Seventh Annual Symposium Series on
Excellence in Teaching Mathematics and Science:
Research and Practice

February 4, 2005—DePaul University, Loop Campus
March 11, 2005—Northwestern University
May 2, 2005—University of Illinois at Chicago

ABSTRACTS

February 4 Plenary Talks

Educational Reform: Where Have We Been/ Where Are We Going?

Jane Butler Kahle, Miami University

In discussing where we have been, this presentation focuses on large-scale reforms or systemic reforms; e.g., reforms that address multiple parts of the education system and that lasted over a period of time. It presents an historical overview of large-scale reform efforts in science and mathematics education from the end of World War II to the present. Across the sixty years discussed, three waves of reform occurred in math and science education, each with specific themes or foci that guided them. From 1945 to the 1980s reform focused on Texts and Teaching; from 1983 until 1990, it emphasized Courses and Competencies; during the last wave, from 1990 to about 2002, it addressed Excellence and Equity.

Across the years, the reforms are analyzed in terms of the educational and political contexts of the day. Further, research and evaluation studies that provide evidence of success (or lack of it) are discussed. The presentation concludes with a consideration of what lessons have been learned and a provocative discussion of where we may be going.

How We Think: Should a teacher care?

E. F. (Joe) Redish, University of Maryland

When we think about improving our teaching, we often focus on how to choose the content, create elegant presentations, or deliver engaging demonstrations. But since teaching and learning is an interaction between the instructor and the instructee, we really need to consider both ends of the interaction. When we don’t explicitly discuss how people learn and understand, we tend to design our instruction based on our tacit assumptions. These may contain serious misconceptions and can lead to well-meant but ineffective teaching. In the past few decades, researchers in psychology, sociology, linguistics, and neuroscience have begun to learn a great deal about how people think and behave. Some of it is quite surprising, counterintuitive, and compelling. In this talk, I will discuss some of what has been learned about how people think and the implications for our teaching of science and mathematics.

February 4 Break-out Sessions

Break-out Session I

2:45 – 3:45 pm

Educational Reform in 2010: Discussion Session

Jane Butler Kahle, Miami University

The discussion session for the plenary talk on Educational Reform: Where Have We Been/Where Are We Going? will examine how the third wave of systemic reform in mathematics and science education (1990-2005) may be affected or changed by policies and politics in the next five years. The following questions provide ideas for discussion.

1. What reform directions or policies are suggested by the 2004 results from the TIMSS and PISA international tests of student achievement in science and mathematics?

2. How has the No Child Left Behind legislation affected the nature and success of reform in science and mathematics education? Will reforms in 2010 be systemic?

3. Have achievement gaps between identifiable subgroups of students widened or narrowed?

4. How have local and state issues affected the implementation of the No Child Left Behind legislation?

5. Have public schools largely been replaced by private and/or charter schools?

Implementing New Instructional Approaches in the College Classroom: Local Innovations

Mel Sabella, Chicago State University

A number of colleges and universities in the Chicago area are implementing new instructional approaches in their science and mathematics classrooms. Unfortunately, it is often the case that these innovations occur in relative isolation. Creating a dialogue among local educators can serve those developing and implementing these materials and approaches, as well as those who wish to make changes in their own classes.

In the first part of the session, the challenges and successes of implementing a research-based curriculum in the Physics Program at Chicago State University will be described. Following this, participants at the session will be invited to present innovations that they have been involved in at their own universities. Examples from other sciences and mathematics are welcome. These efforts will then serve as a context for discussion that will focus on how educators in the Chicago area can support each other in implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of these course changes. We will also discuss a new workshop format that will be included in the 2005 symposium series to help support these efforts.

We anticipate creating a forum to discuss local innovations in the classroom in order to make others aware of the type of work that is occurring in the Chicago area. We hope that those implementing new materials and those interested in implementing new materials can share experiences and expertise to help overcome challenges.

BRAIN-BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING: implications for college science and mathematics classes

Judith Sallee, Harper College

In this symposium participants will discuss some principles of brain research that apply to teaching and learning, experience some "brain friendly" activities, and work together to create some ways to incorporate brain-based teaching in their own classes.

Break-out Session II

4:15 – 5:15 pm

Free-Range Laboratories:

Can less direct guidance lead to more engagement and learning?

E. F. (Joe) Redish, University of Maryland, R. Lippmann Kung, University of Utrecht, and M. Sabella, Chicago State University

Traditional college laboratories in introductory physics and other science classes are often strongly protocol based. Students are given detailed descriptions of how to carry out a measurement successfully. Although this may guarantee that the measurements are completed it is not clear that it guarantees that the students experience any learning or understanding. In this breakout session, we will discuss our observations in our laboratories at the University of Maryland and demonstrate a less constraining lab — one in which the students receive little or no written guidance. The workshop will include a hands-on demonstration in which the workshop participants will design and carry out an experiment.

CMSI University Partners: Common Issues and Concerns

Rachel Shefner, Loyola University Chicago and Bret Feranchak, Chicago Public Schools

Everyone is invited to join in what promises to be a lively informal discussion. Many of the Symposium participants are engaged in partnerships with CPS to offer courses for teachers. Let’s share our common experiences with regard to how the partnerships are working. What works well? What does not work? What are the central issues that interfere with smooth functioning of the partnerships? What suggestions might we have for CPS to make things work better? Data gathered from both internal and external evaluation work and university partners will be shared and discussed.

This session, moderated by Rachel Shefner of Loyola University and Bret Feranchak of the CPS Office of Mathematics and Science, will continue at subsequent symposia depending on interest and demand.

Quantitative Literacy: A Contemporary Imperative for Higher Education

David Jabon, DePaul University

University curricula have fallen behind the rapidly changing data-oriented needs of modern society. While quantitative information is being used more than ever before in almost all aspects of civic, economic, and even daily life, universities have only recently begun to create curricula to address the development of quantitative literacy in their graduates. The ability to analyze and interpret critically a broad variety of quantitative information has become essential for individual success as well as for successful participation in a healthy democracy. Faculty in mathematics and science at universities need to take a leadership role in the development and delivery of programs in quantitative literacy.

In this session, I will give an overview of the national movement toward quantitative literacy programs at the college level. I will describe some of the mathematical skills and topics that most directly address quantitative literacy as well as the critical role that real-world contexts play in curricula attempting to develop quantitative literacy. I will also describe DePaul University's Quantitative Reasoning course. In DePaul's course, students make and analyze quantitative arguments, interpret and create graphs, reason with proportions and percentage change, practice making reasonable estimations, make simple mathematical models and explore their limitations, all in highly contextualized settings. Students use appropriate computer tools, primarily spreadsheets, in a laboratory environment. Pedagogy in DePaul's course is primarily activity-based cooperative learning. Participants in the session will have the opportunity to experience some of examples from the course.

I will address some of the institutional hurdles one needs to overcome in undertaking and maintaining such a program and provide a bibliography of the growing literature on quantitative literacy at the college level.

March 11 Plenary Talks

Mathematics content courses for prospective elementary and middle school teachers

Sybilla Beckmann, University of Georgia

Abstract: What mathematics should elementary and middle school teachers know to be prepared to teach? There is broad consensus that teachers should have a deep understanding of the mathematics they will teach and that courses for teachers should help develop this understanding. But different kinds of courses, with different philosophies and approaches, can focus on the mathematics teachers will teach. I will present principles that can guide the development of courses for teachers and I will discuss how these principles are supported both by research and by the state of standard materials that teachers use. We will then discuss types and examples of problems that are useful for teachers to study but are not in standard mathematics courses. I will also show how I have adapted problems for teachers to problems for the average class of 6th graders I am teaching every day at a public school this year.

Emerging Issues in Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: National Perspectives and Local Implications

Jay B. Labov, Center for Education, National Research Council

Undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is receiving increasing attention from state and national policymakers, legislators, and those who are responsible for overseeing programs in higher education. Increasingly, institutions of higher education are expected to become accountable for implementing programs in these disciplines that improve learning and academic opportunities for all undergraduates. STEM faculty in colleges and universities also are being asked to assume additional responsibilities for improving K-12 education through changes in teacher education and through partnerships with local schools.

This presentation will provide an overview of emerging issues in undergraduate education and highlight recommendations for education policy that have appeared in recent reports from the National Research Council and other policy organizations. Topics to be emphasized will include:

· The impending impact of K-12 standards and the No Child Left Behind Act on science and mathematics on undergraduate education;

· The role of introductory courses in the STEM disciplines;

· The changing nature of teacher education and professional development for faculty in both K-12 and higher education; and

· Assessment and accountability for teaching and learning

March 11 Break-out Sessions

Break-out Session I

2:45 – 3:45 pm

Activities and Problems for Prospective Elementary and Middle School Teachers

Sybilla Beckmann, University of Georgia

Indiana Room

In this breakout session, participants will learn about activities and problems that are designed to deepen prospective elementary and middle grades teachers’ understanding of the mathematics they may teach. We will examine three topics: 1) fraction multiplication, 2) properties of arithmetic and writing equations to show the algebra underlying mental calculations, and 3) solving algebra word problems with simple diagrams. The last item will include applications to explaining the “invert and multiply” procedure for dividing fractions and to solving proportions by using simple reasoning about multiplication and division.

Communications in Science and Engineering - Work in the VaNTH Engineering Research Center at Northwestern

Robert A. Linsenmeier, Penny L. Hirsch, and David W. Gatchell, Northwestern University

Illinois Room

This session will begin with an overview of the mission of the VaNTH (Vanderbilt, Northwestern, University of Texas, Harvard-MIT) Engineering Research Center in Bioengineering Educational Technologies. VaNTH is testing the educational philosophy summarized in "How People Learn" (HPL), Bransford et al., National Academy of Sciences, 1999, by developing and using new curricular materials in bioengineering courses. The focus of the HPL approach is challenge-based education, presented in a format that is learner-centered, community-centered, knowledge-centered, and assessment-centered. We believe that many of VaNTH's ideas are adaptable to much of the undergraduate and high school science curriculum. Most of this session will demonstrate how to use an HPL approach to integrate communication instruction into a science unit. We introduce the VaNTH taxonomy of communication skills, which covers written, oral, graphical, mathematical, and interpersonal communication, and then provide an illustration of how to use the taxonomy in a challenge-based unit. Participants will then select several skills from the taxonomy to teach in one of their own science units and work in pairs to explain to each other (1) how the selected skills will enhance the unit's primary learning objectives and (2) what activities will best promote reflection and feedback. A final wrap-up will summarize how these activities promote communication instruction in a learner-centered, community-centered, and assessment-centered environment.

“Learning and Teaching Human Biology,” a Curriculum-driven Practice-based Approach to Teacher Education

David E. Kanter, Northwestern University

Iowa Room

The teacher education course “Learning and Teaching Human Biology” is part of a program of research (http://www.letus.org/bioq) funded through the National Institutes of Health (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) Minority K-12 Initiative for Teachers and Students and affiliated with the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science and the Center for Bioengineering Educational Technologies. This course aims to address the fundamental question about what of the science subject matter pre- and in-service middle and high school science teachers need to learn and how best they would learn it. To this end, this course, cross-listed in Biological Sciences, was designed to teach undergraduate and graduate pre-service science teachers and in-service science teachers to blend human biology content knowledge and inquiry science pedagogical knowledge in order to develop high school students’ meaningful understanding of core cellular biology concepts.

The approach taken in the course is one of curriculum-driven practice-based professional development in which participants are involved in learning activities that require them to learn and learn to use science content and inquiry pedagogy to puzzle through authentic problems of practice related to using a project-based inquiry human biology curriculum in real classrooms. Participants first use video case studies to plan how they will use the curriculum to figure out students’ initial ideas, use inquiry to change those ideas, and finally determine students’ final ideas. Participants then teach the curriculum or review video footage of a classroom teacher teaching to analyze what transpired. In this way, the participants are involved in applying the content and pedagogy they’re learning to cycles of planning and teaching: planning how to use the curriculum to teach content, and analyzing teaching for conceptual change in the classroom.

