Skip to main content

Max Sherard

Title: Assistant Professor

Department: Educational Psychology

College: College of Education

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • PhD, University of Texas, 2022
    Major: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education

Current Scheduled Teaching

EPSY 6163.001Diversity in Individuals, Families, and SchoolsSpring 2026
EPSY 2010.001How People LearnSpring 2026 Syllabus
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Previous Scheduled Teaching

EPSY 2010.001How People LearnFall 2025 Syllabus SPOT
EPSY 5990.420Supervised Research or Program EvaluationFall 2025
EPSY 6020.420Research Methods in EducationSummer 5W1 2025
EPSY 2010.001How People LearnSpring 8W1 2025 Syllabus SPOT
EPSY 2010.002How People LearnSpring 8W2 2025 Syllabus SPOT
EPSY 2010.005How People LearnFall 8W1 2024 Syllabus SPOT
EPSY 2010.006How People LearnFall 8W2 2024 Syllabus SPOT
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Published Intellectual Contributions

    Book Chapter

  • Petrosino, A., Sager, M.T., Sherard, M.K. (2025). Exploring the Dynamics of Personalized Instruction within Project-Based Instruction Environments. Routledge.
  • Walkington, C., Koshi, D., Petrosino, A., Stringer, E., Milton, S., Sager, M., Sherard, M. (2025). Learner-Created Math Walks in Informal Learning Settings. International Perspectives on Mathematics Outreac. Information Age Publishing.
  • Sherard, M., Tran, K.Q., Lipscomb, K. (2025). Neighborhood explorations as a culturally sustaining practice. STEM Education and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Research, Practices, and Critical Reflection. IGI Global.

    • Journal Article

  • Walkington, C., Sherard, M.K., Daughrity, L., Pande, P., Beauchamp, T., Cuevas, A. (2025). The Affordances and Constraints of Mathematics Tutoring in Immersive, Collaborative, and Dynamic VR Environments. Virtual Reality. 29 (6) 1-23.
  • Milton, S., Sager, M.T., Sherard, M.K., Walkington, C., Petrosino, A.J. (2025). Students’ affective and psychological attitudes towards mathematics while participating in math walks. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education. https://jume-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/jume/
  • Daughrity, L., Walkington, C., Sherard, M.K. (2025). From abstract to tangible: Leveraging virtual reality for playful math education. Education Sciences. 15 (9) 1-29.
  • Sager, M.T., Sherard, M., Petrosino, A.J. (2025). Farming with data: Tracing critical tensions using data science for food justice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 37 1489–1530. https://link.springer.com/journal/12528
  • Avila, A., Ayiah, M., Stavely, J., Sager, M.T., Sherard, M., Petrosino, A.J. (2025). Mapping food justice: Urban farms and the examination of equitable food access. SMU Journal of Undergraduate Research. 9 (1) 1-8.
  • Sherard, M.K., Russo-Tait, T. (2024). Exploring the unstated: Using critical discourse analysis to examine faculty diversity, equity, and inclusion Statement. Research in Higher Education. 66 (6) 1-39. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-024-09827-1
  • Sager, M.T., Sherard, M.K., Walkington, C., Saki, M., Anthony, P.J. (2024). Seeing mathematics together: A comparative case study of youths and facilitators collaborating to learn mathematics in informal settings. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 75 1-25. Elsevier Inc.. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732312324000488
,
Overall
Summative Rating		 Challenge and
Engagement Index		 Response Rate

out of 5
out of 7		 %
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE