student fails the exam. Students who fail are sometimes asked to do additional work on or to revise their dissertation proposal before their committee gives final approval.  Even if the committee does not fail a student, it may require that the student make particular changes in the dissertation proposal before the proposal is approved.

Passing the oral prelims signifies that committee members have given their approval for you to carry out your proposed dissertation research.  Once you have reached this point, you must submit the final version of the IRB application for approval (see Section V).  Before an application is submitted to the IRB, you must have it reviewed and signed by the committee chair and the chair of the Curriculum and Instruction Department.

Dissertation Research (CI 599, 12 hours minimum) Heading link Copy link

After passing the oral prelims and receiving approval from the IRB, you may begin your dissertation research.  You must register for a minimum of 12 hours of dissertation credit during the time you conduct and write up your study.  After registering for the minimum of 12 hours of dissertation credit, if you have passed both the written and oral prelims, you may petition the Graduate College to be permitted to register for 0 (zero) hours of dissertation credit.  If permission is granted, you may continue to register for 0 hours if you continue to make satisfactory progress and are within the time limits for completion of the degree.  Note that even if you are eligible and successfully petition the Graduate College to register for 0 hours, you still  must  register  for 0 hours each semester until you have successfully defended the dissertation (although you do not need to register for 0 credits for the summer session unless the defense will be held during the summer).

The Graduate College makes an exception to the above registration requirement if the defense will occur during the late registration period for a term; in those cases, a doctoral defense will be allowed without student registration in that term.  This is assuming that you were registered the previous term, or the previous spring term in the instance of a fall defense (which should be the case since, as stated above, continuous registration is required).  The late registration period is the official first ten days of any fall or spring semester and the first five days of the summer term.  If you defend after the 10 th  day (5 th  in summer) you must be registered.

If you hold a fellowship, assistantship and/or tuition waiver, and do not resign from it, then registration is mandatory for the number of hours required to hold the award or assistantship.  If you hold a student visa, you probably do not have to register if you leave the country by the 10 th  day (5 th  in summer), although this should be verified with Office of International Services.

This (late period registration defense) exception does not affect the registration requirement to take the Preliminary Examination, or the general requirement of continuous registration from Preliminary Examination to defense.  Failure to register continuously may result in being administratively dropped from the program.  You should refer to Section IV for important additional information about constituting a dissertation committee and conducting dissertation research.

Dissertation Defense Heading link Copy link

When nearing the end of dissertation research, you should begin to plan your dissertation defense with your dissertation committee chair.  See Section IV for specific information about organizing and scheduling a dissertation defense and filing all the paperwork required before the defense can be conducted.

According to Graduate College regulations, at least one year must pass between completing the oral prelims and the dissertation defense.  If you fail to complete all program requirements, including the dissertation defense, within five years of passing the oral prelims, you must retake them.

Search NYU Steinhardt

Mathematics Education

Phd in teaching and learning concentration.

Prepare to conduct mathematics education research at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary level.   You will work closely with faculty on all aspects of the research process, including designing a research proposal, honing your methodology, implementing a research agenda, and disseminating findings.

What You'll Learn

• Strategies for designing and analyzing research studies in mathematics education
• Qualitative and quantitative research methods 
• Current issues in mathematics pedagogy, teacher education, curriculum, and integration of educational technology 

How You'll Learn

Pedagogy and content courses.

As a student in this doctoral program, you will take a series of courses focused on issues of teaching and learning and complete mathematics courses appropriate to the level of interest (elementary, secondary, post-secondary) in your research. If you're interested in doing work at the secondary or above level, you will take mathematics courses in the mathematics department.

Research Methods Courses

Take courses designed to prepare you for all aspects of the research process. You will gain mastery of a wide range of qualitative and quantitative research methods in mathematics education, then work closely with faculty members to develop your own research interests and a research proposal. 

Exceptional Faculty Resources

Mathematics Education faculty work closely with College of Arts and Sciences faculty in NYU's  Courant Institute for Mathematical Sciences . These collaborations provide you with opportunities to draw on content knowledge and pedagogical expertise from a diverse range of sources.

You'll graduate prepared to work as a researcher or teacher educator in mathematics education in colleges and universities. You'll also have the skills needed to excel as a mathematics education specialist or consultant in government organizations and multinational corporations.

Jasmine Y. Ma

Associate professor.

Advertisement

Future themes of mathematics education research: an international survey before and during the pandemic

• Open access
• Published: 06 April 2021
• Volume 107 , pages 1–24, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Arthur Bakker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9604-3448 1 ,
• Jinfa Cai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0501-3826 2 &
• Linda Zenger 1  

32k Accesses

98 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Before the pandemic (2019), we asked: On what themes should research in mathematics education focus in the coming decade? The 229 responses from 44 countries led to eight themes plus considerations about mathematics education research itself. The themes can be summarized as teaching approaches, goals, relations to practices outside mathematics education, teacher professional development, technology, affect, equity, and assessment. During the pandemic (November 2020), we asked respondents: Has the pandemic changed your view on the themes of mathematics education research for the coming decade? If so, how? Many of the 108 respondents saw the importance of their original themes reinforced (45), specified their initial responses (43), and/or added themes (35) (these categories were not mutually exclusive). Overall, they seemed to agree that the pandemic functions as a magnifying glass on issues that were already known, and several respondents pointed to the need to think ahead on how to organize education when it does not need to be online anymore. We end with a list of research challenges that are informed by the themes and respondents’ reflections on mathematics education research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning from Research, Advancing the Field

The Narcissism of Mathematics Education

Educational Research on Learning and Teaching Mathematics

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 An international survey in two rounds

Around the time when Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM) and the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) were celebrating their 50th anniversaries, Arthur Bakker (editor of ESM) and Jinfa Cai (editor of JRME) saw a need to raise the following future-oriented question for the field of mathematics education research:

Q2019: On what themes should research in mathematics education focus in the coming decade?

To that end, we administered a survey with just this one question between June 17 and October 16, 2019.

When we were almost ready with the analysis, the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, and we were not able to present the results at the conferences we had planned to attend (NCTM and ICME in 2020). Moreover, with the world shaken up by the crisis, we wondered if colleagues in our field might think differently about the themes formulated for the future due to the pandemic. Hence, on November 26, 2020, we asked a follow-up question to those respondents who in 2019 had given us permission to approach them for elaboration by email:

Q2020: Has the pandemic changed your view on the themes of mathematics education research for the coming decade? If so, how?

In this paper, we summarize the responses to these two questions. Similar to Sfard’s ( 2005 ) approach, we start by synthesizing the voices of the respondents before formulating our own views. Some colleagues put forward the idea of formulating a list of key themes or questions, similar to the 23 unsolved mathematical problems that David Hilbert published around 1900 (cf. Schoenfeld, 1999 ). However, mathematics and mathematics education are very different disciplines, and very few people share Hilbert’s formalist view on mathematics; hence, we do not want to suggest that we could capture the key themes of mathematics education in a similar way. Rather, our overview of themes drawn from the survey responses is intended to summarize what is valued in our global community at the time of the surveys. Reasoning from these themes, we end with a list of research challenges that we see worth addressing in the future (cf. Stephan et al., 2015 ).

2 Methodological approach

2.1 themes for the coming decade (2019).

We administered the 1-question survey through email lists that we were aware of (e.g., Becker, ICME, PME) and asked mathematics education researchers to spread it in their national networks. By October 16, 2019, we had received 229 responses from 44 countries across 6 continents (Table 1 ). Although we were happy with the larger response than Sfard ( 2005 ) received (74, with 28 from Europe), we do not know how well we have reached particular regions, and if potential respondents might have faced language or other barriers. We did offer a few Chinese respondents the option to write in Chinese because the second author offered to translate their emails into English. We also received responses in Spanish, which were translated for us.

Ethical approval was given by the Ethical Review Board of the Faculties of Science and Geo-science of Utrecht University (Bèta L-19247). We asked respondents to indicate if they were willing to be quoted by name and if we were allowed to approach them for subsequent information. If they preferred to be named, we mention their name and country; otherwise, we write “anonymous.” In our selection of quotes, we have focused on content, not on where the response came from. On March 2, 2021, we approached all respondents who were quoted to double-check if they agreed to be quoted and named. One colleague preferred the quote and name to be deleted; three suggested small changes in wording; the others approved.

On September 20, 2019, the three authors met physically at Utrecht University to analyze the responses. After each individual proposal, we settled on a joint list of seven main themes (the first seven in Table 2 ), which were neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. The third author (Zenger, then still a student in educational science) next color coded all parts of responses belonging to a category. These formed the basis for the frequencies and percentages presented in the tables and text. The first author (Bakker) then read all responses categorized by a particular code to identify and synthesize the main topics addressed within each code. The second author (Cai) read all of the survey responses and the response categories, and commented. After the initial round of analysis, we realized it was useful to add an eighth theme: assessment (including evaluation).

Moreover, given that a large number of respondents made comments about mathematics education research itself, we decided to summarize these separately. For analyzing this category of research, we used the following four labels to distinguish types of comments on our discipline of mathematics education research: theory, methodology, self-reflection (including ethical considerations), interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. We then summarized the responses per type of comment.

It has been a daunting and humbling experience to study the huge coverage and diversity of topics that our colleagues care about. Any categorization felt like a reduction of the wealth of ideas, and we are aware of the risks of “sorting things out” (Bowker & Star, 2000 ), which come with foregrounding particular challenges rather than others (Stephan et al., 2015 ). Yet the best way to summarize the bigger picture seemed by means of clustering themes and pointing to their relationships. As we identified these eight themes of mathematics education research for the future, a recurring question during the analysis was how to represent them. A list such as Table 2 does not do justice to the interrelations between the themes. Some relationships are very clear, for example, educational approaches (theme 2) working toward educational or societal goals (theme 1). Some themes are pervasive; for example, equity and (positive) affect are both things that educators want to achieve but also phenomena that are at stake during every single moment of learning and teaching. Diagrams we considered to represent such interrelationships were either too specific (limiting the many relevant options, e.g., a star with eight vertices that only link pairs of themes) or not specific enough (e.g., a Venn diagram with eight leaves such as the iPhone symbol for photos). In the end, we decided to use an image and collaborated with Elisabeth Angerer (student assistant in an educational sciences program), who eventually made the drawing in Fig. 1 to capture themes in their relationships.

Artistic impression of the future themes

2.2 Has the pandemic changed your view? (2020)

On November 26, 2020, we sent an email to the colleagues who responded to the initial question and who gave permission to be approached by email. We cited their initial response and asked: “Has the pandemic changed your view on the themes of mathematics education research for the coming decade? If so, how?” We received 108 responses by January 12, 2021. The countries from which the responses came included China, Italy, and other places that were hit early by the COVID-19 virus. The length of responses varied from a single word response (“no”) to elaborate texts of up to 2215 words. Some people attached relevant publications. The median length of the responses was 87 words, with a mean length of 148 words and SD = 242. Zenger and Bakker classified them as “no changes” (9 responses) or “clearly different views” (8); the rest of the responses saw the importance of their initial themes reinforced (45), specified their initial responses (43), or added new questions or themes (35). These last categories were not mutually exclusive, because respondents could first state that they thought the initial themes were even more relevant than before and provide additional, more specified themes. We then used the same themes that had been identified in the first round and identified what was stressed or added in the 2020 responses.

3 The themes

The most frequently mentioned theme was what we labeled approaches to teaching (64% of the respondents, see Table 2 ). Next was the theme of goals of mathematics education on which research should shed more light in the coming decade (54%). These goals ranged from specific educational goals to very broad societal ones. Many colleagues referred to mathematics education’s relationships with other practices (communities, institutions…) such as home, continuing education, and work. Teacher professional development is a key area for research in which the other themes return (what should students learn, how, how to assess that, how to use technology and ensure that students are interested?). Technology constitutes its own theme but also plays a key role in many other themes, just like affect. Another theme permeating other ones is what can be summarized as equity, diversity, and inclusion (also social justice, anti-racism, democratic values, and several other values were mentioned). These values are not just societal and educational goals but also drivers for redesigning teaching approaches, using technology, working on more just assessment, and helping learners gain access, become confident, develop interest, or even love for mathematics. To evaluate if approaches are successful and if goals have been achieved, assessment (including evaluation) is also mentioned as a key topic of research.

In the 2020 responses, many wise and general remarks were made. The general gist is that the pandemic (like earlier crises such as the economic crisis around 2008–2010) functioned as a magnifying glass on themes that were already considered important. Due to the pandemic, however, systemic societal and educational problems were said to have become better visible to a wider community, and urge us to think about the potential of a “new normal.”

3.1 Approaches to teaching

We distinguish specific teaching strategies from broader curricular topics.

3.1.1 Teaching strategies

There is a widely recognized need to further design and evaluate various teaching approaches. Among the teaching strategies and types of learning to be promoted that were mentioned in the survey responses are collaborative learning, critical mathematics education, dialogic teaching, modeling, personalized learning, problem-based learning, cross-curricular themes addressing the bigger themes in the world, embodied design, visualization, and interleaved learning. Note, however, that students can also enhance their mathematical knowledge independently from teachers or parents through web tutorials and YouTube videos.

Many respondents emphasized that teaching approaches should do more than promote cognitive development. How can teaching be entertaining or engaging? How can it contribute to the broader educational goals of developing students’ identity, contribute to their empowerment, and help them see the value of mathematics in their everyday life and work? We return to affect in Section 3.7 .

In the 2020 responses, we saw more emphasis on approaches that address modeling, critical thinking, and mathematical or statistical literacy. Moreover, respondents stressed the importance of promoting interaction, collaboration, and higher order thinking, which are generally considered to be more challenging in distance education. One approach worth highlighting is challenge-based education (cf. Johnson et al. 2009 ), because it takes big societal challenges as mentioned in the previous section as its motivation and orientation.

3.1.2 Curriculum

Approaches by which mathematics education can contribute to the aforementioned goals can be distinguished at various levels. Several respondents mentioned challenges around developing a coherent mathematics curriculum, smoothing transitions to higher school levels, and balancing topics, and also the typical overload of topics, the influence of assessment on what is taught, and what teachers can teach. For example, it was mentioned that mathematics teachers are often not prepared to teach statistics. There seems to be little research that helps curriculum authors tackle some of these hard questions as well as how to monitor reform (cf. Shimizu & Vithal, 2019 ). Textbook analysis is mentioned as a necessary research endeavor. But even if curricula within one educational system are reasonably coherent, how can continuity between educational systems be ensured (cf. Jansen et al., 2012 )?

In the 2020 responses, some respondents called for free high-quality curriculum resources. In several countries where Internet access is a problem in rural areas, a shift can be observed from online resources to other types of media such as radio and TV.

3.2 Goals of mathematics education

The theme of approaches is closely linked to that of the theme of goals. For example, as Fulvia Furinghetti (Italy) wrote: “It is widely recognized that critical thinking is a fundamental goal in math teaching. Nevertheless it is still not clear how it is pursued in practice.” We distinguish broad societal and more specific educational goals. These are often related, as Jane Watson (Australia) wrote: “If Education is to solve the social, cultural, economic, and environmental problems of today’s data-driven world, attention must be given to preparing students to interpret the data that are presented to them in these fields.”

3.2.1 Societal goals

Respondents alluded to the need for students to learn to function in the economy and in society more broadly. Apart from instrumental goals of mathematics education, some emphasized goals related to developing as a human being, for instance learning to see the mathematics in the world and develop a relation with the world. Mathematics education in these views should empower students to combat anti-expertise and post-fact tendencies. Several respondents mentioned even larger societal goals such as avoiding extinction as a human species and toxic nationalism, resolving climate change, and building a sustainable future.

In the second round of responses (2020), we saw much more emphasis on these bigger societal issues. The urgency to orient mathematics education (and its research) toward resolving these seemed to be felt more than before. In short, it was stressed that our planet needs to be saved. The big question is what role mathematics education can play in meeting these challenges.

3.2.2 Educational goals

Several respondents expressed a concern that the current goals of mathematics education do not reflect humanity’s and societies’ needs and interests well. Educational goals to be stressed more were mathematical literacy, numeracy, critical, and creative thinking—often with reference to the changing world and the planet being at risk. In particular, the impact of technology was frequently stressed, as this may have an impact on what people need to learn (cf. Gravemeijer et al., 2017 ). If computers can do particular things much better than people, what is it that students need to learn?

Among the most frequently mentioned educational goals for mathematics education were statistical literacy, computational and algorithmic thinking, artificial intelligence, modeling, and data science. More generally, respondents expressed that mathematics education should help learners deploy evidence, reasoning, argumentation, and proof. For example, Michelle Stephan (USA) asked:

What mathematics content should be taught today to prepare students for jobs of the future, especially given growth of the digital world and its impact on a global economy? All of the mathematics content in K-12 can be accomplished by computers, so what mathematical procedures become less important and what domains need to be explored more fully (e.g., statistics and big data, spatial geometry, functional reasoning, etc.)?

One challenge for research is that there is no clear methodology to arrive at relevant and feasible learning goals. Yet there is a need to choose and formulate such goals on the basis of research (cf. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2005 ).

