Oral History Project - Current Faculty
Dr. James W. Wilson
Professor of Mathematics Education
(1968-present)
Interviewer: Aris Reynold V. Cajigal
Date: 16 October, 2007
Q: How did you come to work with the College of Education at the University of Georgia.
A: I finished my doctorate at Stanford University and stayed on with a research staff there, from 1964-68. In 1967, I met some people who were visiting Stanford from the University of Georgia and they mentioned that mathematics education was developing at Georgia and hoped that I would be interested. It wasn’t on my mind at that time. In 1967, there was a national conference on research in mathematics education that was held at UGA over in the Georgia Center for Continuing Education. They brought people from all over the country and there were two of us who came from Stanford –Professor Beagle who was my mentor – and me. It was a three or four-day conference and the first national conference on research in mathematics education. The people in the department, Dr. Hooten, Dr. Pikaart and Dr. McKillip, were instrumental in bringing that conference here and bringing researchers from all over the country. So it attracted a lot of attention to the University of Georgia, and it led me to consider the University of Georgia as a place to work in mathematics education.
At the conference, there were several side conversations with the people here. They knew that I was trying to leave Stanford in 1968 and those conversations began a year-long discussion of considering the University of Georgia for a possible position. When I did leave Stanford in 1968, this was one of several places from which I had offers, The others were University of Maryland, University of Massachusetts, University of Illinois, and Kansas State University. It was a very difficult decision because other places were offering more money. What led me to the University of Georgia was the sense of a group of mathematics education people here interested in some of the things that I was interested in, such as mathematics teacher education and research on learning of mathematics. It was basically a fairly young group of scholars who were being established here. Dr. Steffe had joined the faculty at that time so when I came for a job interview, there was Dr. Steffe, Dr. Pikaart, Dr. Hooten, Dr. McKillip and Dr. Willcutt already here. In the spring of 1968, the University of Georgia was looking for three people in mathematics education and I was one of the three that eventually accepted a position here. The other two were Dr. Hatfield and Dr. Mahaffey.
So the short answer to your question, rather than the long one I’ve given you, is that I was very impressed with the group of people I had a chance to work with and collaborate with here. At other places, there were only one or two other people, or nobody else, in mathematics education. If I had gone to the University of Massachusetts, I would have been the only person there in mathematics education. There might have been other colleagues in other departments and there were other things which were strong in those places but the fact there was a group of mathematics education people here, with a Department of Mathematics Education, was a big factor in attracting me to the University of Georgia.
Q: What work was involved in being an assistant professor in 1968?
A: I was involved in teaching classes on mathematics teacher education and research on mathematics education. I taught mathematics courses as well. The teaching was a big component of it. I was involved in research in mathematical problem-solving and was still involved in a long-term study called the National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abilities, which was housed at Stanford. I had been the project coordinator for the analysis phase of the longitudinal study from 1964-68. For the first five years I was here, I was still working on the analysis of that longitudinal study, so that was a part of my research load. Eventually there were 44 volumes of research reports from that project in which we followed the mathematics achievement of 115,000 students for five years.
Q: In thinking back to that time when you joined the UGA faculty, what stands out for you now?
A: The people, the colleagues I had, and the environment of being part of a Department of Mathematics Education. There were the scholars I was able to work with on a day-to-day basis and it includes scholars in the mathematics department and scholars outside of the College of Education. Largely, it was the day-to-day interactions with people who were in mathematics education. And at that stage of my career, that was very important to me. Had the merger of mathematics and science education occurred at that stage of my career, I would have left.
Q: Was there anything you disliked when you started your career here?
A: Dislike is not the right word. There was a tremendous adjustment for me to move and live in the South. This was a different culture for me. I was overwhelmed in some ways by the provincialism of this place. And it’s not the university’s provincialism, it’s the community’s provincialism. And for the longest time, you are an outsider. People would ask, “Where are you from?” And I’d answer, “I’m from Athens. I live here.” But that’s not what they were asking. It’s, “You’re obviously not a native. Where are you from?” You never get beyond that in a sense. In those days, it was much more overwhelming.
Q: How did you deal with it?