During the breakout session, after a 10 minute introduction, we will spend 30 minutes engaged in learning activities derived from the first session of the course as others that come from a session much later in the course in which the class is focused around the question of “how do heart muscle cells get what they need?” During this part of the breakout, we will interact with one another and with the instructor as would students in the course. The last 20 minutes of the breakout session will be dedicated to working as a group to debrief the experience and discussing the pros and cons of this approach toward the preparation of pre- and in-service K-12 teachers. The presenter will also discuss how the program of research aims to objectively assess the intellectual growth of pre- and in-service participants as regards their content and pedagogical-content knowledge.

When the Music Ends: Creating a Sustainable Program that Supports Learning in the STEM Disciplines

Bettina Chow and Annette Munkeby, Northwestern University

Big Ten Room

Educators and administrators spend a great deal of time creating programs that address the needs of their learning communities. However, once a program is established, what is involved with continuously developing a program [GL1] so that it becomes sustainable over time? This interactive session will present an existing program that looks carefully at this issue of program sustainability.

In 2001, Northwestern University received a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to address a challenge of national educational importance: the small number of high achieving, underrepresented minority and women undergraduates who successfully persist in math and science-based courses of study. The partnership resulted in a broad initiative, known as the Gateway Science Workshop (GSW) program, to improve the performance, retention, and experience of these students. GSW provides a supplementary workshop for students to take in conjunction with introductory courses in math, engineering, biology, chemistry, and p[m2] hysics. The program is open to all students who are interested and organizes them into small groups of five to seven participants, each led by a peer mentor who previously excelled in the course. The mentors[GL3] focus on bringing students together to work on challenging, conceptually based problems that stimulate a deeper level of understanding of the subject matter.

Five years ago, the GSW Program began in one discipline with five facilitators and 30 students. It has now expanded into 7 different courses, comprising 640 students and 107 facilitators. A key goal of the GSW program has been to embed the program smoothly within Northwestern’s undergraduate science culture. The primary obstacles to embedding the program arise in five areas: participants, facilitators, faculty, administration, and monetary support.

Self-sustainability has been an important key to ensuring the survival of the GSW program regardless of funding. In this presentation, we shall discuss the four key attributes of the program which we developed to overcome these obstacles and describe how they begin to address the obstacles in each of the above areas. We will ask participants to share their experiences with their own program(s) and how they have dealt with issues of institutionalization and sustainability. We hope this session will serve as a forum for a lively exchange of ideas, experiences, and new ideas that participants can take back to their own programs and institutions.

Break-out Session II

4:15 – 5:15 pm

“Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools”: Discussion of the NRC report and its impact on Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs

Jay Labov, National Research Council

Indiana Room

In 2002 the National Research Council released a report, Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools. This study was undertaken at the request of the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education following the release of the results for 12^th grade in the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), and focused on the Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. This breakout session will allow participants to learn more about the contents, conclusions, and recommendations in the report, many of which are now being enacted by both the College Board, and the International Baccalaureate Organization.

This session also will explore various definitions of “advanced study” and relate that concept to the “challenging courses and curricula” provision of the No Child Left Behind Act.

The Use of Personal Response Systems in the Classroom

Martina Bode, Northwestern University, Art Schmidt, Denise Drane, Suzanne A. Olds, and Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Northwestern University

Illinois Room

Personal Response Systems allow instructors to post problems in class for students to respond to with a remote keypad or clicker. The results are then instantly tabulated and summarized for the instructor.

Some of the advantages of clickers are that getting instant feedback from polling questions allows instructors to immediately assess the level of their students’ comprehension. As a result, instructors can respond directly and quickly to students’ needs. In our experience, Personal Response Systems greatly increase class participation and class discussion and make learning more interactive. Although further study remains, some of the drawbacks seem to be the time commitment to write questions suitable for personal response systems.

The goal of this session is to explore different ideas about how to effectively use personal response systems in a large classroom. We will give an overview of how we use the equipment in lecture classes in Calculus , College Physics, and Biothermodynamics of 80-140 students. In addition, we will set up a personal response system so that participants in the audience can experience first-hand how this technology works in practice. How difficult is it to set up the system? How long does it take to write questions? What questions are effective? We will explore the different formats and different types of questions that can be used with the system. To encourage group work in a large class, participants will be divided into small groups, each of which will receive one clicker to illustrate one model of using the personal response system.