Several of the 2020 responses mentioned the sometimes problematic way in which numbers, data, and graphs are used in the public sphere (e.g., Ernest, 2020 ; Kwon et al., 2021 ; Yoon et al., 2021 ). Many respondents saw their emphasis on relevant educational goals reinforced, for example, statistical and data literacy, modeling, critical thinking, and public communication. A few pandemic-specific topics were mentioned, such as exponential growth.

3.3 Relation of mathematics education to other practices

Many responses can be characterized as highlighting boundary crossing (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011 ) with disciplines or communities outside mathematics education, such as in science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics education (STEM or STEAM); parents or families; the workplace; and leisure (e.g., drama, music, sports). An interesting example was the educational potential of mathematical memes—“humorous digital objects created by web users copying an existing image and overlaying a personal caption” (Bini et al., 2020 , p. 2). These boundary crossing-related responses thus emphasize the movements and connections between mathematics education and other practices.

In the 2020 responses, we saw that during the pandemic, the relationship between school and home has become much more important, because most students were (and perhaps still are) learning at home. Earlier research on parental involvement and homework (Civil & Bernier, 2006 ; de Abreu et al., 2006 ; Jackson, 2011 ) proves relevant in the current situation where many countries are still or again in lockdown. Respondents pointed to the need to monitor students and their work and to promote self-regulation. They also put more stress on the political, economic, and financial contexts in which mathematics education functions (or malfunctions, in many respondents’ views).

3.4 Teacher professional development

Respondents explicitly mentioned teacher professional development as an important domain of mathematics education research (including teacher educators’ development). For example, Loide Kapenda (Namibia) wrote, “I am supporting UNESCO whose idea is to focus on how we prepare teachers for the future we want.” (e.g., UNESCO, 2015 ) And, Francisco Rojas (Chile) wrote:

Although the field of mathematics education is broad and each time faced with new challenges (socio-political demands, new intercultural contexts, digital environments, etc.), all of them will be handled at school by the mathematics teacher, both in primary as well as in secondary education. Therefore, from my point of view, pre-service teacher education is one of the most relevant fields of research for the next decade, especially in developing countries.

It is evident from the responses that teaching mathematics is done by a large variety of people, not only by people who are trained as primary school teachers, secondary school mathematics teachers, or mathematicians but also parents, out-of-field teachers, and scientists whose primary discipline is not mathematics but who do use mathematics or statistics. How teachers of mathematics are trained varies accordingly. Respondents frequently pointed to the importance of subject-matter knowledge and particularly noted that many teachers seem ill-prepared to teach statistics (e.g., Lonneke Boels, the Netherlands).

Key questions were raised by several colleagues: “How to train mathematics teachers with a solid foundation in mathematics, positive attitudes towards mathematics teaching and learning, and wide knowledge base linking to STEM?” (anonymous); “What professional development, particularly at the post-secondary level, motivates changes in teaching practices in order to provide students the opportunities to engage with mathematics and be successful?” (Laura Watkins, USA); “How can mathematics educators equip students for sustainable, equitable citizenship? And how can mathematics education equip teachers to support students in this?” (David Wagner, Canada)

In the 2020 responses, it was clear that teachers are incredibly important, especially in the pandemic era. The sudden change to online teaching means that

higher requirements are put forward for teachers’ educational and teaching ability, especially the ability to carry out education and teaching by using information technology should be strengthened. Secondly, teachers’ ability to communicate and cooperate has been injected with new connotation. (Guangming Wang, China)

It is broadly assumed that education will stay partly online, though more so in higher levels of education than in primary education. This has implications for teachers, for instance, they will have to think through how they intend to coordinate teaching on location and online. Hence, one important focus for professional development is the use of technology.

3.5 Technology

Technology deserves to be called a theme in itself, but we want to emphasize that it ran through most of the other themes. First of all, some respondents argued that, due to technological advances in society, the societal and educational goals of mathematics education need to be changed (e.g., computational thinking to ensure employability in a technological society). Second, responses indicated that the changed goals have implications for the approaches in mathematics education. Consider the required curriculum reform and the digital tools to be used in it. Students do not only need to learn to use technology; the technology can also be used to learn mathematics (e.g., visualization, embodied design, statistical thinking). New technologies such as 3D printing, photo math, and augmented and virtual reality offer new opportunities for learning. Society has changed very fast in this respect. Third, technology is suggested to assist in establishing connections with other practices , such as between school and home, or vocational education and work, even though there is a great disparity in how successful these connections are.

In the 2020 responses, there was great concern about the current digital divide (cf. Hodgen et al., 2020 ). The COVID-19 pandemic has thus given cause for mathematics education research to understand better how connections across educational and other practices can be improved with the help of technology. Given the unequal distribution of help by parents or guardians, it becomes all the more important to think through how teachers can use videos and quizzes, how they can monitor their students, how they can assess them (while respecting privacy), and how one can compensate for the lack of social, gestural, and embodied interaction that is possible when being together physically.

Where mobile technology was considered very innovative before 2010, smartphones have become central devices in mathematics education in the pandemic with its reliance on distance learning. Our direct experience showed that phone applications such as WhatsApp and WeChat have become key tools in teaching and learning mathematics in many rural areas in various continents where few people have computers (for a report on podcasts distributed through WhatsApp, community loudspeakers, and local radio stations in Colombia, see Saenz et al., 2020 ).

3.6 Equity, diversity, and inclusion

Another cross-cutting theme can be labeled “equity, diversity, and inclusion.” We use this triplet to cover any topic that highlights these and related human values such as equality, social and racial justice, social emancipation, and democracy that were also mentioned by respondents (cf. Dobie & Sherin, 2021 ). In terms of educational goals , many respondents stressed that mathematics education should be for all students, including those who have special needs, who live in poverty, who are learning the instruction language, who have a migration background, who consider themselves LGBTQ+, have a traumatic or violent history, or are in whatever way marginalized. There is broad consensus that everyone should have access to high-quality mathematics education. However, as Niral Shah (USA) notes, less attention has been paid to “how phenomena related to social markers (e.g., race, class, gender) interact with phenomena related to the teaching and learning of mathematical content.”

In terms of teaching approaches , mathematics education is characterized by some respondents from particular countries as predominantly a white space where some groups feel or are excluded (cf. Battey, 2013 ). There is a general concern that current practices of teaching mathematics may perpetuate inequality, in particular in the current pandemic. In terms of assessment , mathematics is too often used or experienced as a gatekeeper rather than as a powerful resource (cf. Martin et al., 2010 ). Steve Lerman (UK) “indicates that understanding how educational opportunities are distributed inequitably, and in particular how that manifests in each end every classroom, is a prerequisite to making changes that can make some impact on redistribution.” A key research aim therefore is to understand what excludes students from learning mathematics and what would make mathematics education more inclusive (cf. Roos, 2019 ). And, what does professional development of teachers that promotes equity look like?

In 2020, many respondents saw their emphasis on equity and related values reinforced in the current pandemic with its risks of a digital divide, unequal access to high-quality mathematics education, and unfair distribution of resources. A related future research theme is how the so-called widening achievement gaps can be remedied (cf. Bawa, 2020 ). However, warnings were also formulated that thinking in such deficit terms can perpetuate inequality (cf. Svensson et al., 2014 ). A question raised by Dor Abrahamson (USA) is, “What roles could digital technology play, and in what forms, in restoring justice and celebrating diversity?”

Though entangled with many other themes, affect is also worth highlighting as a theme in itself. We use the term affect in a very broad sense to point to psychological-social phenomena such as emotion, love, belief, attitudes, interest, curiosity, fun, engagement, joy, involvement, motivation, self-esteem, identity, anxiety, alienation, and feeling of safety (cf. Cobb et al., 2009 ; Darragh, 2016 ; Hannula, 2019 ; Schukajlow et al., 2017 ). Many respondents emphasized the importance of studying these constructs in relation to (and not separate from) what is characterized as cognition. Some respondents pointed out that affect is not just an individual but also a social phenomenon, just like learning (cf. Chronaki, 2019 ; de Freitas et al., 2019 ; Schindler & Bakker, 2020 ).

Among the educational goals of mathematics education, several participants mentioned the need to generate and foster interest in mathematics. In terms of approaches , much emphasis was put on the need to avoid anxiety and alienation and to engage students in mathematical activity.

In the 2020 responses, more emphasis was put on the concern about alienation, which seems to be of special concern when students are socially distanced from peers and teachers as to when teaching takes place only through technology . What was reiterated in the 2020 responses was the importance of students’ sense of belonging in a mathematics classroom (cf. Horn, 2017 )—a topic closely related to the theme of equity, diversity, and inclusion discussed before.

3.8 Assessment

Assessment and evaluation were not often mentioned explicitly, but they do not seem less important than the other related themes. A key challenge is to assess what we value rather than valuing what we assess. In previous research, the assessment of individual students has received much attention, but what seems to be neglected is the evaluation of curricula. As Chongyang Wang (China) wrote, “How to evaluate the curriculum reforms. When we pay much energy in reforming our education and curriculum, do we imagine how to ensure it will work and there will be pieces of evidence found after the new curricula are carried out? How to prove the reforms work and matter?” (cf. Shimizu & Vithal, 2019 )

In the 2020 responses, there was an emphasis on assessment at a distance. Distance education generally is faced with the challenge of evaluating student work, both formatively and summatively. We predict that so-called e-assessment, along with its privacy challenges, will generate much research interest in the near future (cf. Bickerton & Sangwin, 2020 ).

4 Mathematics education research itself

Although we only asked for future themes, many respondents made interesting comments about research in mathematics education and its connections with other disciplines and practices (such as educational practice, policy, home settings). We have grouped these considerations under the subheadings of theory, methodology, reflection on our discipline, and interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. As with the previous categorization into themes, we stress that these four types are not mutually exclusive as theoretical and methodological considerations can be intricately intertwined (Radford, 2008 ).

Several respondents expressed their concern about the fragmentation and diversity of theories used in mathematics education research (cf. Bikner-Ahsbahs & Prediger, 2014 ). The question was raised how mathematics educators can “work together to obtain valid, reliable, replicable, and useful findings in our field” and “How, as a discipline, can we encourage sustained research on core questions using commensurable perspectives and methods?” (Keith Weber, USA). One wish was “comparing theoretical perspectives for explanatory power” (K. Subramaniam, India). At the same time, it was stressed that “we cannot continue to pretend that there is just one culture in the field of mathematics education, that all the theoretical framework may be applied in whichever culture and that results are universal” (Mariolina Bartolini Bussi, Italy). In addition, the wish was expressed to deepen theoretical notions such as numeracy, equity, and justice as they play out in mathematics education.

4.2 Methodology

Many methodological approaches were mentioned as potentially useful in mathematics education research: randomized studies, experimental studies, replication, case studies, and so forth. Particular attention was paid to “complementary methodologies that bridge the ‘gap’ between mathematics education research and research on mathematical cognition” (Christian Bokhove, UK), as, for example, done in Gilmore et al. ( 2018 ). Also, approaches were mentioned that intend to bridge the so-called gap between educational practice and research, such as lesson study and design research. For example, Kay Owens (Australia) pointed to the challenge of studying cultural context and identity: “Such research requires a multi-faceted research methodology that may need to be further teased out from our current qualitative (e.g., ethnographic) and quantitative approaches (‘paper and pencil’ (including computing) testing). Design research may provide further possibilities.”

Francisco Rojas (Chile) highlighted the need for more longitudinal and cross-sectional research, in particular in the context of teacher professional development:

It is not enough to investigate what happens in pre-service teacher education but understand what effects this training has in the first years of the professional career of the new teachers of mathematics, both in primary and secondary education. Therefore, increasingly more longitudinal and cross-sectional studies will be required to understand the complexity of the practice of mathematics teachers, how the professional knowledge that articulates the practice evolves, and what effects have the practice of teachers on the students’ learning of mathematics.

4.3 Reflection on our discipline

Calls were made for critical reflection on our discipline. One anonymous appeal was for more self-criticism and scientific modesty: Is research delivering, or is it drawing away good teachers from teaching? Do we do research primarily to help improve mathematics education or to better understand phenomena? (cf. Proulx & Maheux, 2019 ) The general gist of the responses was a sincere wish to be of value to the world and mathematics education more specifically and not only do “research for the sake of research” (Zahra Gooya, Iran). David Bowers (USA) expressed several reflection-inviting views about the nature of our discipline, for example:

We must normalize (and expect) the full taking up the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of all of our work (even work that is not considered “philosophical”). Not doing so leads to uncritical analysis and implications.

We must develop norms wherein it is considered embarrassing to do “uncritical” research.

There is no such thing as “neutral.” Amongst other things, this means that we should be cultivating norms that recognize the inherent political nature of all work, and norms that acknowledge how superficially “neutral” work tends to empower the oppressor.

We must recognize the existence of but not cater to the fragility of privilege.

In terms of what is studied, some respondents felt that the mathematics education research “literature has been moving away from the original goals of mathematics education. We seem to have been investigating everything but the actual learning of important mathematics topics.” (Lyn English, Australia) In terms of the nature of our discipline, Taro Fujita (UK) argued that our discipline can be characterized as a design science, with designing mathematical learning environments as the core of research activities (cf. Wittmann, 1995 ).

A tension that we observe in different views is the following: On the one hand, mathematics education research has its origin in helping teachers teach particular content better. The need for such so-called didactical, topic-specific research is not less important today but perhaps less fashionable for funding schemes that promote innovative, ground-breaking research. On the other hand, over time it has become clear that mathematics education is a multi-faceted socio-cultural and political endeavor under the influence of many local and global powers. It is therefore not surprising that the field of mathematics education research has expanded so as to include an increasingly wide scope of themes that are at stake, such as the marginalization of particular groups. We therefore highlight Niral Shah’s (USA) response that “historically, these domains of research [content-specific vs socio-political] have been decoupled. The field would get closer to understanding the experiences of minoritized students if we could connect these lines of inquiry.”

Another interesting reflective theme was raised by Nouzha El Yacoubi (Morocco): To what extent can we transpose “research questions from developed to developing countries”? As members of the plenary panel at PME 2019 (e.g., Kazima, 2019 ; Kim, 2019 ; Li, 2019 ) conveyed well, adopting interventions that were successful in one place in another place is far from trivial (cf. Gorard, 2020 ).

Juan L. Piñeiro (Spain in 2019, Chile in 2020) highlighted that “mathematical concepts and processes have different natures. Therefore, can it be characterized using the same theoretical and methodological tools?” More generally, one may ask if our theories and methodologies—often borrowed from other disciplines—are well suited to the ontology of our own discipline. A discussion started by Niss ( 2019 ) on the nature of our discipline, responded to by Bakker ( 2019 ) and Cai and Hwang ( 2019 ), seems worth continuing.

An important question raised in several comments is how close research should be to existing curricula. One respondent (Benjamin Rott, Germany) noted that research on problem posing often does “not fit into school curricula.” This makes the application of research ideas and findings problematic. However, one could argue that research need not always be tied to existing (local) educational contexts. It can also be inspirational, seeking principles of what is possible (and how) with a longer-term view on how curricula may change in the future. One option is, as Simon Zell (Germany) suggests, to test designs that cover a longer timeframe than typically done. Another way to bridge these two extremes is “collaboration between teachers and researchers in designing and publishing research” (K. Subramaniam, India) as is promoted by facilitating teachers to do PhD research (Bakx et al., 2016 ).

One of the responding teacher-researchers (Lonneke Boels, the Netherlands) expressed the wish that research would become available “in a more accessible form.” This wish raises the more general questions of whose responsibility it is to do such translation work and how to communicate with non-researchers. Do we need a particular type of communication research within mathematics education to learn how to convey particular key ideas or solid findings? (cf. Bosch et al., 2017 )

4.4 Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity

Many respondents mentioned disciplines which mathematics education research can learn from or should collaborate with (cf. Suazo-Flores et al., 2021 ). Examples are history, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, psychometry, pedagogy, educational science, value education (social, emotional), race theory, urban education, neuroscience/brain research, cognitive science, and computer science didactics. “A big challenge here is how to make diverse experts approach and talk to one another in a productive way.” (David Gómez, Chile)

One of the most frequently mentioned disciplines in relation to our field is history. It is a common complaint in, for instance, the history of medicine that historians accuse medical experts of not knowing historical research and that medical experts accuse historians of not understanding the medical discipline well enough (Beckers & Beckers, 2019 ). This tension raises the question who does and should do research into the history of mathematics or of mathematics education and to what broader purpose.

Some responses go beyond interdisciplinarity, because resolving the bigger issues such as climate change and a more equitable society require collaboration with non-researchers (transdisciplinarity). A typical example is the involvement of educational practice and policy when improving mathematics education (e.g., Potari et al., 2019 ).

Let us end this section with a word of hope, from an anonymous respondent: “I still believe (or hope?) that the pandemic, with this making-inequities-explicit, would help mathematics educators to look at persistent and systemic inequalities more consistently in the coming years.” Having learned so much in the past year could indeed provide an opportunity to establish a more equitable “new normal,” rather than a reversion to the old normal, which one reviewer worried about.