A: Well, I became heavily involved in the schools because we had children who were getting into the schools. We became very involved in our church, and the church still was a central thing in our lives, the Catholic Church. We have been members of the St. Joseph Parish since we came here in 1968 and had opportunities to be on the Parish Council, to serve on the school board, and to be a leader of a music group The parish provided some sense of some anchor for us.
Q: Who were the most influential people of the College during your first years in here? With whom were you working?
A: Well of course, I was most influenced by my colleagues in mathematics education and Dr. Pikaart was visible as a national leader. Dr. Steffe was becoming a national leader, and in some sense, I was going on that same journey.
Outside of the department, I was very influenced by our dean at that time. That was Joe Williams. Our history has to have a lot of material about Joe Williams in it. But the first 18 years I was here, he was our dean and he established a quiet and stable climate. You will probably have many, many people giving you stories of their interactions with Dean Williams. We joke about it a little bit, but the idea is that in a conversation with him sometimes, we would look at each other for five minutes before we wanted to start a conversation. He was a very quiet man. And he respected what I had to say and what concerns we had. I never had any problem communicating to him what I wanted but it had to be on his terms.
Q: What memorable experiences do you recall from your career?
A: In those early years I did not have as much opportunity to serve on university committees as I did later. And those become eye-opening. There were many really good scholars in this College of Education and I don’t know that I benefited as much of working directly with them as just being at the same place. But no I don’t have any specific events to lay out there.
Q: What were some of the critical events that have shaped the history of the College during your career here?
A: I think one of the critical events—upheavals, if you will—that made a difference, a profound difference in my career here occurred at the end of the first year. A variety of factors were going on but Dr. Pikaart stepped down as department head at the end of my first year. Dean Williams asked me to assume the role of department head. Now, that was also at that time at that end of that first year that I was being promoted from assistant to associate professor. I had had four years of work at Stanford in a research associate position and a lot of publications so that was the argument for the early promotion at the end of the first year. My department head’s resignation brought on a leadership role that I had not anticipated. I did not reject it but it’s not something that I had anticipated when I came here. In 1969 I thought this was something I would do for a short period of time and I guess Dean Williams did as well. The bottom line is that the department head job lasted for 23 years. I was both the department head and graduate coordinator in those days.
In 1969, when I was promoted to department head, the dean also approved recruiting two new faculty. Dr. (Edward) Davis from University of Florida and Dr. (Thomas) Cooney from University of Illinois joined us and brought us up to nine people. This established a visibility in United States mathematics education that was rather unique.
The dean approved another position because we were overwhelmed with the teacher education responsibilities, teaching courses and all the young faculty bringing in grants from the NSF (National Science Foundation) and so we went from nine to 10 people with the addition of Mary Ann Burns in 1970.
There was a shift in faculty. Dr. Pikaart, who had been here since 1963, received an offer of endowed chair in mathematics education at Ohio University in 1974 and chose to leave. It was a tremendous advancement for him but it took away one of our senior people. And so Dean Williams and the vice presidents approved a search for a senior faculty member. And that took two years. We brought in Dr. Jeremy Kilpatrick, and to me that was a significant turning point in the building of this department. I think it was bringing absolutely the most outstanding scholar available in the field. He wasn’t even available. We convinced him to join us. He came to us from Columbia University and that move led us from a point of view of national prominence to one of international prominence.
As that was happening, people like Dr. Steffe and Dr. McKillip were earning promotions. They all went from assistant professor to associate professor and then moved toward advancement to professor. Mary Ann Burns just stayed with us for six years and then chose to pursue a new direction in her career. In1976, we hired Sigrid Wagner from New York University to replace Dr. Burns.
From 1976-86, there was no change, it was stable. We had more and more visibility and we began to have more visiting scholars from the short two-day visit all the way up to spending a year with us and they came from all over. So, in some sense, the infusion of new ideas and the vitality of the department were strengthened by those visits. And it happened because I think we had a group of people that were highly visible and at the same time we were recruiting and building a doctoral program that was attracting an international visibility. I think when I came here in 1968, there may have been about 10 to 15 doctoral students here. And we eventually built it up to a full-time doctoral program of about 40 to 45 students.
