ARUMEonline!
ARUMEonline!		 Association for Research in
Undergraduate Mathematics Education

Minutes from the ARUME Organizational Meeting
January 14, 1999, San Antonio, Texas

I know that these may read more like field notes but I figured that I would provide information at as high of level of detail that I can for both our purposes as well as for archival purposes.

The meeting opened by Tom Dick (Oregon State University) citing an explosion of papers being presented at the meetings of the AMS and MAA focused on teaching and learning. In addition, to his opening remarks of welcome, Tom Dick designated that presence at this organizational meeting of ARUME signifies membership in ARUME.

At this point the floor was given over to Ed Dubinsky (Georgia State University) who expressed greetings to all attendees and identified this as an exciting time. This led into a discussion of the history behind the development of ARUME organization and its precursors was entertained while providing a sort of state of the union address.

Highlights:
In 1991, during the winter meeting of the AMS-MAA, Jim Kaput and Ed Dubinsky organized a paper session concerning research in undergraduate mathematics education. Resultant from this paper session, presenters were asked to compile a set of proceedings for the meeting and the set of proceedings were published. It was around this time that a desire to start a journal focused on research issues connected with undergraduate mathematics education began to take shape. The eventual publication, which took longer than desired to come into fruition, is the joint AMS-MAA publication Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education (a high quality research journal dedicated to be published annually even though in a six year period only 4 volumes have been published). Lida Barrett, the then president of the MAA, was sympathetic to the cause and provided guidance. As a result, there has been eight years of activity leading up to the establishment of ARUME and the beginning of its official existence tonight.

In particular, during the proceeding eight years, a relationship between MAA and people doing Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (RUME) has developed. This resultant relationship has created a place for ARUME in the MAA greater structure and has provided opportunities to host sessions dedicated to RUME at the joint meetings and the Mathfests. In particular, the MAA has expressed support of ARUME and has provided facilities to conduct paper sessions, have invited addresses, and conduct a business meeting with reception at both the joint meetings and the Mathfests. A variety of correlated work was sighted such as the those presented at the International Conference on Teaching Collegiate Mathematics (ICTCM) or the Psychology of Mathematics Education both International and North American focused on RUME work. Additionally, meetings of ICME, NExT, AMS regionals and MAA sections have presentations dedicated to RUME. In addition, a research group, RUMEC, has been organizing an annual research conference for the past four years.

Looking toward the future, Ed Dubinsky noted that more and more mathematics departments are seeking individuals trained in collegiate mathematics education. In particular, there appears more jobs available that the number of qualified people to fill them. As a result, RUME is a growing activity that has taken root which leads to the desire to form a professional home and organization which maintains close ties to the teachers of collegiate mathematics (hence the linkage with the MAA). The desire is to form a symbiotic relationship between teachers and researchers where teachers provide information as to problems and difficulties experienced by students or other consumers or providers and then the researchers publish the results of their studies and present these in forms useful for practitioners.

Under this rubric, various models for the relationship between MAA and ARUME was considered. In particular, questions of whether ARUME should be part of MAA, separate, or a special interest group was entertained as was what relationship would ARUME have to other groups. MAA outlined a new model which allows ARUME flexibility. In particular, the MAA gave ARUME a three-year trial period during which they will support a one-hour invited address, session(s) of contributed papers, a business meeting, and a reception.

In summary, Ed identified that there were approximately 135 people present for this initial organizational meeting which was the culmination of over eight years of effort.

The goals of ARUME were reiterated as
      1) Foster RUME through contributed papers, invited addresses, and publications;
      2) Build bridges between researchers and practitioners;
      3) Develop a model for permanent relationship with other entities conducting RUME.

Once the historical portion was completed, Annie Selden (Tennessee Tech) introduced David Meel as the secretary pro-tem and identified that a pad was being circulated which asked for information and desire to be considered an ARUME member. At this point, Annie directed the audience to examine the sheet outlining the transitional structure (see attached document). Shandy Hauk made a motion to accept the proposed transitional structure and Claire Hemingway seconded the motion. With that a vote was taken with all in favor of the establishment of ARUME thereby giving birth to the fledgling organization. At this point in time, the MAA president-elect took the floor and extolled Dubinsky and Selden on their work and expressed that the MAA feels extremely positive toward the development of ARUME and its continuance as part of the MAA.

Questions were opened to the floor and Shandy Hauk expressed concern that the transitional framework did not address linkages to other organizations although, as Annie Selden identified, did contain the phrase "build relationships to other organizations". Kathy Heid asked the question as to how the membership will be involved in the formulation of the permanent structure and Selden replied that this would be conducted through an e-mail listserv. Nancy Haberdien identified that there was no mention of a nominating committee for the next time.

It was at this point that Ed Dubinsky interjected that the transitional framework was a minimalist structure which needs many gaps to be filled in. As a result, it was opened to the floor to brainstorm about issues or questions which need to be addressed during the transition.

At this point, a pause was found and a vote on the transitional structure was called with all voting members approving the transitional structure. Then, Tom Dick took over from Annie Selden in order to conduct the election of officers. The initial slate of officers was proposed (see attached document) and Lida Barrett asked if the past-coordinator was an officer or not. (I do not remember the answer to this question). Shandy Hauk made a motion to accept the presented slate of officers and Steve Morris seconded the motion. All were in favor so the proposed slate of transitional officers were officially:
Ed Dubinsky as coordinator,
Annie Selden as coordinator-elect,
David Meel as Secretary/Treasurer,
Mickey McDonald as Organizational Director,
Julie Clark as Program Chair.

Once the officers were elected, the floor was opened for suggestions. The following list identifies the various suggestions and questions voiced as well as the person voicing them (if known):