5 The themes in their coherence: an artistic impression

As described above, we identified eight themes of mathematics education research for the future, which we discussed one by one. The disadvantage of this list-wise discussion is that the entanglement of the themes is backgrounded. To compensate for that drawback, we here render a brief interpretation of the drawing of Fig. 1 . While doing so, we invite readers to use their own creative imagination and perhaps use the drawing for other purposes (e.g., ask researchers, students, or teachers: Where would you like to be in this landscape? What mathematical ideas do you spot?). The drawing mainly focuses on the themes that emerged from the first round of responses but also hints at experiences from the time of the pandemic, for instance distance education. In Appendix 1 , we specify more of the details in the drawing and we provide a link to an annotated image (available at https://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/toepassingen/28937/ ).

The boat on the river aims to represent teaching approaches. The hand drawing of the boat hints at the importance of educational design: A particular approach is being worked out. On the boat, a teacher and students work together toward educational and societal goals, further down the river. The graduation bridge is an intermediate educational goal to pass, after which there are many paths leading to other goals such as higher education, citizenship, and work in society. Relations to practices outside mathematics education are also shown. In the left bottom corner, the house and parents working and playing with children represent the link of education with the home situation and leisure activity.

The teacher, represented by the captain in the foreground of the ship, is engaged in professional development, consulting a book, but also learning by doing (cf. Bakkenes et al., 2010 , on experimenting, using resources, etc.). Apart from graduation, there are other types of goals for teachers and students alike, such as equity, positive affect, and fluent use of technology. During their journey (and partially at home, shown in the left bottom corner), students learn to orient themselves in the world mathematically (e.g., fractal tree, elliptical lake, a parabolic mountain, and various platonic solids). On their way toward various goals, both teacher and students use particular technology (e.g., compass, binoculars, tablet, laptop). The magnifying glass (representing research) zooms in on a laptop screen that portrays distance education, hinting at the consensus that the pandemic magnifies some issues that education was already facing (e.g., the digital divide).

Equity, diversity, and inclusion are represented with the rainbow, overarching everything. On the boat, students are treated equally and the sailing practice is inclusive in the sense that all perform at their own level—getting the support they need while contributing meaningfully to the shared activity. This is at least what we read into the image. Affect is visible in various ways. First of all, the weather represents moods in general (rainy and dark side on the left; sunny bright side on the right). Second, the individual students (e.g., in the crow’s nest) are interested in, anxious about, and attentive to the things coming up during their journey. They are motivated to engage in all kinds of tasks (handling the sails, playing a game of chance with a die, standing guard in the crow’s nest, etc.). On the bridge, the graduates’ pride and happiness hints at positive affect as an educational goal but also represents the exam part of the assessment. The assessment also happens in terms of checks and feedback on the boat. The two people next to the house (one with a camera, one measuring) can be seen as assessors or researchers observing and evaluating the progress on the ship or the ship’s progress.

More generally, the three types of boats in the drawing represent three different spaces, which Hannah Arendt ( 1958 ) would characterize as private (paper-folded boat near the boy and a small toy boat next to the girl with her father at home), public/political (ships at the horizon), and the in-between space of education (the boat with the teacher and students). The students and teacher on the boat illustrate school as a special pedagogic form. Masschelein and Simons ( 2019 ) argue that the ancient Greek idea behind school (σχολή, scholè , free time) is that students should all be treated as equal and should all get equal opportunities. At school, their descent does not matter. At school, there is time to study, to make mistakes, without having to work for a living. At school, they learn to collaborate with others from diverse backgrounds, in preparation for future life in the public space. One challenge of the lockdown situation as a consequence of the pandemic is how to organize this in-between space in a way that upholds its special pedagogic form.

6 Research challenges

Based on the eight themes and considerations about mathematics education research itself, we formulate a set of research challenges that strike us as deserving further discussion (cf. Stephan et al., 2015 ). We do not intend to suggest these are more important than others or that some other themes are less worthy of investigation, nor do we suggest that they entail a research agenda (cf. English, 2008 ).

6.1 Aligning new goals, curricula, and teaching approaches

There seems to be relatively little attention within mathematics education research for curricular issues, including topics such as learning goals, curriculum standards, syllabi, learning progressions, textbook analysis, curricular coherence, and alignment with other curricula. Yet we feel that we as mathematics education researchers should care about these topics as they may not necessarily be covered by other disciplines. For example, judging from Deng’s ( 2018 ) complaint about the trends in the discipline of curriculum studies, we cannot assume scholars in that field to address issues specific to the mathematics-focused curriculum (e.g., the Journal of Curriculum Studies and Curriculum Inquiry have published only a limited number of studies on mathematics curricula).

Learning goals form an important element of curricula or standards. It is relatively easy to formulate important goals in general terms (e.g., critical thinking or problem solving). As a specific example, consider mathematical problem posing (Cai & Leikin, 2020 ), which curriculum standards have specifically pointed out as an important educational goal—developing students’ problem-posing skills. Students should be provided opportunities to formulate their own problems based on situations. However, there are few problem-posing activities in current mathematics textbooks and classroom instruction (Cai & Jiang, 2017 ). A similar observation can be made about problem solving in Dutch primary textbooks (Kolovou et al., 2009 ). Hence, there is a need for researchers and educators to align problem posing in curriculum standards, textbooks, classroom instruction, and students’ learning.

The challenge we see for mathematics education researchers is to collaborate with scholars from other disciplines (interdisciplinarity) and with non-researchers (transdisciplinarity) in figuring out how the desired societal and educational goals can be shaped in mathematics education. Our discipline has developed several methodological approaches that may help in formulating learning goals and accompanying teaching approaches (cf. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2005 ), including epistemological analyses (Sierpinska, 1990 ), historical and didactical phenomenology (Bakker & Gravemeijer, 2006 ; Freudenthal, 1986 ), and workplace studies (Bessot & Ridgway, 2000 ; Hoyles et al., 2001 ). However, how should the outcomes of such research approaches be weighed against each other and combined to formulate learning goals for a balanced, coherent curriculum? What is the role of mathematics education researchers in relation to teachers, policymakers, and other stakeholders (Potari et al., 2019 )? In our discipline, we seem to lack a research-informed way of arriving at the formulation of suitable educational goals without overloading the curricula.

6.2 Researching mathematics education across contexts

Though methodologically and theoretically challenging, it is of great importance to study learning and teaching mathematics across contexts. After all, students do not just learn at school; they can also participate in informal settings (Nemirovsky et al., 2017 ), online forums, or affinity networks (Ito et al., 2018 ) where they may share for instance mathematical memes (Bini et al., 2020 ). Moreover, teachers are not the only ones teaching mathematics: Private tutors, friends, parents, siblings, or other relatives can also be involved in helping children with their mathematics. Mathematics learning could also be situated on streets or in museums, homes, and other informal settings. This was already acknowledged before 2020, but the pandemic has scattered learners and teachers away from the typical central school locations and thus shifted the distribution of labor.

In particular, physical and virtual spaces of learning have been reconfigured due to the pandemic. Issues of timing also work differently online, for example, if students can watch online lectures or videos whenever they like (asynchronously). Such reconfigurations of space and time also have an effect on the rhythm of education and hence on people’s energy levels (cf. Lefebvre, 2004 ). More specifically, the reconfiguration of the situation has affected many students’ levels of motivation and concentration (e.g., Meeter et al., 2020 ). As Engelbrecht et al. ( 2020 ) acknowledged, the pandemic has drastically changed the teaching and learning model as we knew it. It is quite possible that some existing theories about teaching and learning no longer apply in the same way. An interesting question is whether and how existing theoretical frameworks can be adjusted or whether new theoretical orientations need to be developed to better understand and promote productive ways of blended or online teaching, across contexts.

6.3 Focusing teacher professional development

Professional development of teachers and teacher educators stands out from the survey as being in need of serious investment. How can teachers be prepared for the unpredictable, both in terms of beliefs and actions? During the pandemic, teachers have been under enormous pressure to make quick decisions in redesigning their courses, to learn to use new technological tools, to invent creative ways of assessment, and to do what was within their capacity to provide opportunities to their students for learning mathematics—even if technological tools were limited (e.g., if students had little or no computer or internet access at home). The pressure required both emotional adaption and instructional adjustment. Teachers quickly needed to find useful information, which raises questions about the accessibility of research insights. Given the new situation, limited resources, and the uncertain unfolding of education after lockdowns, focusing teacher professional development on necessary and useful topics will need much attention. In particular, there is a need for longitudinal studies to investigate how teachers’ learning actually affects teachers’ classroom instruction and students’ learning.

In the surveys, respondents mainly referred to teachers as K-12 school mathematics teachers, but some also stressed the importance of mathematics teacher educators (MTEs). In addition to conducting research in mathematics education, MTEs are acting in both the role of teacher educators and of mathematics teachers. There has been increased research on MTEs as requiring professional development (Goos & Beswick, 2021 ). Within the field of mathematics education, there is an emerging need and interest in how mathematics teacher educators themselves learn and develop. In fact, the changing situation also provides an opportunity to scrutinize our habitual ways of thinking and become aware of what Jullien ( 2018 ) calls the “un-thought”: What is it that we as educators and researchers have not seen or thought about so much about that the sudden reconfiguration of education forces us to reflect upon?

6.4 Using low-tech resources

Particular strands of research focus on innovative tools and their applications in education, even if they are at the time too expensive (even too labor intensive) to use at large scale. Such future-oriented studies can be very interesting given the rapid advances in technology and attractive to funding bodies focusing on innovation. Digital technology has become ubiquitous, both in schools and in everyday life, and there is already a significant body of work capitalizing on aspects of technology for research and practice in mathematics education.

However, as Cai et al. ( 2020 ) indicated, technology advances so quickly that addressing research problems may not depend so much on developing a new technological capability as on helping researchers and practitioners learn about new technologies and imagine effective ways to use them. Moreover, given the millions of students in rural areas who during the pandemic have only had access to low-tech resources such as podcasts, radio, TV, and perhaps WhatsApp through their parents’ phones, we would like to see more research on what learning, teaching, and assessing mathematics through limited tools such as Whatsapp or WeChat look like and how they can be improved. In fact, in China, a series of WeChat-based mini-lessons has been developed and delivered through the WeChat video function during the pandemic. Even when the pandemic is under control, mini-lessons are still developed and circulated through WeChat. We therefore think it is important to study the use and influence of low-tech resources in mathematics education.

6.5 Staying in touch online

With the majority of students learning at home, a major ongoing challenge for everyone has been how to stay in touch with each other and with mathematics. With less social interaction, without joint attention in the same physical space and at the same time, and with the collective only mediated by technology, becoming and staying motivated to learn has been a widely felt challenge. It is generally expected that in the higher levels of education, more blended or distant learning elements will be built into education. Careful research on the affective, embodied, and collective aspects of learning and teaching mathematics is required to overcome eventually the distance and alienation so widely experienced in online education. That is, we not only need to rethink social interactions between students and/or teachers in different settings but must also rethink how to engage and motivate students in online settings.

6.6 Studying and improving equity without perpetuating inequality

Several colleagues have warned, for a long time, that one risk of studying achievement gaps, differences between majority and minority groups, and so forth can also perpetuate inequity. Admittedly, pinpointing injustice and the need to invest in particular less privileged parts of education is necessary to redirect policymakers’ and teachers’ attention and gain funding. However, how can one reorient resources without stigmatizing? For example, Svensson et al. ( 2014 ) pointed out that research findings can fuel political debates about groups of people (e.g., parents with a migration background), who then may feel insecure about their own capacities. A challenge that we see is to identify and understand problematic situations without legitimizing problematic stereotyping (Hilt, 2015 ).

Furthermore, the field of mathematics education research does not have a consistent conceptualization of equity. There also seem to be regional differences: It struck us that equity is the more common term in the responses from the Americas, whereas inclusion and diversity were more often mentioned in the European responses. Future research will need to focus on both the conceptualization of equity and on improving equity and related values such as inclusion.

6.7 Assessing online

A key challenge is how to assess online and to do so more effectively. This challenge is related to both privacy, ethics, and performance issues. It is clear that online assessment may have significant advantages to assess student mathematics learning, such as more flexibility in test-taking and fast scoring. However, many teachers have faced privacy concerns, and we also have the impression that in an online environment it is even more challenging to successfully assess what we value rather than merely assessing what is relatively easy to assess. In particular, we need to systematically investigate any possible effect of administering assessments online as researchers have found a differential effect of online assessment versus paper-and-pencil assessment (Backes & Cowan, 2019 ). What further deserves careful ethical attention is what happens to learning analytics data that can and are collected when students work online.

6.8 Doing and publishing interdisciplinary research

When analyzing the responses, we were struck by a discrepancy between what respondents care about and what is typically researched and published in our monodisciplinary journals. Most of the challenges mentioned in this section require interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary approaches (see also Burkhardt, 2019 ).

An overarching key question is: What role does mathematics education research play in addressing the bigger and more general challenges mentioned by our respondents? The importance of interdisciplinarity also raises a question about the scope of journals that focus on mathematics education research. Do we need to broaden the scope of monodisciplinary journals so that they can publish important research that combines mathematics education research with another disciplinary perspective? As editors, we see a place for interdisciplinary studies as long as there is one strong anchor in mathematics education research. In fact, there are many researchers who do not identify themselves as mathematics education researchers but who are currently doing high-quality work related to mathematics education in fields such as educational psychology and the cognitive and learning sciences. Encouraging the reporting of high-quality mathematics education research from a broader spectrum of researchers would serve to increase the impact of the mathematics education research journals in the wider educational arena. This, in turn, would serve to encourage further collaboration around mathematics education issues from various disciplines. Ultimately, mathematics education research journals could act as a hub for interdisciplinary collaboration to address the pressing questions of how mathematics is learned and taught.

7 Concluding remarks

In this paper, based on a survey conducted before and during the pandemic, we have examined how scholars in the field of mathematics education view the future of mathematics education research. On the one hand, there are no major surprises about the areas we need to focus on in the future; the themes are not new. On the other hand, the responses also show that the areas we have highlighted still persist and need further investigation (cf. OECD, 2020 ). But, there are a few areas, based on both the responses of the scholars and our own discussions and views, that stand out as requiring more attention. For example, we hope that these survey results will serve as propelling conversation about mathematics education research regarding online assessment and pedagogical considerations for virtual teaching.

The survey results are limited in two ways. The set of respondents to the survey is probably not representative of all mathematics education researchers in the world. In that regard, perhaps scholars in each country could use the same survey questions to survey representative samples within each country to understand how the scholars in that country view future research with respect to regional needs. The second limitation is related to the fact that mathematics education is a very culturally dependent field. Cultural differences in the teaching and learning of mathematics are well documented. Given the small numbers of responses from some continents, we did not break down the analysis for regional comparison. Representative samples from each country would help us see how scholars from different countries view research in mathematics education; they will add another layer of insights about mathematics education research to complement the results of the survey presented here. Nevertheless, we sincerely hope that the findings from the surveys will serve as a discussion point for the field of mathematics education to pursue continuous improvement.

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research , 81 (2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435

Article   Google Scholar  

Arendt, H. (1958/1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Backes, B., & Cowan, J. (2019). Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of online testing on measured student achievement. Economics of Education Review , 68 , 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.12.007

Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction , 20 (6), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.09.001

Bakker, A. (2019). What is worth publishing? A response to Niss. For the Learning of Mathematics , 39 (3), 43–45.

Google Scholar  

Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. P. (2006). An historical phenomenology of mean and median. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 62 (2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-7099-8

Bakx, A., Bakker, A., Koopman, M., & Beijaard, D. (2016). Boundary crossing by science teacher researchers in a PhD program. Teaching and Teacher Education , 60 , 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.003

Battey, D. (2013). Access to mathematics: “A possessive investment in whiteness”. Curriculum Inquiry , 43 (3), 332–359.

Bawa, P. (2020). Learning in the age of SARS-COV-2: A quantitative study of learners’ performance in the age of emergency remote teaching. Computers and Education Open , 1 , 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2020.100016

Beckers, D., & Beckers, A. (2019). ‘Newton was heel exact wetenschappelijk – ook in zijn chemische werk’. Nederlandse wetenschapsgeschiedenis in niet-wetenschapshistorische tijdschriften, 1977–2017. Studium , 12 (4), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.18352/studium.10203

Bessot, A., & Ridgway, J. (Eds.). (2000). Education for mathematics in the workplace . Springer.

Bickerton, R. T., & Sangwin, C. (2020). Practical online assessment of mathematical proof. arXiv preprint:2006.01581 . https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.01581.pdf .

Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (Eds.). (2014). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education . Springer.

Bini, G., Robutti, O., & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2020). Maths in the time of social media: Conceptualizing the Internet phenomenon of mathematical memes. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2020.1807069

Bosch, M., Dreyfus, T., Primi, C., & Shiel, G. (2017, February). Solid findings in mathematics education: What are they and what are they good for? CERME 10 . Ireland: Dublin https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01849607

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences . MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001

Burkhardt, H. (2019). Improving policy and practice. Educational Designer , 3 (12) http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume3/issue12/article46/

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2019). Constructing and employing theoretical frameworks in (mathematics) education research. For the Learning of Mathematics , 39 (3), 44–47.