The development of the doctoral program in mathematics education was a significant visibility, a significant accomplishment for this group and that was also a big factor in my staying here. When I came, my major professor said, “Go there for five years, no more.” I thought of the position as temporary thing but as the doctoral program developed, as the faculty developed, as the leadership and visibility of this group, from local to national to international, this became the center of where I wanted to be in mathematics education. I do not think this is just my perception. Over the years there have been repeated rankings of this program as the leading mathematics education program in the U.S.
I guess outside of that, the biggest impact on us was the turnover of deans and it’s still going on. Dean Williams was here for a very, very long time. After he retired, we had Kathryn Blake who was only dean for a year or so and then Gerry Firth, who was acting dean for a year or so, Dr. Buccino was here for about 10 years, and then Dr. Yeaney for about five years, and then Dr. Castenell for about seven year. Now we have Dean Horne for a short time as the College searches for a new leader. So, I have served under all of these deanships. Each of them different. Each of them bringing something unique to the table.
The time after going from Joe Williams to the point where Dean Buccino was hired was one of upheaval and no one was to blame for that. It just changed. It was brought about by a variety of things. And there was a time during which I worked with Dean Firth as the Associate Dean for Research as well as my work as department head. That was an acting role. I chose not to be a candidate for a permanent move. It was intended to be a temporary appointment to serve a particular need and once Dean Buccino was appointed, I chose not to continue because he needed to have his own staff and people.
Q: You mentioned the development of the doctoral program of this department, do you feel this is still a top program?
A: Yes, it is. We have had national conferences on doctoral programs in mathematics education in 1998 and in 2007. Over the years there have been survey studies for the review of doctoral programs and since the 1980s, the University of Georgia has always been rated very well. In this most recent national conference, one survey gathered information about doctoral programs in about 150 institutions in the country. There were 70 of those that have produced recent doctorates and one person from each of those 70 was asked to give their perception of the strongest six doctoral programs in mathematics education. They were asked not to list their own institutions in those. The University of Georgia was ranked among the strongest programs for over 50 of the 70 people. Now, the next in terms of recommendation was Michigan State at 37. In other words, there was Georgia with 50 on the list, Michigan State on 37 and so forth. There were 26 different programs in the country that were on somebody’s list. I think this is an indication of the visibility and perception and strength of this doctoral program, the viability of it. There’s a lot of perception out in the field that our doctoral program has changed. I think this survey reaffirms that it’s still perceived to be a very strong and viable thing.
I was joking with my department head and said, “What’s wrong with the other 19 people that did not list us on the on the top 6?” But part of that is easily explained because some doctoral programs have a vision that’s specific to such tasks as training people for community college positions and our program was not perceived as one in which we’re preparing community college faculty.
Q: You mentioned a period of upheaval. How did you feel abut that?
A: I felt that when the chips were down this College’s faculty has come together and faced the problems and handled them fairly well. The shift from Dean Blake to Dean Firth came because there was an emergency. And the President’s office got involved in it in a heavy-handed way. And it was unpleasant. But I felt that our faculty came together and met it reasonably well.
I don’t care to say much about the merger of science education and mathematics education in the reorganization of the College that occurred more recently. I think that has been a tremendous upheaval and very difficult. I was afraid that the reorganization would hurt mathematics education. But I think that we have done a good job as a faculty to protect our students and the students are generally unaffected by any of the things that were going on. But certainly the faculty was affected. Morale has been affected and it’s been very difficult to go through that. We have had some excellent leadership with Dr. (Denise) Mewborn to bring us out of it but it’s been very difficult. I do not care to say a whole lot more about it. It has given the perception among our mathematics education colleagues elsewhere that our program has been curtailed and we have had to work very hard to counteract that perception. We have had to make extra effort to continue to attract the most outstanding doctoral students. Winning four Presidential Graduate Fellows Program awards in the past two years is one indication of our success.
I’m at the level of 40 years service to the University and I could have left, and I was planning to leave. But Dr. Mewborn encouraged me to stay and so I stayed here for that reason. Hopefully it’s all done at this time.