Cai, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and U.S. elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 15 (8), 1521–1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9758-2

Cai, J., & Leikin, R. (2020). Affect in mathematical problem posing: Conceptualization, advances, and future directions for research. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 105 , 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10008-x

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., … Hiebert, J. (2020). Improving the impact of research on practice: Capitalizing on technological advances for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 51 (5), 518–529 https://pubs.nctm.org/view/journals/jrme/51/5/article-p518.xml

Chronaki, A. (2019). Affective bodying of mathematics, children and difference: Choreographing ‘sad affects’ as affirmative politics in early mathematics teacher education. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 51 (2), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01045-9

Civil, M., & Bernier, E. (2006). Exploring images of parental participation in mathematics education: Challenges and possibilities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 8 (3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_6

Cobb, P., Gresalfi, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2009). An interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that students develop in mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 40 ( 1 ), 40–68 https://pubs.nctm.org/view/journals/jrme/40/1/article-p40.xml

Darragh, L. (2016). Identity research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 93 (1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9696-5

de Abreu, G., Bishop, A., & Presmeg, N. C. (Eds.). (2006). Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices . Kluwer.

de Freitas, E., Ferrara, F., & Ferrari, G. (2019). The coordinated movements of collaborative mathematical tasks: The role of affect in transindividual sympathy. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 51 (2), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-1007-4

Deng, Z. (2018). Contemporary curriculum theorizing: Crisis and resolution. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 50 (6), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1537376

Dobie, T. E., & Sherin, B. (2021). The language of mathematics teaching: A text mining approach to explore the zeitgeist of US mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics .  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10019-8

Eames, C., & Eames, R. (1977). Powers of Ten [Film]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0

Engelbrecht, J., Borba, M. C., Llinares, S., & Kaiser, G. (2020). Will 2020 be remembered as the year in which education was changed? ZDM-Mathematics Education , 52 (5), 821–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01185-3

English, L. (2008). Setting an agenda for international research in mathematics education. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). Routledge.

Ernest, P. (2020). Unpicking the meaning of the deceptive mathematics behind the COVID alert levels. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal , 36 http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/education/research/centres/stem/publications/pmej/pome36/index.html

Freudenthal, H. (1986). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures . Springer.

Gilmore, C., Göbel, S. M., & Inglis, M. (2018). An introduction to mathematical cognition . Routledge.

Goos, M., & Beswick, K. (Eds.). (2021). The learning and development of mathematics teacher educators: International perspectives and challenges . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62408-8

Gorard, S. (Ed.). (2020). Getting evidence into education. Evaluating the routes to policy and practice . Routledge.

Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 15 (1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6

Hannula, M. S. (2019). Young learners’ mathematics-related affect: A commentary on concepts, methods, and developmental trends. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 100 (3), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9865-9

Hilt, L. T. (2015). Included as excluded and excluded as included: Minority language pupils in Norwegian inclusion policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 19 (2), 165–182.

Hodgen, J., Taylor, B., Jacques, L., Tereshchenko, A., Kwok, R., & Cockerill, M. (2020). Remote mathematics teaching during COVID-19: Intentions, practices and equity . UCL Institute of Education https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10110311/

Horn, I. S. (2017). Motivated: Designing math classrooms where students want to join in . Heinemann.

Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 32 (1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/749619

Ito, M., Martin, C., Pfister, R. C., Rafalow, M. H., Salen, K., & Wortman, A. (2018). Affinity online: How connection and shared interest fuel learning . NYU Press.

Jackson, K. (2011). Approaching participation in school-based mathematics as a cross-setting phenomenon. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 20 (1), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528319

Jansen, A., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Smith III, J. P. (2012). Detecting students’ experiences of discontinuities between middle school and high school mathematics programs: Learning during boundary crossing. Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 14 (4), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2012.717379

Johnson, L. F., Smith, R. S., Smythe, J. T., & Varon, R. K. (2009). Challenge-based learning: An approach for our time (pp. 1–38). The New Media Consortium https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182083

Jullien, F. (2018). Living off landscape: Or the unthought-of in reason . Rowman & Littlefield.

Kazima, M. (2019). What is proven to work in successful countries should be implemented in other countries: The case of Malawi and Zambia. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 73–78). PME.

Kim, H. (2019). Ask again, “why should we implement what works in successful countries?” In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). PME.

Kolovou, A., Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Bakker, A. (2009). Non-routine problem solving tasks in primary school mathematics textbooks—a needle in a haystack. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 8 (2), 29–66.

Kwon, O. N., Han, C., Lee, C., Lee, K., Kim, K., Jo, G., & Yoon, G. (2021). Graphs in the COVID-19 news: A mathematics audit of newspapers in Korea. Educational Studies in Mathematics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10029-0

Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (Original 1992; Translation by S. Elden & G. Moore) . Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472547385 .

Li, Y. (2019). Should what works in successful countries be implemented in other countries? In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 67–72). PME.

Martin, D., Gholson, M., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper: Power and privilege in the production of power. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education , 3 (2), 12–24.

Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2019). Bringing more ‘school’ into our educational institutions. Reclaiming school as pedagogic form. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & M. Peters (Eds.), Unterrichtsentwicklung macht Schule (pp. 11–26) . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20487-7_2

Meeter, M., Bele, T., den Hartogh, C., Bakker, T., de Vries, R. E., & Plak, S. (2020). College students’ motivation and study results after COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. https://psyarxiv.com .

Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Civil, M. (2017). Toward a vibrant and socially significant informal mathematics education. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 968–979). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Niss, M. (2019). The very multi-faceted nature of mathematics education research. For the Learning of Mathematics , 39 (2), 2–7.

OECD. (2020). Back to the Future of Education: Four OECD Scenarios for Schooling. Educational Research and Innovation . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/20769679

Potari, D., Psycharis, G., Sakonidis, C., & Zachariades, T. (2019). Collaborative design of a reform-oriented mathematics curriculum: Contradictions and boundaries across teaching, research, and policy. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 102 (3), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9834-3

Proulx, J., & Maheux, J. F. (2019). Effect sizes, epistemological issues, and identity of mathematics education research: A commentary on editorial 102(1). Educational Studies in Mathematics , 102 (2), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09913-7

Roos, H. (2019). Inclusion in mathematics education: An ideology, A way of teaching, or both? Educational Studies in Mathematics , 100 (1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9854-z

Saenz, M., Medina, A., & Urbine Holguin, B. (2020). Colombia: La prender al onda (to turn on the wave). Education continuity stories series . OECD Publishing https://oecdedutoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Colombia-a-prender-la-onda.pdf

Schindler, M., & Bakker, A. (2020). Affective field during collaborative problem posing and problem solving: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 105 , 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09973-0

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher , 28 (7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x028007004

Schukajlow, S., Rakoczy, K., & Pekrun, R. (2017). Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: Theoretical considerations and empirical contributions. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 49 (3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0864-6

Sfard, A. (2005). What could be more practical than good research? Educational Studies in Mathematics , 58 (3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-4818-5

Shimizu, Y., & Vithal, R. (Eds.). (2019). ICMI Study 24 Conference Proceedings. School mathematics curriculum reforms: Challenges, changes and opportunities . ICMI: University of Tsukuba & ICMI http://www.human.tsukuba.ac.jp/~icmi24/

Sierpinska, A. (1990). Some remarks on understanding in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics , 10 (3), 24–41.

Stephan, M. L., Chval, K. B., Wanko, J. J., Civil, M., Fish, M. C., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., … Wilkerson, T. L. (2015). Grand challenges and opportunities in mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 46 (2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.2.0134

Suazo-Flores, E., Alyami, H., Walker, W. S., Aqazade, M., & Kastberg, S. E. (2021). A call for exploring mathematics education researchers’ interdisciplinary research practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00371-0

Svensson, P., Meaney, T., & Norén, E. (2014). Immigrant students’ perceptions of their possibilities to learn mathematics: The case of homework. For the Learning of Mathematics , 34 (3), 32–37.

UNESCO. (2015). Teacher policy development guide . UNESCO, International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. https://teachertaskforce.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/370966eng_0_1.pdf .

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). Can scientific research answer the ‘what’ question of mathematics education? Cambridge Journal of Education , 35 (1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764042000332489

Wittmann, E. C. (1995). Mathematics education as a ‘design science’. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 29 (4), 355–374.

Yoon, H., Byerley, C. O. N., Joshua, S., Moore, K., Park, M. S., Musgrave, S., Valaas, L., & Drimalla, J. (2021). United States and South Korean citizens’ interpretation and assessment of COVID-19 quantitative data. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100865 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Anna Sfard for her advice on the survey, based on her own survey published in Sfard ( 2005 ). We are grateful for Stephen Hwang’s careful copyediting for an earlier version of the manuscript. Thanks also to Elisabeth Angerer, Elske de Waal, Paul Ernest, Vilma Mesa, Michelle Stephan, David Wagner, and anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier drafts.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Arthur Bakker & Linda Zenger

University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur Bakker .

Ethics declarations

In line with the guidelines of the Code of Publication Ethics (COPE), we note that the review process of this article was blinded to the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Explanation of Fig. 1

We have divided Fig. 1 in 12 rectangles called A1 (bottom left) up to C4 (top right) to explain the details (for image annotation go to https://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/toepassingen/28937 )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bakker, A., Cai, J. & Zenger, L. Future themes of mathematics education research: an international survey before and during the pandemic. Educ Stud Math 107 , 1–24 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10049-w

Download citation

Accepted : 04 March 2021

Published : 06 April 2021

Issue Date : May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10049-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Grand challenges
• Mathematics education research
• Research agenda
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

School of Mathematics

PhD in Mathematics

We are proud of our world-class reputation for research excellence and our commitment to provide the highest quality training for our postgraduate students.

The School of Mathematics offers a cutting-edge PhD programme, and we welcome applications from national and international students all year round. Our postgraduate students enjoy a friendly and stimulating environment, and during your PhD you will have the opportunity to develop your mathematical research skills, collaborate with leading researchers and apply your expertise across a range of academic areas.

Research Areas

Review our many research areas for detailed accounts of our various research themes and related academic staff.

Research Environment

Discover our PhD research environment and the various opportunities offered to our research students.

PhD Projects

View some of the PhD projects, offered by our academics for 2024/25 academic year. 

Funding Opportunities

To receive full consideration for funding for our programme commencing September 2024, applications should be submitted before 5 January 2024.

Project-specific funding opportunities may have later application deadlines, please see the PhD Project pages for further details.

Please note that we are not able to consider applications submitted after the programme is full.

Read our Prospectus

Find out more about the programme including entry requirements and fees.

[email protected]

When you’re doing research, you can direct it yourself; you have more freedom. It's the only thing I can imagine myself doing.

BYU ScholarsArchive

Home > Computational, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences > Mathematics Education > Theses and Dissertations

Mathematics Education Theses and Dissertations

Theses/dissertations from 2024 2024.

Rigorous Verification of Stability of Ideal Gas Layers , Damian Anderson

Documentation of Norm Negotiation in a Secondary Mathematics Classroom , Michelle R. Bagley

New Mathematics Teachers' Goals, Orientations, and Resources that Influence Implementation of Principles Learned in Brigham Young University's Teacher Preparation Program , Caroline S. Gneiting

Theses/Dissertations from 2023 2023

Impact of Applying Visual Design Principles to Boardwork in a Mathematics Classroom , Jennifer Rose Canizales

Practicing Mathematics Teachers' Perspectives of Public Records in Their Classrooms , Sini Nicole White Graff

Parents' Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics: A Q-Study , Ashlynn M. Holley

Engagement in Secondary Mathematics Group Work: A Student Perspective , Rachel H. Jorgenson

Theses/Dissertations from 2022 2022

Understanding College Students' Use of Written Feedback in Mathematics , Erin Loraine Carroll

Identity Work to Teach Mathematics for Social Justice , Navy B. Dixon

Developing a Quantitative Understanding of U-Substitution in First-Semester Calculus , Leilani Camille Heaton Fonbuena

The Perception of At-Risk Students on Caring Student-Teacher Relationships and Its Impact on Their Productive Disposition , Brittany Hopper

Variational and Covariational Reasoning of Students with Disabilities , Lauren Rigby

Structural Reasoning with Rational Expressions , Dana Steinhorst

Student-Created Learning Objects for Mathematics Renewable Assignments: The Potential Value They Bring to the Broader Community , Webster Wong

Theses/Dissertations from 2021 2021

Emotional Geographies of Beginning and Veteran Reformed Teachers in Mentor/Mentee Relationships , Emily Joan Adams

You Do Math Like a Girl: How Women Reason Mathematically Outside of Formal and School Mathematics Contexts , Katelyn C. Pyfer

Developing the Definite Integral and Accumulation Function Through Adding Up Pieces: A Hypothetical Learning Trajectory , Brinley Nichole Stevens

Theses/Dissertations from 2020 2020

Mathematical Identities of Students with Mathematics Learning Dis/abilities , Emma Lynn Holdaway

Teachers' Mathematical Meanings: Decisions for Teaching Geometric Reflections and Orientation of Figures , Porter Peterson Nielsen

Student Use of Mathematical Content Knowledge During Proof Production , Chelsey Lynn Van de Merwe

Theses/Dissertations from 2019 2019

Making Sense of the Equal Sign in Middle School Mathematics , Chelsea Lynn Dickson

Developing Understanding of the Chain Rule, Implicit Differentiation, and Related Rates: Towards a Hypothetical Learning Trajectory Rooted in Nested Multivariation , Haley Paige Jeppson

Secondary Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Curricular Reasoning , Kimber Anne Mathis

“Don’t Say Gay. We Say Dumb or Stupid”: Queering ProspectiveMathematics Teachers’ Discussions , Amy Saunders Ross

Aspects of Engaging Problem Contexts From Students' Perspectives , Tamara Kay Stark

Theses/Dissertations from 2018 2018

Addressing Pre-Service Teachers' Misconceptions About Confidence Intervals , Kiya Lynn Eliason

How Teacher Questions Affect the Development of a Potential Hybrid Space in a Classroom with Latina/o Students , Casandra Helen Job

Teacher Graphing Practices for Linear Functions in a Covariation-Based College Algebra Classroom , Konda Jo Luckau

Principles of Productivity Revealed from Secondary Mathematics Teachers' Discussions Around the Productiveness of Teacher Moves in Response to Teachable Moments , Kylie Victoria Palsky

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

Curriculum Decisions and Reasoning of Middle School Teachers , Anand Mikel Bernard

Teacher Response to Instances of Student Thinking During Whole Class Discussion , Rachel Marie Bernard

Kyozaikenkyu: An In-Depth Look into Japanese Educators' Daily Planning Practices , Matthew David Melville

Analysis of Differential Equations Applications from the Coordination Class Perspective , Omar Antonio Naranjo Mayorga

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

The Principles of Effective Teaching Student Teachershave the Opportunity to Learn in an AlternativeStudent Teaching Structure , Danielle Rose Divis

Insight into Student Conceptions of Proof , Steven Daniel Lauzon

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

Teacher Participation and Motivation inProfessional Development , Krystal A. Hill

Student Evaluation of Mathematical Explanations in anInquiry-Based Mathematics Classroom , Ashley Burgess Hulet

English Learners' Participation in Mathematical Discourse , Lindsay Marie Merrill

Mathematical Interactions between Teachers and Students in the Finnish Mathematics Classroom , Paula Jeffery Prestwich

Parents and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics , Rebecca Anne Roberts

Examining the Effects of College Algebra on Students' Mathematical Dispositions , Kevin Lee Watson

Problems Faced by Reform Oriented Novice Mathematics Teachers Utilizing a Traditional Curriculum , Tyler Joseph Winiecke

Academic and Peer Status in the Mathematical Life Stories of Students , Carol Ann Wise

Theses/Dissertations from 2014 2014

The Effect of Students' Mathematical Beliefs on Knowledge Transfer , Kristen Adams

Language Use in Mathematics Textbooks Written in English and Spanish , Kailie Ann Bertoch

Teachers' Curricular Reasoning and MKT in the Context of Algebra and Statistics , Kolby J. Gadd

Mathematical Telling in the Context of Teacher Interventions with Collaborative Groups , Brandon Kyle Singleton

An Investigation of How Preservice Teachers Design Mathematical Tasks , Elizabeth Karen Zwahlen

Theses/Dissertations from 2013 2013

Student Understanding of Limit and Continuity at a Point: A Look into Four Potentially Problematic Conceptions , Miriam Lynne Amatangelo

Exploring the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching of Japanese Teachers , Ratu Jared R. T. Bukarau

Comparing Two Different Student Teaching Structures by Analyzing Conversations Between Student Teachers and Their Cooperating Teachers , Niccole Suzette Franc

Professional Development as a Community of Practice and Its Associated Influence on the Induction of a Beginning Mathematics Teacher , Savannah O. Steele

Types of Questions that Comprise a Teacher's Questioning Discourse in a Conceptually-Oriented Classroom , Keilani Stolk

Theses/Dissertations from 2012 2012

Student Teachers' Interactive Decisions with Respect to Student Mathematics Thinking , Jonathan J. Call

Manipulatives and the Growth of Mathematical Understanding , Stacie Joyce Gibbons

Learning Within a Computer-Assisted Instructional Environment: Effects on Multiplication Math Fact Mastery and Self-Efficacy in Elementary-Age Students , Loraine Jones Hanson