- Let me go back and retrace a couple of things. I was department head for 23 years and stepped down in 1993. At that time, Dr. Larry Hatfield was appointed department head. Dr. Hatfield and I joined the university at the same time in 1968. He served as department head for six years and then Dr. Pat Wilson was appointed to that role. I mentioned earlier that we were stable and the faculty was stable, no change from 1976 to 1986. In 1986, Dr. Joseph Hooten retired and Dr. William McKillip moved to an administrative position outside the department so we had two vacancies. The replacements were Dr. Patricia Wilson and Dr. John Olive. They joined the faculty in 1986, are still with us, and are now the key senior scholars in the department.
By 1990, Dr. Sigrid Wagner had an offer to join the faculty at Ohio State. She had risen through the ranks from assistant professor to professor and had established a national visibility. This led to an opportunity for advancement at Ohio State and she has continued here career there. Dr. Beatriz D’Ambrosio was here for three years. She moved for family reasons. In 1993, Dr. Michael Mahaffey retired. In 1995, we hired three new faculty – Dr. Denise Mewborn, Dr. Dorothy White and Dr. Nicholas Oppong. Dr. Mckillip had returned to the department and he retired in 1996. Then Dr. Paola Sztajn joined us and Dr. (Edward) Davis and Dr. (Thomas) Cooney retired. So we had several retirements and those people have been replaced by younger faculty such as Dr. Andrew Izsak and Dr. Bradford Findell. Dr. Findell was here for seven years but left and now Dr. Anna Marie Conner has replaced him.
We have a transition, from those of us who have been in some essential leadership positions in the College or in the department, to the younger faculty. People worry about the generation shift but it takes care of itself and I think we are still able to bring the best scholars here. That is what it takes to continue the doctoral program. Along with the doctoral program, I think we have exemplary programs at the undergraduate and the master’s level, as well.
Q: You mentioned earlier that you opted not to leave the University. How do you feel about that decision now?
A: Retirement looms, you know. But it’s not because I am disillusioned or leaving. But retirement is a reality. I’m 71 years old and I have over 40 years in the retirement system. There are a lot of factors. I have several doctoral students that are still in progress and I have committed to help them through. At this point, I have had 49 doctoral students who have finished their degrees with me as their major professor.
Anyway, when I look back at to what is my legacy here, these doctoral students are a big part of it. I guess you know I would make a comment like that. Over the years, I’ve been very disappointed to see senior people who have devoted their careers and life to this College reach retirement and leave with a sense of bitterness. And I see that happen over and over. And I’ve often said to myself that I wanted to make sure that that didn’t happen to me. But if I would have left a short time back, it would have been with bitterness. Right now, that’s no longer there. Maybe it’s just inherent in people growing old but it’s been a problem for the College to deal with because so many of the senior faculty reach the time for leaving and leave bitterly, with some sense of being put out, some sense of not being appreciated. I find that unfortunate, particularly for people who had given their whole careers to the College and the University of Georgia.
Q: What advice can you give to the students and faculty who are working and studying here at UGA?
A: Personally, you always strive to do your best. Make the most of the opportunities that are presented to you and this is a place where there are lots of good opportunities. It’s a place where some initiatives are rewarded, those kind of things. I don’t need to tell my colleagues to keep excellence in mind. That’s a part of the atmosphere of the place. At least it’s part of the atmosphere of mathematics education. So, I have no particular advice on this other than we have a very significant and viable program and to work to continue it.
Q: Is there anything else that you would like to share?
A: There are certainly rich traditions in many of the different academic units or program units, not the administrative units, but in the program units with ups and downs certainly. We’ve had some significant scholars here and we have had some tremendous recognition. The Torrance Center, for example comes to mind with Paul Torrance being one of the most eminent scholars in the field of creativity and the last part of his career, he was here. He brought something innovative to the place and more. We have other people like that, who have been a part of our work.
Q: You mentioned the ups and downs of some of the units, how do you feel about that?
A: In some sense, it’s a natural life cycle. You bring and maintain a vibrant faculty and give them the opportunity to deal with the issues of that unit and they will survive the ups and downs. They will keep things on a high plain. The administrative meddling from a higher level, trying to micromanage the units, is not going to be that successful. Central administration needs to concentrate on leadership and providing the academic environment for good programs to flourish.
Dr. James Wilson
Ph.D., Mathematics Education
Stanford University
Oral Histories
|
|
|
 |