Mathematics Teacher Time Allocation , Ashley Martin Jones

Theses/Dissertations from 2011 2011

How Student Positioning Can Lead to Failure in Inquiry-based Classrooms , Kelly Beatrice Campbell

Teachers' Decisions to Use Student Input During Class Discussion , Heather Taylor Toponce

A Conceptual Framework for Student Understanding of Logarithms , Heather Rebecca Ambler Williams

Theses/Dissertations from 2010 2010

Growth in Students' Conceptions of Mathematical Induction , John David Gruver

Contextualized Motivation Theory (CMT): Intellectual Passion, Mathematical Need, Social Responsibility, and Personal Agency in Learning Mathematics , Janelle Marie Hart

Thinking on the Brink: Facilitating Student Teachers' Learning Through In-the-Moment Interjections , Travis L. Lemon

Understanding Teachers' Change Towards a Reform-Oriented Mathematics Classroom , Linnae Denise Williams

Theses/Dissertations from 2009 2009

A Comparison of Mathematical Discourse in Online and Face-to-Face Environments , Shawn D. Broderick

The Influence of Risk Taking on Student Creation of Mathematical Meaning: Contextual Risk Theory , Erin Nicole Houghtaling

Uncovering Transformative Experiences: A Case Study of the Transformations Made by one Teacher in a Mathematics Professional Development Program , Rachelle Myler Orsak

Theses/Dissertations from 2008 2008

Student Teacher Knowledge and Its Impact on Task Design , Tenille Cannon

How Eighth-Grade Students Estimate with Fractions , Audrey Linford Hanks

Similar but Different: The Complexities of Students' Mathematical Identities , Diane Skillicorn Hill

Choose Your Words: Refining What Counts as Mathematical Discourse in Students' Negotiation of Meaning for Rate of Change of Volume , Christine Johnson

Mathematics Student Teaching in Japan: A Multi-Case Study , Allison Turley Shwalb

Theses/Dissertations from 2007 2007

Applying Toulmin's Argumentation Framework to Explanations in a Reform Oriented Mathematics Class , Jennifer Alder Brinkerhoff

What Are Some of the Common Traits in the Thought Processes of Undergraduate Students Capable of Creating Proof? , Karen Malina Duff

Probing for Reasons: Presentations, Questions, Phases , Kellyn Nicole Farlow

One Problem, Two Contexts , Danielle L. Gigger

The Main Challenges that a Teacher-in-Transition Faces When Teaching a High School Geometry Class , Greg Brough Henry

Discovering the Derivative Can Be "Invigorating:" Mark's Journey to Understanding Instantaneous Velocity , Charity Ann Gardner Hyer

Theses/Dissertations from 2006 2006

How a Master Teacher Uses Questioning Within a Mathematical Discourse Community , Omel Angel Contreras

Determining High School Geometry Students' Geometric Understanding Using van Hiele Levels: Is There a Difference Between Standards-based Curriculum Students and NonStandards-based Curriculum Students? , Rebekah Loraine Genz

The Nature and Frequency of Mathematical Discussion During Lesson Study That Implemented the CMI Framework , Andrew Ray Glaze

Second Graders' Solution Strategies and Understanding of a Combination Problem , Tiffany Marie Hessing

What Does It Mean To Preservice Mathematics Teachers To Anticipate Student Responses? , Matthew M. Webb

Theses/Dissertations from 2005 2005

Fraction Multiplication and Division Image Change in Pre-Service Elementary Teachers , Jennifer J. Cluff

An Examination of the Role of Writing in Mathematics Instruction , Amy Jeppsen

Theses/Dissertations from 2004 2004

Reasoning About Motion: A Case Study , Tiffini Lynn Glaze

Theses/Dissertations from 2003 2003

An Analysis of the Influence of Lesson Study on Preservice Secondary Mathematics Teachers' View of Self-As Mathematics Expert , Julie Stafford

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

ScholarsArchive ISSN: 2572-4479

• Collections
• Disciplines
• Scholarly Communication
• Additional Collections
• Academic Research Blog

Author Corner

Hosted by the.

• Harold B. Lee Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

PhD Applied Mathematics Research project proposal - Gianpiero Negri

• September 2017

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Gürdal Arslan

• Dave W. Oyler
• Mengxuan Zhang

• ROBOT AUTON SYST

• Amir Khajepour

• Martin J. Osborne

• Brian Williams
• Emilio Frazzoli
• Z Kowalczuk
• H Waeselynck
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

research statement/proposal for a (pure-)math-PhD?

When applying for PhD programs outside your home university, the university you apply to usually requires a research statement from you.

However, this isn't the case when you reach out for a Bachelor's or Master's thesis topic to a professor you know from your home university (in mathematics). You would just approach a supervisor and express your interest in certain topics. They would provide you with various directions to choose from, and the exact problem you would work on may crystallize while working on your thesis. The same principle applies if you pursue your PhD at your home uni.

Nevertheless, when applying somewhere else outside your home uni, they will ask you for a statement.

How should this statement look like?

Typically, most students completing their master's thesis have no exact idea of what they will do in their PhD. They may only have a vague notion of the topics they like or an unspecific direction in which they want to focus.

I mean, how can they ever come up with a detailed research proposal?

Especially in pure math.

Since research in (pure) math is like being a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat, which isn't there.

• research-process
• mathematics
• research-proposal

• 4 At least on the US, it is a personal statement, not a research proposal. Many applicants do not even know which area of mathematics they want to specialize in. –  Moishe Kohan Commented Aug 12, 2023 at 17:19
• 3 It would help to know where you are. As Moishe points out, most US universities do not expect applicants to have past research, or to write a research statement---the point of the PhD program (in very broad and general terms) is to take students who have acquired knowledge but haven't conducted research, and turn them into researchers. –  Xander Henderson Commented Aug 12, 2023 at 18:15

In my experience, a research statement has the intention to be a formal declaration of interest. The way in that this may be made is, at the beginning talk about you, your academic background and specific knowledge focus areas, and, in accordance with the field of the receiver, use the rest of the statement to prove knowledge about the work that is developed by and how your background and expertise can contribute to solving problems in the research. In that way can you demonstrate knowledge and interest more than a random search for opportunities.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd research-process mathematics thesis research-proposal ..

• Featured on Meta
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites

Hot Network Questions

• How to truncate text in latex?
• Do images have propositional content?
• Potential Syscall Note Loophole?
• How to delete members of a list by rule
• Can the planet Neptune be seen from Earth with binoculars?
• Flats on gravel with GP5000 - what am I doing wrong?
• Do US universities invite faculty applicants from outside the US for an interview?
• What do these expressions mean in NASA's Steve Stitch's brief Starliner undocking statement?
• Why is Stam Mishna attributed to R' Meir, a fourth-generation Tannah?
• Why does my LED bulb light up dimly when I touch it?
• Looking for the name of a possibly fictional science fiction TV show
• Generating function for A300483 (related to Chebyshev polynomial of first kind)
• Different verbs for activism/advocacy
• Are there carbon fiber wing spar pins?
• What is the missing fifth of the missing fifths?
• Getting lost on a Circular Track
• Does plan guide consider spaces or not?
• I want to be a observational astronomer, but have no idea where to start
• How would you read this time change with the given note equivalence?
• Mistake on car insurance policy about use of car (commuting/social)
• Are all pass filters stable?
• "With" as a function word to specify an additional circumstance or condition
• How to create rounded arrows to highlight inflection points in a TikZ graph?
• Would superhuman elites allow for more liberal governance?

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

phd math education proposal.doc

Proposal for Ph.D Mathematics Education

Related Papers

Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College

Robert Reys

Doctoral programs in mathematics education were established more than a century ago in the United States. From 2010-2014 over 120 different institutions graduated at least one doctorate in mathematics education. There has been limited research reported on the nature of doctoral programs in mathematics education and/or their doctoral graduates. This paper provides a synthesis of research findings related to doctoral preparation in mathematics education that is accompanied by a reflection on the findings and suggestions for future research. The intent of our paper is to provide a rallying call for more widespread and coordinated research on doctoral programs in mathematics education in order to strengthen the quality of doctoral preparation for the next generation of mathematics educators.

Notices of the American Mathematical Society

Barbara Reys

Dawn Teuscher

_ THE _ MATHEMATICS _ _ EDUCATOR _

Chandra Orrill

mathcurriculumcenter.org

Higher Education and Human Capital

Robert Mayes

Cynthia Anhalt

Paul Ernest

Nordic Studies in Science Education

Jari Lavonen

This descriptive article aims to discuss the development of Finnish PhD education in science and mathematics education research over the past 20 years. First, the general aims and structure of PhD education at the national level are introduced. Doctoral studies seek to develop research knowledge and skills as well as the capability to produce novel scientific knowledge. Second, the development of PhD education in the Finnish context of science and mathematics education research is discussed. For the past 20 years, there has been a special focus on improving PhD education through national-level graduate schools and international collaboration. Finally, the recent changes in PhD education, such as the replacement of doctoral programmes at local universities, is discussed through the case of the University of Helsinki.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Roza Leikin

Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society

Marcelo Batarce

Eliza Gallagher

Research in Mathematics Education

Michael Fried

Cemalettin YILDIZ

Oktaviana Ratnawati

Springer eBooks

Angel Gutierrez

ANNIE SELDEN , John Selden

Ljerka Jukic Matic

Laura Branchetti

CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education

ICME-13 Monographs

Anita Rampal

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We use cookies on reading.ac.uk to improve your experience, monitor site performance and tailor content to you

Read our cookie policy to find out how to manage your cookie settings

This site may not work correctly on Internet Explorer. We recommend switching to a different browser for a better experience.

Mathematics PhD theses

A selection of Mathematics PhD thesis titles is listed below, some of which are available online:

2023   2022   2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991

Reham Alahmadi - Asymptotic Study of Toeplitz Determinants with Fisher-Hartwig Symbols and Their Double-Scaling Limits

Anne Sophie Rojahn –  Localised adaptive Particle Filters for large scale operational NWP model

Melanie Kobras –  Low order models of storm track variability

Ed Clark –  Vectorial Variational Problems in L∞ and Applications to Data Assimilation

Katerina Christou – Modelling PDEs in Population Dynamics using Fixed and Moving Meshes  

Chiara Cecilia Maiocchi –  Unstable Periodic Orbits: a language to interpret the complexity of chaotic systems

Samuel R Harrison – Stalactite Inspired Thin Film Flow

Elena Saggioro – Causal network approaches for the study of sub-seasonal to seasonal variability and predictability

Cathie A Wells – Reformulating aircraft routing algorithms to reduce fuel burn and thus CO 2 emissions  

Jennifer E. Israelsson –  The spatial statistical distribution for multiple rainfall intensities over Ghana

Giulia Carigi –  Ergodic properties and response theory for a stochastic two-layer model of geophysical fluid dynamics

André Macedo –  Local-global principles for norms

Tsz Yan Leung  –  Weather Predictability: Some Theoretical Considerations

Jehan Alswaihli –  Iteration of Inverse Problems and Data Assimilation Techniques for Neural Field Equations

Jemima M Tabeart –  On the treatment of correlated observation errors in data assimilation

Chris Davies –  Computer Simulation Studies of Dynamics and Self-Assembly Behaviour of Charged Polymer Systems

Birzhan Ayanbayev –  Some Problems in Vectorial Calculus of Variations in L∞

Penpark Sirimark –  Mathematical Modelling of Liquid Transport in Porous Materials at Low Levels of Saturation

Adam Barker –  Path Properties of Levy Processes

Hasen Mekki Öztürk –  Spectra of Indefinite Linear Operator Pencils

Carlo Cafaro –  Information gain that convective-scale models bring to probabilistic weather forecasts

Nicola Thorn –  The boundedness and spectral properties of multiplicative Toeplitz operators

James Jackaman  – Finite element methods as geometric structure preserving algorithms

Changqiong Wang - Applications of Monte Carlo Methods in Studying Polymer Dynamics

Jack Kirk - The molecular dynamics and rheology of polymer melts near the flat surface

Hussien Ali Hussien Abugirda - Linear and Nonlinear Non-Divergence Elliptic Systems of Partial Differential Equations

Andrew Gibbs - Numerical methods for high frequency scattering by multiple obstacles (PDF-2.63MB)

Mohammad Al Azah - Fast Evaluation of Special Functions by the Modified Trapezium Rule (PDF-913KB)

Katarzyna (Kasia) Kozlowska - Riemann-Hilbert Problems and their applications in mathematical physics (PDF-1.16MB)

Anna Watkins - A Moving Mesh Finite Element Method and its Application to Population Dynamics (PDF-2.46MB)

Niall Arthurs - An Investigation of Conservative Moving-Mesh Methods for Conservation Laws (PDF-1.1MB)

Samuel Groth - Numerical and asymptotic methods for scattering by penetrable obstacles (PDF-6.29MB)

Katherine E. Howes - Accounting for Model Error in Four-Dimensional Variational Data Assimilation (PDF-2.69MB)

Jian Zhu - Multiscale Computer Simulation Studies of Entangled Branched Polymers (PDF-1.69MB)

Tommy Liu - Stochastic Resonance for a Model with Two Pathways (PDF-11.4MB)

Matthew Paul Edgington - Mathematical modelling of bacterial chemotaxis signalling pathways (PDF-9.04MB)

Anne Reinarz - Sparse space-time boundary element methods for the heat equation (PDF-1.39MB)

Adam El-Said - Conditioning of the Weak-Constraint Variational Data Assimilation Problem for Numerical Weather Prediction (PDF-2.64MB)

Nicholas Bird - A Moving-Mesh Method for High Order Nonlinear Diffusion (PDF-1.30MB)

Charlotta Jasmine Howarth - New generation finite element methods for forward seismic modelling (PDF-5,52MB)

Aldo Rota - From the classical moment problem to the realizability problem on basic semi-algebraic sets of generalized functions (PDF-1.0MB)

Sarah Lianne Cole - Truncation Error Estimates for Mesh Refinement in Lagrangian Hydrocodes (PDF-2.84MB)

Alexander J. F. Moodey - Instability and Regularization for Data Assimilation (PDF-1.32MB)

Dale Partridge - Numerical Modelling of Glaciers: Moving Meshes and Data Assimilation (PDF-3.19MB)

Joanne A. Waller - Using Observations at Different Spatial Scales in Data Assimilation for Environmental Prediction (PDF-6.75MB)

Faez Ali AL-Maamori - Theory and Examples of Generalised Prime Systems (PDF-503KB)

Mark Parsons - Mathematical Modelling of Evolving Networks

Natalie L.H. Lowery - Classification methods for an ill-posed reconstruction with an application to fuel cell monitoring

David Gilbert - Analysis of large-scale atmospheric flows

Peter Spence - Free and Moving Boundary Problems in Ion Beam Dynamics (PDF-5MB)

Timothy S. Palmer - Modelling a single polymer entanglement (PDF-5.02MB)

Mohamad Shukor Talib - Dynamics of Entangled Polymer Chain in a Grid of Obstacles (PDF-2.49MB)

Cassandra A.J. Moran - Wave scattering by harbours and offshore structures

Ashley Twigger - Boundary element methods for high frequency scattering

David A. Smith - Spectral theory of ordinary and partial linear differential operators on finite intervals (PDF-1.05MB)

Stephen A. Haben - Conditioning and Preconditioning of the Minimisation Problem in Variational Data Assimilation (PDF-3.51MB)

Jing Cao - Molecular dynamics study of polymer melts (PDF-3.98MB)

Bonhi Bhattacharya - Mathematical Modelling of Low Density Lipoprotein Metabolism. Intracellular Cholesterol Regulation (PDF-4.06MB)

Tamsin E. Lee - Modelling time-dependent partial differential equations using a moving mesh approach based on conservation (PDF-2.17MB)

Polly J. Smith - Joint state and parameter estimation using data assimilation with application to morphodynamic modelling (PDF-3Mb)

Corinna Burkard - Three-dimensional Scattering Problems with applications to Optical Security Devices (PDF-1.85Mb)

Laura M. Stewart - Correlated observation errors in data assimilation (PDF-4.07MB)

R.D. Giddings - Mesh Movement via Optimal Transportation (PDF-29.1MbB)

G.M. Baxter - 4D-Var for high resolution, nested models with a range of scales (PDF-1.06MB)

C. Spencer - A generalization of Talbot's theorem about King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.

P. Jelfs - A C-property satisfying RKDG Scheme with Application to the Morphodynamic Equations (PDF-11.7MB)

L. Bennetts - Wave scattering by ice sheets of varying thickness

M. Preston - Boundary Integral Equations method for 3-D water waves

J. Percival - Displacement Assimilation for Ocean Models (PDF - 7.70MB)

D. Katz - The Application of PV-based Control Variable Transformations in Variational Data Assimilation (PDF- 1.75MB)

S. Pimentel - Estimation of the Diurnal Variability of sea surface temperatures using numerical modelling and the assimilation of satellite observations (PDF-5.9MB)

J.M. Morrell - A cell by cell anisotropic adaptive mesh Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian method for the numerical solution of the Euler equations (PDF-7.7MB)

L. Watkinson - Four dimensional variational data assimilation for Hamiltonian problems

M. Hunt - Unique extension of atomic functionals of JB*-Triples

D. Chilton - An alternative approach to the analysis of two-point boundary value problems for linear evolutionary PDEs and applications

T.H.A. Frame - Methods of targeting observations for the improvement of weather forecast skill

C. Hughes - On the topographical scattering and near-trapping of water waves

B.V. Wells - A moving mesh finite element method for the numerical solution of partial differential equations and systems

D.A. Bailey - A ghost fluid, finite volume continuous rezone/remap Eulerian method for time-dependent compressible Euler flows

M. Henderson - Extending the edge-colouring of graphs

K. Allen - The propagation of large scale sediment structures in closed channels

D. Cariolaro - The 1-Factorization problem and same related conjectures

A.C.P. Steptoe - Extreme functionals and Stone-Weierstrass theory of inner ideals in JB*-Triples

D.E. Brown - Preconditioners for inhomogeneous anisotropic problems with spherical geometry in ocean modelling

S.J. Fletcher - High Order Balance Conditions using Hamiltonian Dynamics for Numerical Weather Prediction

C. Johnson - Information Content of Observations in Variational Data Assimilation

M.A. Wakefield - Bounds on Quantities of Physical Interest

M. Johnson - Some problems on graphs and designs

A.C. Lemos - Numerical Methods for Singular Differential Equations Arising from Steady Flows in Channels and Ducts

R.K. Lashley - Automatic Generation of Accurate Advection Schemes on Structured Grids and their Application to Meteorological Problems

J.V. Morgan - Numerical Methods for Macroscopic Traffic Models

M.A. Wlasak - The Examination of Balanced and Unbalanced Flow using Potential Vorticity in Atmospheric Modelling

M. Martin - Data Assimilation in Ocean circulation models with systematic errors

K.W. Blake - Moving Mesh Methods for Non-Linear Parabolic Partial Differential Equations

J. Hudson - Numerical Techniques for Morphodynamic Modelling

A.S. Lawless - Development of linear models for data assimilation in numerical weather prediction .

C.J.Smith - The semi lagrangian method in atmospheric modelling

T.C. Johnson - Implicit Numerical Schemes for Transcritical Shallow Water Flow

M.J. Hoyle - Some Approximations to Water Wave Motion over Topography.

P. Samuels - An Account of Research into an Area of Analytical Fluid Mechnaics. Volume II. Some mathematical Proofs of Property u of the Weak End of Shocks.

M.J. Martin - Data Assimulation in Ocean Circulation with Systematic Errors

P. Sims - Interface Tracking using Lagrangian Eulerian Methods.

P. Macabe - The Mathematical Analysis of a Class of Singular Reaction-Diffusion Systems.

B. Sheppard - On Generalisations of the Stone-Weisstrass Theorem to Jordan Structures.

S. Leary - Least Squares Methods with Adjustable Nodes for Steady Hyperbolic PDEs.

I. Sciriha - On Some Aspects of Graph Spectra.

P.A. Burton - Convergence of flux limiter schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws with source terms.

J.F. Goodwin - Developing a practical approach to water wave scattering problems.

N.R.T. Biggs - Integral equation embedding methods in wave-diffraction methods.

L.P. Gibson - Bifurcation analysis of eigenstructure assignment control in a simple nonlinear aircraft model.

A.K. Griffith - Data assimilation for numerical weather prediction using control theory. .

J. Bryans - Denotational semantic models for real-time LOTOS.

I. MacDonald - Analysis and computation of steady open channel flow .

A. Morton - Higher order Godunov IMPES compositional modelling of oil reservoirs.

S.M. Allen - Extended edge-colourings of graphs.

M.E. Hubbard - Multidimensional upwinding and grid adaptation for conservation laws.

C.J. Chikunji - On the classification of finite rings.

S.J.G. Bell - Numerical techniques for smooth transformation and regularisation of time-varying linear descriptor systems.

D.J. Staziker - Water wave scattering by undulating bed topography .

K.J. Neylon - Non-symmetric methods in the modelling of contaminant transport in porous media. .

D.M. Littleboy - Numerical techniques for eigenstructure assignment by output feedback in aircraft applications .

M.P. Dainton - Numerical methods for the solution of systems of uncertain differential equations with application in numerical modelling of oil recovery from underground reservoirs .

M.H. Mawson - The shallow-water semi-geostrophic equations on the sphere. .

S.M. Stringer - The use of robust observers in the simulation of gas supply networks .

S.L. Wakelin - Variational principles and the finite element method for channel flows. .

E.M. Dicks - Higher order Godunov black-oil simulations for compressible flow in porous media .

C.P. Reeves - Moving finite elements and overturning solutions .

A.J. Malcolm - Data dependent triangular grid generation. .

We have 98 mathematics education PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships

All disciplines

All locations

Institution

All Institutions

All PhD Types

All Funding

mathematics education PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships

Doctorates in education and lifelong learning, funded phd programme (students worldwide).

Some or all of the PhD opportunities in this programme have funding attached. Applications for this programme are welcome from suitably qualified candidates worldwide. Funding may only be available to a limited set of nationalities and you should read the full programme details for further information.

Social Sciences Research Programme

Social Sciences Research Programmes present a range of research opportunities, shaped by a university’s particular expertise, facilities and resources. You will usually identify a suitable topic for your PhD and propose your own project. Additional training and development opportunities may also be offered as part of your programme.

PhD programmes in Education

Phds in education, self-funded phd students only.

The PhD opportunities on this programme do not have funding attached. You will need to have your own means of paying fees and living costs and / or seek separate funding from student finance, charities or trusts.

PhD Studentships in The School of Mathematics and Statistics

Maths research programme.

PhD Research Programmes describe the opportunities for postgraduate research within a University department. You may often be asked to submit your own research project proposal as part of your application, although predefined research projects may also be available.

PHD MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

China phd programme.

A Chinese PhD usually takes 3-4 years and often involves following a formal teaching plan (set by your supervisor) as well as carrying out your own original research. Your PhD thesis will be publicly examined in front of a panel of expert. Some international programmes are offered in English, but others will be taught in Mandarin Chinese.

MRes - Is there any creativity in STEM? (SAS0199)

Phd research project.

PhD Research Projects are advertised opportunities to examine a pre-defined topic or answer a stated research question. Some projects may also provide scope for you to propose your own ideas and approaches.

This project does not have funding attached. You will need to have your own means of paying fees and living costs and / or seek separate funding from student finance, charities or trusts.

Mathematical Modeling Ph.D.

Funded phd project (students worldwide).

This project has funding attached, subject to eligibility criteria. Applications for the project are welcome from all suitably qualified candidates, but its funding may be restricted to a limited set of nationalities. You should check the project and department details for more information.

Randomization and AI Methods for Large Sparse Linear Systems Arising from Applications - A Hybrid Approach through Schur Complements

Research on identification methods of industrial networked control system with multi-rate characteristics, neural networks for complex dynamical systems, competition funded phd project (students worldwide).

This project is in competition for funding with other projects. Usually the project which receives the best applicant will be successful. Unsuccessful projects may still go ahead as self-funded opportunities. Applications for the project are welcome from all suitably qualified candidates, but potential funding may be restricted to a limited set of nationalities. You should check the project and department details for more information.

Numerical Algorithms for Molecular Systems and Data Science

Numerical algorithms and analysis for deterministic and stochastic systems, optimisation of home care management, data driven evaluation of supply chain performance, fully funded phd opportunities in maths and computing sciences, 4 year phd programme.

4 Year PhD Programmes are extended PhD opportunities that involve more training and preparation. You will usually complete taught courses in your first year (sometimes equivalent to a Masters in your subject) before choosing and proposing your research project. You will then research and submit your thesis in the normal way.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

• Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
• Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
• Hear about our upcoming study fairs
• Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

Filtering Results

Receive job alerts that match your preferences.

University of Agder (UiA)

Phd research fellow in mathematics education, about the employer.

The University was officially established in 2007, but has a history dating back to 1839, and was formerly known as Agder University College.

About the position

A 100 % position is available at the University of Agder, Faculty of Engineering and Science as a PhD Research Fellow in Mathematics Education, affiliated to the Department of Mathematical Sciences, for a period of three years, or for suitable candidates four years with 25 % required duties. The position is located, at present, at Campus Kristiansand. The starting date is negotiable with the Faculty, but preferable January 2025. 

The fellowship is within the  Department of Mathematical Sciences . The department has a large and active research group in mathematics education, MERGA, with about 20 fellows on its PhD programme. MERGA was rated very highly in a national survey of educational research conducted by The Research Council of Norway in 2017, and when University of Agder in 2018 recognised Priority Research Centres, MERGA was awarded such a status for five years, documenting the quality of the research group. The person appointed will join MERGA, and one of the three current strands of research within MERGA: Teaching and learning mathematics in higher education. More information about the MERGA and the particular strand is available from the Departmental web address above. The strand and position are closely connected to activities developed in MatRIC,  The Centre for Research, Innovation and Coordination of Mathematics Teaching . The Norwegian Agency of Quality Assurance in Education (abbreviated NOKUT) awarded MatRIC, as a national Centre for Excellence in Higher Education, to University of Agder back in 2013. The centre was led by the Department of Mathematical Sciences. The person appointed will contribute to the continued efforts in developing and researching university mathematics education.

The mathematics education research group has substantial and on-going experience of leading and contributing to large research projects funded by the EU, the Research Council of Norway, Nordforsk, the Competence Development Fund of Southern Norway, and others. The Department hosts the Graduate School in Mathematics and Science Education in Norway, and contributes actively to the Nordic mathematics education community. The University of Agder has excellent library support and collection of research literature in mathematics education (in English and Scandinavian languages) and on-line access to all leading journals in the field. 

Research proposal area

Innovative approaches to university mathematics teaching

Mathematics research, application of mathematics in industry and the teaching of mathematics in schools have all been affected by societal, technological and didactical changes. However, much of university mathematics teaching does not reflect these changes. We invite research projects addressing this gap. These could combine foci on:

• Research related to children’s mathematical developmental and learning trajectories. 
• Digital tools used in research and industry (AI, Mathematica, automated theorem provers, CAS) and in schools (dynamic geometry, CAS). 
• Concrete materials and visualizations used in research, industry and schools. 
• A target group, for example engineering students, calculus students, future teachers, etc. early or late in their studies.
• One or more research methods, for example teaching experiments, eye tracking studies, task-based interviews, surveys or literature reviews.
• A background theoretical framework, for example socio-cultural, constructivist, etc.

Responsibilities

A prerequisite for employment is that the candidate is to be admitted to UiA’s PhD programme at the Faculty of Engineering and Science, specialisation in Mathematical Sciences and the scientific area Mathematics Education . 

Required qualifications

The candidate must hold a cand. scient. or master’s degree in Mathematics Education or a closely related and relevant field. A teaching qualification is also essential.

The applicant must submit an approved project description within three months of appointment.

Further provisions relating to the positions as PhD Research Fellows can be found in the  Regulations Concerning Terms and Conditions of Employment for the post of Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Research Fellow, Research Assistant and Resident .

The successful applicant must have written and spoken English proficiency.

Desired qualifications

Competence in Norwegian and/or Scandinavian language are desired and will be prioritized in the valuation of the candidates. The research group includes Norwegian and international scholars, and the research will be carried out at the University of Agder and in classes being taught in Norwegian. Additional University classes from elsewhere in Norway might also be included. 

Length of relevant school/university teaching experience will also be taken into account in the selection of a suitable candidate. 

Experience in one or several of the below are also beneficial

• Collaboration in larger or smaller research projects and / or working groups. 
• Knowledge and experience of conducting literature reviews.
• Documented competence in qualitative and/or quantitative research methods. 

At the University of Agder, PhD dissertations may be written in Norwegian, another Scandinavian Language or English.

Personal qualities

Personal suitability and good teamwork skills will be emphasized in the evaluation as well as relevant practical experience. Research Fellows are expected to contribute to the active research community at the University. The position places demands on the applicant’s capacity for independent goal-oriented work, ability to concentrate and attention to detail.

Ability to familiarize oneself with new issues and methodological approaches. Applicants will be assessed on the basis of academic background and results, attainment, and any previous research activity, in addition to a (preliminary) research proposal submitted with the application (see below).

Research visits to an external institution or with a national or international partner for part of the period of employment may be anticipated.

• professional development in a large, exciting and socially influential organisation 
• a positive, inclusive and diverse working environment 
• modern facilities and a comprehensive set of welfare offers 
• membership of the  Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund 

More about working at UiA.

The position is remunerated according to the State Salary Scale, salary plan 17.515, code 1017 PhD Research Fellow, NOK 532 200 gross salary per year. A compulsory pension contribution to the Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund is deducted from the pay according to current statutory provisions. 

General information

UiA is an open and inclusive university. We believe that diversity enriches the workplace and makes us better. We, therefore, encourage qualified candidates to apply for the position irrespective of gender, age, cultural background, disability or an incomplete CV.

The successful applicant will have rights and obligations in accordance with the current regulations for the position, and organisational changes and changes in the duties and responsibilities of the position must be expected. The engagement is to be made in accordance with the regulations in force concerning the acts relating to Control of Export of Strategic Goods, Services and Technology . Appointment is made by the University of Agder’s Appointments Committee for Teaching and Research Positions. 

Short-listed applicants will be invited for interview. With the applicant’s permission, UiA will also conduct a reference check before appointment. Read more about applying for a position and the employment process .

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act § 25 (2), applicants may request that they are not identified in the open list of applicants. The University, however, reserves the right to publish the names of applicants. Applicants will be advised of the University’s intention to exercise this right.

Application

The application and any necessary information about education and experience (including diplomas and certificates) are to be sent electronically. Use the link "Apply for this job" .

The following documentation must be uploaded electronically: 

• A letter of application which includes a rationale for applying for the position, together with an outline of the applicant’s research interests and ability to conduct the proposed project within the outlined research proposal area.
• Certificates with grades.
• Master’s thesis.
• References.
• A summary and links to the applicant's scientific publications, if produced, must be included if to be considered.
• A short research proposal (preliminary) that sets out background, rationale, recent work and research design for the intended study. This should not extend beyond about 5 pages, but it will form an important part of the evaluation of candidates. It must be evident that it relates well to one of the proposed areas above (under the heading “Research proposal area”).
• Any other relevant documentation.

The applicant is fully responsible for submitting complete digital documentation before the closing date. We draw your attention to the fact that candidates who do not include all required documentation listed above will not be included in the evaluation process if attachments are missing. All documentation must be available in a Scandinavian language or English. 

Application deadline: 04.10.24

For questions about the position: 

• Associate Professor Shaista Kanwal, tel. (+47) 38 14 24 05, e-mail  [email protected]  
• Professor David Reid, tel. (+47) 38 14 12 67, e-mail  [email protected]
• Head of Department Ingvald Erfjord, tel. (+47) 38 14 15 47, e-mail  [email protected]  

For questions about the application process:

• HR-adviser Heidi Kristensen, tel. (+47) 38 14 13 79, e-mail  [email protected]

Creating knowledge together

When people who are committed come together to further knowledge, anything is possible.

The University of Agder combines the unique warmth and charm of Southern Norway with first-class scientific, technological and artistic expertise.

Would you like to work with us to create better solutions to our shared challenges?

University of Agder

The University of Agder has more than 1500 employees and almost 14 000 students, making us one of Southern Norway's largest workplaces. Our dedicated staff engage in research, teaching and dissemination across a diverse range of fields.

The university is located on two modern campuses in Kristiansand and Grimstad.

Job details

More jobs from this employer.

Associate professor in biology

Communications advisor, university librarian within teaching and guidance, phd research fellow in vision-language models in remote sensing.

About the positionA fixed-term 100% position is available at the University of Agder, Faculty of Engineering and Science as a PhD Research Fellow in Vision-Language Models in Remote Sensing, affiliated to the Department of Information and Communic...

PhD Research Fellows in Civil and Structural Engineering

About the positionA 100 % position is available at the University of Agder, Faculty of Engineering and Science as a PhD Research Fellow within Civil and Structural engineering, for a period of three years. The position is affiliated with the Depar...

PhD student in public health science - physical activity and mental health among students

Find similar jobs, this might interest you.

Jobs by field

• Electrical Engineering 171
• Programming Languages 169
• Machine Learning 165
• Artificial Intelligence 160
• Molecular Biology 148
• Cell Biology 129
• Materials Engineering 127
• Electronics 127
• Computational Sciences 121
• Mechanical Engineering 107

Jobs by type

• Postdoc 311
• Assistant / Associate Professor 157
• Researcher 116
• Professor 99
• Engineer 63
• Lecturer / Senior Lecturer 59
• Management / Leadership 57
• Tenure Track 49
• Research assistant 45

Jobs by country

• Belgium 228
• The Netherlands 174
• Morocco 126
• Germany 120
• Finland 109
• Switzerland 88
• Luxembourg 78

Jobs by employer

• Mohammed VI Polytechnic Unive... 126
• KU Leuven 91
• University of Luxembourg 76
• Eindhoven University of Techn... 71
• Ghent University 39
• ETH Zürich 33
• University of Twente 31
• KTH Royal Institute of Techno... 31
• University of Oulu 30

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 24-573: epscor research infrastructure improvement-focused epscor collaborations program (rii-fec), program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: May 16, 2024
• Replaces: NSF 22-633

Program Solicitation NSF 24-573

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

     December 17, 2024

     Third Tuesday in December, Annually Thereafter

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

     January 28, 2025

     Fourth Tuesday in January, Annually Thereafter

Important Information And Revision Notes

• Only jurisdictions that meet the EPSCoR eligibility criteria may submit proposals to the RII-FEC competition.
• The EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Program: Track-2 (RII Track-2 FEC) has been renamed to the EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement-Focused EPSCoR Collaboration Program (RII-FEC).
• The focus area for the RII-FEC program will be announced via a biennial Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) found at this link: EPSCoR Program links.
• Proposals may be submitted either as (i) a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations or (ii) a proposal from one organization with support for non-lead collaborating organizations requested as subawards.

An organization may only submit one proposal to the RII-FEC competition as lead. However, an organization may serve as a non-lead in a collaborative submission or as subawardee on any number of additional proposals.

For proposals from one organization with support for non-lead collaborating organizations requested as subawards, each submission must have at least one collaborator (specifically as Principal Investigator (PI) or co-PI) from each of the different EPSCoR jurisdictions.

An investigator may serve as PI or Co-PI on only one RII-FEC award at any given time. However, the investigator may serve as other Senior/Key Personnel on any number of RII-FEC submissions or awards.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement-Focused EPSCoR Collaborations Program (RII-FEC)

The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed to fulfill the mandate of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to promote scientific progress nationwide. EPSCoR eligibility status is yearly updated and reported in the EPSCoR website (see EPSCoR eligibility ). Through this program, NSF establishes partnerships with government, higher education, and industry that are designed to affect sustainable improvements in a jurisdiction's research infrastructure, Research and Development (R&D) capacity, and hence, its R&D competitiveness. The RII-FEC program (formerly known as "EPSCoR Track-2 program") builds inter-jurisdictional collaborative teams of EPSCoR investigators in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) focus areas consistent with the current National Science Foundation Strategic Plan . Projects are investigator-driven and must include researchers from at least two EPSCoR eligible jurisdictions with complementary expertise and resources necessary to address challenges, which neither party could address as well or as rapidly independently. RII-FEC projects have a comprehensive and integrated vision to drive discovery and build sustainable STEM capacity that exemplifies individual, institutional, geographic, and disciplinary diversity. The projects' STEM research and education activities seek to broaden participation through the strategic inclusion and integration of all individuals, institutions, and sectors. Additionally, EPSCoR recognizes that the development of early-career faculty from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields is critical to sustaining and advancing research capacity. The integration and inclusion of Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), women's colleges, Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), and two-year colleges is a critical component of this sustainable STEM capacity.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Jose Colom-Ustariz, Program Director, NSF, telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: [email protected]
• Lisa C. Cliggett, Program Director, NSF, telephone: (703) 292-2759, email: [email protected]
• Hongmei Luo, Program Director, NSF, telephone: (703) 292-8867, email: [email protected]
• Benjamin J. McCall, Program Director, NSF, telephone: (703) 292-7916, email: [email protected]
• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- STEM Education
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 12

Anticipated Funding Amount: $12,000,000 to $18,000,000

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the quality of proposals and availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions or organizations in jurisdictions that meet the EPSCoR eligibility criteria. Institutions of higher education (PhD-granting and non-PhD-granting), acting on behalf of their faculty members, that are accredited in and have a campus in the United States, its territories, or possessions. Distinct academic campuses (e.g., that award their own degrees, have independent administrative structures, admissions policies, alumni associations, etc.) within multi-campus systems qualify as separate submission-eligible organizations. Campuses that plan to submit a proposal through the Sponsored Projects Office of other campuses or organizations should contact NSF to discuss eligibility as early as possible and at least six weeks before submitting such a proposal. Not-for-profit, non-degree-granting domestic U.S. organizations, acting on behalf of their employees, that include (but are not limited to) independent museums and science centers, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies, and similar organizations that are directly associated with the Nation's research or educational activities. These organizations must have an independent, permanent administrative organization (e.g., an office of sponsored research) located in the United States, its territories, or possessions, and have 501(c)(3) tax status. Tribal Governments with the governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a, et seq.) or Indigenous communities that are not recognized by the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a, et seq.). It is encouraged that the lead institution/organization or at least one collaborative partner be an institution from one of the categories below: Emerging Research Institutions as defined in 42 §USC 18901 as institutions of higher education with an established undergraduate or graduate program that have less than $50,000,000 in Federal research expenditures; Minority-serving institutions, as defined by the U.S. Department of Education; Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), including two-year colleges, that award associate degrees, bachelor's degrees, and/or master's degrees in NSF-supported fields, but have awarded 20 or fewer Ph.D./D.Sci. degrees in all NSF-supported fields during the combined previous two academic years; Institutions of higher education that are dedicated to serving students with disabilities, as listed in Table 1, page 5, of NSF's 2008 Broadening Participation report ( https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2022-03/nsf_frameworkforaction_0808.pdf ); Degree-granting women's colleges, as listed in the U.S. Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics ( https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_312.30.asp ). Proposals may be submitted either as a collaborative from multiple organizations or one organization with support for collaborators requested as subawards.

Who May Serve as PI:

Principal Investigators of proposed RII-FEC projects must be affiliated with and employed by eligible organizations in EPSCoR jurisdictions. Each EPSCoR jurisdiction participating in a proposed project must be represented by a PI or at least one co-PI. The PI and co-PIs must all have research expertise relevant to the research being proposed. PIs and Co-PIs on current RII-FEC (previously known as NSF EPSCoR RII Track-2 FEC) awards with end dates (including any No Cost Extensions) after October 31 of the year of submission are not eligible to submit proposals as a PI or Co-PI. However, an individual may serve as senior personnel on any number of RII-FEC proposals or awards.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

C. due dates, proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

A. EPSCoR Mission and Goals

The mission of EPSCoR is to enhance the research competitiveness of targeted jurisdictions (states, territories, and commonwealths) by strengthening STEM capacity and capability through a diverse portfolio of investments from talent development to local infrastructure. Through its programmatic goals, EPSCoR seeks to:

• Catalyze the development of research capabilities and the creation of new knowledge that expands jurisdictions' contributions to scientific discovery, innovation, learning, and knowledge-based prosperity;
• Establish sustainable STEM education, training, and professional development pathways that advance jurisdiction-identified research areas and workforce development;
• Broaden direct participation of diverse individuals, institutions, and organizations in the project's science and engineering research and education initiatives;
• Effect sustainable engagement of project participants and partners, the jurisdiction, the national research community, and the general public through data-sharing, communication, outreach, and dissemination; and
• Impact research, education, and economic development beyond the project at academic, government, and private sector levels.

B. Criteria for Eligibility to Participate in the RII-FEC

Eligibility to take part in this competition is based on the current table of EPSCoR eligible jurisdictions (see EPSCoR eligibility ). Only eligible organizations in EPSCoR eligible jurisdictions may take part in this competition.

C. RII-FEC Program

Well-designed collaborative strategies are essential to EPSCoR's goal of enhancing the competitive position of research and research-based education in science and engineering. This approach can help overcome impediments posed by limited infrastructure or human capital within a single jurisdiction and can enable broad engagement at the frontiers of discovery and innovation in science and engineering.

This RII-FEC solicitation responds directly to national studies and community input, including the National Science Foundation Strategic Plan , Envisioning the Future of NSF EPSCoR report, and the CHIPS and Science Act . RII-FEC seeks to build nationally and internationally competitive collaborative teams of EPSCoR investigators by providing a mechanism to coalesce investigator expertise into a critical mass for a sustained, effective research and education partnership in NSF priority areas.

EPSCoR support of a proposed research infrastructure improvement activity should not duplicate other available federal, jurisdictional, or organizational resources and should add significant value to increasing scientific competitiveness at the national or regional level.

II. Program Description

The primary driver for RII-FEC investments is the need to build STEM-driven, inter-jurisdictional research collaborations with the potential to be nationally and internationally competitive. The Project Description should include a strong rationale for the collaboration and demonstrate that the partnership is designed to facilitate discovery and innovation in the focus area (detailed in the published biennial Dear Colleague Letter), which neither party could address as well, or as rapidly, alone. RII-FEC projects are unique in their integration of researchers into collaborative teams across EPSCoR jurisdictions, and must develop a diverse, well-prepared, STEM-enabled workforce necessary to sustain research competitiveness.

For NSF EPSCoR to achieve this vision, requires not only advancing the frontiers of science, engineering, and education but also ensuring that U.S. research is an inclusive enterprise that harnesses the talent of all sectors of American society a research enterprise that incorporates the rich demographic and geographic diversity of the nation.

Therefore, the recruitment and/or development of early-career faculty as well as groups at all levels of this project who are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields, including postdoctoral researchers, undergraduates, graduate students, and K-12 students, are critical in achieving this goal and must be an integral component of the proposed project.

Over the long term, RII-FEC investments are expected to result in sustained improvements in research competitiveness, enabling EPSCoR investigators to successfully pursue significant opportunities of national and international importance in science and engineering research and education. It is expected that previous NSF and other federal agency investments will be leveraged and translated into advancing the understanding of the focus area. All proposals must clearly indicate the intended social impact, demonstrating how the project will benefit the community in the involved jurisdiction(s). Non-EPSCoR and international collaborations may be included, but no EPSCoR funds should be directed to these organizations

Central to the success of the proposal is a clear demonstration that the collaboration is well-positioned to produce outcomes that cannot be obtained through the efforts of a team in a single jurisdiction working alone. The proposal must clearly identify the roles and contributions of each partner in the project, the anticipated increases in research capacity and competitiveness, the projected workforce development and educational plan and outcomes, and the benefits to the jurisdictions, the Nation, and society. It is expected that these collaborations be balanced, with participating jurisdictions each contributing to and benefiting from projects at levels that are appropriate to their capabilities.

To ensure maximum impact of available programmatic funds, requests for RII-FEC funding must:

• Add significantly to the research capacity of the participating jurisdictions in the focus area;
• Contribute to the advancement of research and innovation in the focus area;
• Illustrate how the participating jurisdictions' research capacities will be positively impacted by the collaborative effort;
• Outline clear plans for the recruitment and/or development of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM as early-career faculty;
• Engage the full diversity of the participating jurisdictions' resources including two- and four-year colleges, Minority-Serving Institutions, and local and state industries in STEM workforce development;
• Include social and economic expertise to understand and assess the societal implications of the focus area, as detailed in the published biennial Dear Colleague Letter (DCL); and
• Present a sustainability plan for obtaining subsequent, sustained non-EPSCoR funding from federal, jurisdictional, or private sector sources.

RII-FEC proposals are expected to be STEM-driven collaborations and the PI and co-PIs should all be active researchers in the research topic(s) of the proposal. Proposals should clearly explain how the proposed research, education, and workforce development activities will create or increase the capacity for the jurisdictions involved to participate in continued research. Proposals must include a timetable or strategic plan for achieving those goals, and/or a logic model with a clearly articulated theory of change that identifies appropriate indicators of progress towards the desired outcomes.

The RII-FEC focus area will be announced biennially through a DCL, found at this link: EPSCoR Program links .

Broadening Impact

EPSCoR's mission of enhancing the research competitiveness of targeted jurisdictions by strengthening STEM capacity and capability aligns with RII-FEC goals to "broaden the participation of diverse groups and institutions in STEM." By leveraging current and previous NSF substantial investments, as well as investments from other federal agencies, proposed projects are expected to create a significant and collective impact on targeted jurisdictions. Proposals submitted for RII-FEC competition could leverage already documented outcomes from any project(s) related to previous investments across multiple jurisdictions and collectively bring those outcomes together to address new opportunities that impact communities within the targeted jurisdiction(s). As a result, these projects are expected to create or establish a solid pathway towards benefiting and positively impacting the jurisdictions in concert with a diverse STEM workforce.

Proposals must demonstrate understanding of societal impacts of the research problem by incorporating relevant community members, organizations and social scientists during project development, planning, and project design. By ensuring appropriate community engagement throughout the project lifecycle, RII-FEC projects will be better positioned to have positive societal impacts in their jurisdictions and beyond. These positive societal impacts may include community empowerment through collaborative problem solving for affected communities, training for community members in project related activities, and development of innovative educational plans, among others. It is expected that project teams will implement activities that build scientific knowledge, grow the scale of impact, and ground the research agenda with attention to societal implications. Additionally, proposals should include a vision for how the project will be sustained, and a description of plans for technology transfer and/or innovation, if applicable.

Workforce Development

To address the anticipated needs of the future workforce, projects should develop strong educational programs in the proposed research areas that can be implemented across institutions of higher learning in participating jurisdictions and directly contribute to building a skilled workforce in areas associated with the project focus. Additionally, STEM talent must be cultivated in populations traditionally underrepresented in STEM for jurisdictions to keep pace with changing workforce needs. Accordingly, proposals should include a strong commitment to building a diverse workforce. Involvement and mentoring of early-career faculty is required and a detailed mentoring plan that leverages national best practices for STEM mentoring is expected. More information on NSF's commitment to broadening participation can be found in NSF's Strategic Plan.

III. Award Information

Up to 12 awards for a total funding of $18,000,000 are anticipated, pending the availability of funds. The maximum RII-FEC award amount is based on the number of eligible jurisdictions participating in the project. If organizations from two eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the award amount may not exceed $4 million for up to four years. If organizations from three or more eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the award amount may not exceed $6 million for up to four years. The program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the quality of proposals and availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

Additional Eligibility Info:

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

Letters of Intent (required) :

A Letter of Intent (LOI) must be submitted by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) of the submitting organization by the applicable LOI due date. Proposals received that are not preceded by an LOI from the AOR of the submitting organization will be returned without review.

The LOI contains "Synopsis" and "Other Comments" text data fields. LOIs should use these fields to describe, in as much detail as possible, the research to be addressed by the proposal. LOIs will be used solely in preparation for merit review. LOIs will not be seen by reviewers or used in any manner to judge the merit of the proposed research. Due to the space limitations, it is in the proposer's best interest to provide information on the proposed research topics only and to avoid providing extraneous information such as prior accomplishments, motivation for the research, information on the qualifications of the project participants, etc. However, the LOI should indicate EPSCoR jurisdictions and institutions and/or organizations participating in the project.

A list of science/research keywords should be entered under the "Research Keywords" entry to assist EPSCoR staff in preparing for proposal review.

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions :

When submitting a Letter of Intent through Research.gov in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

• Submission by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is required when submitting Letters of Intent.
• A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4 Other Senior Project Personnel are permitted
• A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 99 Other Participating Organizations are permitted
• Research Keywords are required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not permitted

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

The following instructions are specific to proposals submitted to the RII-FEC competition and supplement the NSF PAPPG and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide:

RII-FEC proposals may only be submitted by organizations in the eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions listed in Section IV of this solicitation. An organization may only serve as lead on one proposal, either as the lead on a single proposal with subawards, or as the lead on a set of separately submitted collaborative proposals.

Proposal Set-Up: Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Full Proposal wizards. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards)" or "Separately submitted a collaborative proposal". The project title must begin with "FEC:" and follow with an informative title in the topic area.

1. Senior/Key Personnel.

The lead PI must be a researcher from the submitting jurisdiction and all other participating jurisdictions should have at least one individual designated as PI or co-PI on the proposal.

2. Project Summary (1 page maximum).

In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, the Project Summary must include three separate sections labeled Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts. In the Overview section, briefly describe the collaborating organizations; the vision and goals of the collaboration; a statement of the objectives and methods to be employed; expected impacts of the proposed activities; and plans for sustaining collaborations and impacts beyond the award period. At the end of the Broader Impacts section, indicate the Letter of Intent (LOI) number, and the NSF Directorate(s), Division(s), and Program(s) that most closely align with the proposal's research focus.

3. Project Description (20 pages maximum).

This section should present the proposed activities in a clear, compelling way and describe how the activities for which NSF support is being requested will lead to sustainable impacts. In addition to the requirements contained in the NSF PAPPG, the Project Description must articulate clear plans for elements described below.

The Project Description may not exceed 20 pages, including text, as well as any graphic or illustrative materials. Maximum page limitations also apply to specific subsections of the Project Description. Note that if the maximum page limit for each subsection is used, the total number of pages will exceed the maximum allowed for the Project Description. Proposals that exceed the page limitations or that do not contain all items described below will be returned without review.

In addition to the separate section labeled Broader Impacts required by the PAPPG, the Project Description must contain the following subsections:

3.1 Status and Overview (2 pages maximum).

Describe the motivation and rationale for establishing the collaboration, and how the proposed project addresses the identified focus area for this competition.

3.2 Results from Relevant Prior Support (2 pages maximum).

Describe results from relevant prior NSF support and other prior federal or other investments of the PIs and co-PIs in the last five years. This section should include a description of the activities and impacts of previous awards, including major accomplishments in both intellectual merit and broader impacts

3.3 Research, Collaboration, and Workforce Development (18 pages maximum).

This section of the proposal should provide a concise description of the long-term research and education goals and intellectual focus in sufficient detail to enable their scientific merit and broader impacts to be assessed. The proposal must present the proposed research in the context of other efforts in the field (with appropriate references), state the major challenges and how they will be addressed, and comment on the novelty and/or originality of the proposed approach. In addition to providing explicit evidence for the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the research and education activities, this section should:

• Identify the faculty-level participants and estimate the numbers of postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate research participants. Briefly outline the resources (available and planned) to accomplish the research goals.
• Establish the means of developing a coordinated, collaborative approach involving investigators across different organizations, jurisdictions, and disciplines. Describe interactions with other groups and organizations among the jurisdictions, and at the national and international levels, as appropriate. The research and education program description must demonstrate how the collaboration will advance research, education, and workforce development. The narrative should demonstrate how the collaboration's activities would advance the frontiers of knowledge and future research competitiveness of the participating jurisdictions in the proposed research areas.
• Provide relevant baseline data regarding any of the research, education, workforce development, or other project targets and goals. For example, in cases where quantitative goals or targets are proposed, baseline data regarding the current situation or past performance should be given.

3.3.1 Inter-jurisdictional Collaborations and Partnerships.

Interdisciplinary collaborative research brings with it the challenge of developing productive high-performing research teams involving multiple researchers from different organizations and disciplinary expertise. This section must clearly present the rationale for the composition of the teams, a description of the leadership structure, and the context for establishing the collaboration. The research expertise of the PIs and co-PIs must be explained in the context of the proposed research activities. Coordination and synergy among the collaborators should be summarized and the role of each of the faculty-level investigators should be clearly defined. Mechanisms that foster collaboration across the teams, such as all-hands meetings, and risk-mitigation strategies should be described. The compelling ways in which the project leadership plans to coordinate the activities into a cohesive project should be presented, with well-articulated goals and strategies to achieve them.

This section must include a specific discussion of how the collaborative effort will positively impact each participating jurisdiction and its respective target population, including methodologies and metrics for measuring success. Proposals should also explain how each participating jurisdiction will contribute to and benefit from the proposed collaboration in a meaningful and distinct way.

3.3.2 Sustainability of the Team.

A detailed plan for long-term sustainability of the proposed activities and infrastructure (physical, cyber, and human) beyond the lifespan of the project is required. Plans should clearly delineate what the expected research impacts will be on the jurisdiction(s) involved and how they could holistically tie into affecting populations of the jurisdiction(s) involved. The plan must provide realistic, annual metrics to assess the short and long-term economic impacts of this project. This could include realistic timelines for new submissions of proposals to NSF and other federal and state programs by the project team in the focus area topic, or industry and state partnerships that lead to alternative pathways to sustainability. The plan should also include how proposed new faculty hires, if any, will be supported beyond the award period.

3.3.3 Workforce Development.

The scope of RII-FEC activities must include STEM workforce development activities that are integrated with the research and education components of the project and contribute to the preparation of a diverse, new cadre of skilled researchers, innovators, and educators who represent the diversity of the nation.

The workforce development plan must include explicit efforts for the recruitment and/or development of early-career faculty in the project's research activities. It should also describe in detail the mechanisms to attract and mentor these individuals, to enable their development and success as educators and researchers, and their specific contributions to achieving the project's goals in the focus area. For this solicitation, early-career faculty are defined as those who are employed as assistant professors in tenure track (or equivalent) positions, or research assistant professors at the time of submission of the proposal, or who are hired into such a position during the award period.

The research and educational training for postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate trainees should be designed to develop a workforce that is able to integrate as appropriate and impact the jurisdiction within the chosen topic of the project. This should provide them with skills to work easily across disciplinary and other perceived boundaries and to interface with stakeholders such as academia, industry, government, and the general public. This can include the involvement of K-12, two-year, and four-year colleges, with the intent to develop an inclusive workforce appropriate to populate new niches that are created through the project's activities. In particular, the proposed program should present an implementation strategy, informed by national best practices for building research competencies, and research mentoring. The implementation strategy should include an initial baseline assessment, clearly articulated goals, milestones, and timelines.

3.3.4 Evaluation and Assessment Plan (2 pages maximum).

An independent external evaluator must provide annual evaluation and assessment of the project. In addition, quantitative collection is required as part of the centralized project output data collection (see below) and should be used in concert with any additional quantitative or qualitative data collected by the required independent evaluator.

The Evaluation and Assessment plan should be an integral part of the project design to aid in the identification of outcomes and impacts of the project's goals and objectives as well as a tool for providing effective feedback to the management team through an independent evaluator. Evaluation plans should include strategies for formative and summative assessments, including goals, metrics, and milestones. The plan must include metrics for the strength of the collaboration and workforce development, including submission of collaborative proposals and associated awards, collaborative publications, progression of early-career faculty, innovations, research results, longitudinal tracking of undergraduates, graduate students, and post-docs, and it should document how the collaborative efforts evolve over time.

In addition to the project-specific evaluation, all RII-FEC awardees will also be required to participate in a centralized project outcomes data-collection activity coordinated by EPSCoR and carried out by its designated entity. This activity is intended to facilitate standardized, accurate metrics tracking across projects and to complement the projects' individual evaluation and assessment efforts.

3.4 Management and Implementation Plan (2 pages maximum).

Proposals must include a comprehensive plan for the project's management, including the roles and responsibilities of key personnel, how the PI and Co-PIs plan to communicate and coordinate with each other and the project team, how the centralized project output data-collection will be integrated into their evaluation mechanisms as described above, and how the project administrative requirements will be managed across all areas. The plan should describe the responsibilities of any administrative staff expected to support the project on a full or part-time basis.

4. Budget and Budget Justification .

See Section V.B. below for information and guidance.

5. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources.

In accordance with the guidance contained in the NSF PAPPG, provide a description of relevant available facilities, equipment, and other resources relevant to the project for each EPSCoR jurisdiction in the collaboration.

6. Senior/Key Personnel Documents

In accordance with the guidance contained in the NSF PAPPG, the following documents must be provided for each individual designated as senior/key personnel on the project:

• Biographical Sketch(es)
• Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
• Synergistic Activities

It is permitted to include biographical sketches for any named collaborators ("Other Personnel") whose expertise is crucial to the success of the project, including the independent evaluator(s). If doing so, these biographical sketches must be uploaded in the Other Personnel Biographical Information section in Research.gov and they must conform to NSF guidelines for biographical sketches. Do not include biographical sketches for members of External Advisory Committees or Boards.

7. Other Supplementary Documents (in addition to those required by the NSF PAPPG)

List of Participants. Provide a list of participating senior/key personnel (faculty level and equivalent) by name, organization, and departmental affiliation. Specify the role of each participant (i.e. PI, Co-PI, Senior/Key Personnel, Other Personnel; etc.) in the list.

List of all organizations and companies involved in the project (including location). Specify the role of the organization (i.e., lead, non-lead, subawardee, etc.) in the list.

Up to a maximum of five Letters of Collaboration of two pages or less from other partners or jurisdictional officials may be included to support commitment that will be relied upon beyond the collaboration among the core partners.

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

• Funding requests can be for durations of up to 4 years. The maximum allowed RII-FEC award amount depends on the number of participating EPSCoR jurisdictions. If organizations from two eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the total award amount may not exceed $4 million for up to 4 years. If organizations from three or more eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions collaborate on a proposal, the total award amount may not exceed $6 million for up to 4 years.
• Budgets should include sufficient funding for participation in annual jurisdictional and regional EPSCoR conferences, the annual EPSCoR PI/PD meeting, the EPSCoR National Conference, and for one RII-FEC kickoff meeting for all PIs and all co-PIs at the NSF Headquarters in Year 1 only.
• RII-FEC projects are expected to host or facilitate project-wide meetings (virtual, hybrid, and/or in-person) such as EPSCoR all-hands workshops and/or science symposia which include support for student (undergraduate and graduate as appropriate) participants of the RII-FEC project.
• If the proposal is being submitted as a "Submission of a collaborative proposal from one organization," budgets for participating organizations must be included as subawards to the budget of the submitting organization. Only the budget of the submitting organization (lead) may include subawards (i.e., no subawards may appear in the budgets of subawardee organizations). Each subaward must include a separate budget justification of no more than five pages.
• If the proposal is being submitted as a "Submission of a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations," follow the instructions in PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 regarding budget submissions.
• Organizations or institutions submitting proposal budgets with Subawards must be able to verify that the lead organization has established a system to monitor the subawards issued on Federally-sponsored projects and that appropriate agreements are in place with sub-recipients.
• Subawards to organizations in non-EPSCoR jurisdictions are not allowed.
• Financial compensation for any independent evaluator(s) involved in the project must be included in the budget of the submitting organization under Consultant Services. No other form of financial compensation for external evaluation services is allowed.
• Proposal budgets must comply with the guidance in 2 CFR 200 and the current PAPPG. Proposing entities are cautioned to ensure that all costs proposed are allowable (allocable, reasonable, and necessary), especially those costs associated with Participant Support. Costs typically considered to be for entertainment, incentive, or promotional purposes should be sufficiently detailed in the budget justification to support the programmatic relevance and need. In general, costs for entertainment, amusement, and advertising/promotional purposes are unallowable and may not be requested. However, among EPSCoR's programmatic goals are emphasis on establishing STEM development pathways and broadening participation of diverse groups in STEM, which can include "Bridge" programs designed to prepare high school students for the transition to college. This may include entertainment, amusement, and/or promotional costs related to STEM enrichment activities covering a range of possible career paths or activities focusing on cohort-building and maintaining a healthy work-life balance. These categories of activities are consistent with the overall program goal of preparing students for the difficult high school to college transition. This may include residential programs for minor students whose supervisory requirements may require different choices than would be appropriate for adult students. When costs typically considered as entertainment, amusement, and promotion are necessary to accomplish the proposed objectives, they must be included in the budget and justified in the budget justification.

Proposals with budgets that depart from these instructions will be considered not responsive and may be returned without review.

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/applicants . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation. Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing. The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide , Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide , and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions . Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF. When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Reviewers for the FEC competition will also consider the following specific review criteria:

Research Capacity – What is the potential impact of the project on enhancing STEM research competitiveness and developing STEM research capacity and infrastructure in the jurisdictions (including physical, cyber, and human resources)?

Workforce Development – How will the recruitment and development of early-career faculty and postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate trainees contribute to the preparation of a full spectrum of diverse, new cadre of skilled researchers, innovators, and educators able to work across boundaries and interface with stakeholders in areas associated with the project focus?

Inter-jurisdictional Collaboration – Is there a balanced, sustainable, collaborative effort of activities such that each jurisdiction is contributing to and benefiting from the project at an appropriate level?

Integration of Project Elements – How well developed is the integration of, and synergy between, the research, education, workforce development, sustainability, project coordination, and evaluation elements of the project?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF's Build America, Buy America webpage.

TBD - Programmatic Terms and Conditions:

Programmatic Terms and Conditions, if applicable, are outcomes of the proposal specific merit review process.

TBD - Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions:

EPSCoR funds must be expended within EPSCoR jurisdictions.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

The annual and final annual project reports must include identification of numbers of women and members of other underrepresented groups in faculty and staff positions and as participants in the activities funded by the award.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (NSF Information Center) (703) 292-5111 (703) 292-5090   Send an e-mail to: or telephone: (703) 292-8134 (703) 292-5111 Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records." Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314 473 IMAGES Sample research proposal phd mathematics in 2021 Sample thesis proposal in mathematics Mathematics research proposal writing help. Research Proposal Help (PDF) A research proposal in mathematical modeling applied to heart and Phd Proposal (Example).pdf Programme Proposal for PhD with Integrated Study in Mathematical VIDEO 3-Minute Thesis Competition 2023 Sample of Research Proposal / MESP001 / Hand written Challenges in writing a PhD research proposal Research Proposal for PhD admission #profdrrajasekaran Research Proposal Format || Review of Developing a Research Proposal ||Research Plan || Parts of Research Plan || Part 1 || COMMENTS PDF Doctoral Program in Mathematics Education Eva Thanheiser Director, Ph.D. Program in Mathematics Education Fariborz Maseeh Hall Room 468-E [email protected]. Sean Larsen Faculty (Ph.D. Program Committee Member) Fariborz Maseeh Hall Room 464-K [email protected]. Steven Boyce Faculty (Ph.D. Program Committee Member) Fariborz Maseeh Hall Room 468-J [email protected]. PDF Research proposal io. :late 2015. 1. IntroductionA central purpose of education involves helping children move along the 'mode continuum' (Gibbons, 2003, after Halliday) from common-sense ways of thinking and talking about things towards more formalised and systematic. ays of doing so. Gibbons, taking the systemic functional view of language as a semiotic ... Mathematics Education Mathematics Education Doctoral Program PDF Communicating Mathematics in a Research Proposal Mathematics in a Research ProposalEmily CladerGood proposal writing is, in many ways, just good math-emat. cal writing, which is just good writing, period. Nei-ther of these equivalences is entirely true, however, and examining their nuances is a helpful way to probe the question of what exactly. makes a strong research proposal in mathematics ... Overview: PhD Mathematics & Science Education Overview: PhD Mathematics & Science Education. The PhD in Education: ... prelims are a hearing on the dissertation proposal with the primary function to assess and approve the dissertation research proposal. Although the oral prelims committee can be later changed if needed, it should generally be expected to serve also as your dissertation ... PhD, Teaching and Learning, Math Education Concentration Prepare to conduct mathematics education research at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary level. You will work closely with faculty on all aspects of the research process, including designing a research proposal, honing your methodology, implementing a research agenda, and disseminating findings. phd Mar 16, 2014 at 17:10. 1. @AnonymousMathematician From my experience this past application season, required research proposals were standard in graduate applications in Europe (for math). I never saw one that required a methodology section, though. - user10060. PDF Writing a research proposal Guidance for PhD applicants Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. The 1,500 word research proposal is an important element of your application to doctoral study, whether full-time or part-time. It offers you the opportunity to outline the research you intend to conduct, including how you plan to go about it, and how your research might ... Future themes of mathematics education research: an international Before the pandemic (2019), we asked: On what themes should research in mathematics education focus in the coming decade? The 229 responses from 44 countries led to eight themes plus considerations about mathematics education research itself. The themes can be summarized as teaching approaches, goals, relations to practices outside mathematics education, teacher professional development ... How to Make Research Proposal for Mathematics PhD Project Proposing a Timeline: Create a realistic timeline that outlines your mathematics project's key milestones and stages. Budget and Resources: Estimate the necessary research resources, including materials, software, equipment, and any potential travel. Justify the budget allocation based on the requirements of your work. How to write a postdoc research proposal in mathematics? Since you're applying for a fellowship, it's competitive. So you have to make a few points in your proposal: [WHY] that the problem you're studying is interesting and worthwhile. [HOW] that your line of attack (briefly sketched) is plausible. [WHO] and that you have the right skills to execute this plan. Mathematics Education (Ph.D.) Successful completion of a dissertation proposal defense in the major field of mathematics education. Experience in teaching equivalent to at least half-­time for one year typically through assistantship assignments. Dissertation. Students must complete and submit a dissertation that involves original research in mathematics education. PhD in Mathematics PhD in Mathematics. We are proud of our world-class reputation for research excellence and our commitment to provide the highest quality training for our postgraduate students. The School of Mathematics offers a cutting-edge PhD programme, and we welcome applications from national and international students all year round. Our postgraduate ... Mathematics Education Theses and Dissertations Mathematics Education Theses and Dissertations PDF A Guide to Writing your PhD Proposal Considering a UK PhD: Your Next Steps PhD Applied Mathematics Research project proposal Abstract. PhD in Applied Mathematics - Research Proposal Scope of the research project: development of a game theory-based mathematical model for an autonomous machine decision-making system, with ... research statement/proposal for a (pure-)math-PhD? 1. When applying for PhD programs outside your home university, the university you apply to usually requires a research statement from you. However, this isn't the case when you reach out for a Bachelor's or Master's thesis topic to a professor you know from your home university (in mathematics). You would just approach a supervisor and express ... (DOC) phd math education proposal.doc Doctoral programs in mathematics education were established more than a century ago in the United States. From 2010-2014 over 120 different institutions graduated at least one doctorate in mathematics education. There has been limited research reported on the nature of doctoral programs in mathematics education and/or their doctoral graduates. Mathematics PhD theses Mathematics PhD theses mathematics education PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships PhD Studentships in The School of Mathematics and Statistics. Open University School of Mathematics and Statistics. Available from 1 October 2024. Applications for funded PhD study to commence 1 October 2024 are now open. Both UK-based and international applicants are welcome to apply. PDF NQBNBT Q T åQ '8BQ N' *> åY' =åY* T Tå This research will focus on the technologies that are used in the Mathematics academe, especially focusing on learning Mathematics via art, through the use of video game. As of the moment, traditional approaches in education have resulted in a mismatch between the lessons taught to students, and what the industry currently needs. (Nelman, 2002). PhD Research Fellow in Mathematics Education About the position. A 100 % position is available at the University of Agder, Faculty of Engineering and Science as a PhD Research Fellow in Mathematics Education, affiliated to the Department of Mathematical Sciences, for a period of three years, or for suitable candidates four years with 25 % required duties. The position is located, at present, at Campus Kristiansand. NSF 24-573: EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement-Focused EPSCoR Institutions of higher education (PhD-granting and non-PhD-granting), acting on behalf of their faculty members, that are accredited in and have a campus in the United States, its territories, or possessions. ... NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 ... assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review thesis