General Education at Research Universities – Engaging the Research Machine in the Non-majors Curriculum

Teresa H. Horton, Northwestern University

Iowa Room

Research universities are frequently criticized for failing to integrate the research enterprise with the process of general undergraduate education. Over the past ten years, Northwestern University has developed a program, called SERTS (Science and Engineering Research and Teaching Synthesis), to address this problem. The mission of SERTS is to acquaint undergraduates with the contributions that research universities make to the creation of new knowledge and how that information comes to be used for the benefit of mankind. The SERTS program uses a unique tutorial model to introduce students to research in science and engineering. Students enrolled in selected lecture courses are divided into small groups (3-6) that shadow graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, or other members of the research staff to learn about how research is done at Northwestern University. The tutorials are designed to minimize disruption to the research laboratory, but also provide the tutors with the opportunity to learn how to discuss their research with the general public. The tutorial teaching model has proven to be a unique educational opportunity integrating the teaching and research missions of the University. The SERTS Program showcases the role that leading researchers in the sciences and engineering can play in the general education of undergraduate students.

This breakout session will consist of a brief presentation on the SERTS program in which we will describe how the tutorials work, how courses are selected for the program, and how the program is funded. The session will then be opened for discussion. Questions about SERTS will be entertained and other participants will be invited to describe programs they have developed to address the issue of science education for non-scientists. Handouts about the SERTS program will be provided. The goal of the workshop is to provide insight into creative ways to provide large numbers of undergraduates with information about how and why basic research is done.

CMSI University Partners: Common Issues and Concerns: Part II

Rachel Shefner, Loyola University Chicago and

Bret Feranchak, Chicago Public Schools

Big Ten Room

This session, moderated by Rachel Shefner of Loyola University and Bret Feranchak of the CPS Office of Mathematics and Science, continues the discussion from the February 4^th symposium. Please feel free to join the discussion regardless of whether or not you participated previously. There are plenty of issues that have yet to be visited. We welcome newcomers to the discussion and the participants from the first discussion.

May 2 Plenary Talks

Looking Inside the Classroom: Results of a National Observation Study of Mathematics and Science Teaching

Iris Weiss, President, Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC

Iris Weiss will share the results of an observation study involving a representative sample of 364 mathematics and science classes throughout the United States. The study found that the important distinction was not traditional versus reform instruction. Rather, key factors that distinguish lessons judged to be high in quality from those judged to be low in quality are their ability to: engage students with the mathematics/science content; create an environment conducive to learning, one that is simultaneously respectful and rigorous; ensure that all students have access to the lesson; and help students make sense of the mathematics/science content.

Bringing Research on Learning to the Geosciences

Cathryn A. Manduca, Director, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College

Research on learning now provides many important results that can guide faculty and teachers in developing rich learning experiences for students. To capitalize on this knowledge geoscience educators are working in two areas: 1) promoting widespread awareness, understanding and use of these results in geoscience education and 2) building on current research in areas that are of particular interest in the geosciences.

At a joint meeting of geoscientists and learning scientists in 2002, a number of areas of particularly high interest for future study were identified including characterizing geoscience expertise, the role of field observation and visualization in geoscience thinking and learning, the ways in which geoscientist come to understanding complex systems and geoscientists ability to draw conclusions from multiple sources of incomplete data.

Since that time, a variety of workshops and web projects have moved forward the broad education of geoscientists regarding learning science and have promoted discussion and further development of the research agenda. This presentation will overview the research agenda and the work under way in research, dissemination and capacity building.

May 2 Break-out Sessions

Break-out Session I

2:45 – 3:45 pm

Looking Inside the Classroom: Viewing and Discussing Videotaped Lessons

Iris Weiss, Horizon Research

Cardinal Room

As a follow-up to the plenary session on classroom observations, participants will watch a videotaped lesson and discuss the strengths and weaknesses they see, as well as the implications for both pre-service education and professional development.

Team Teaching and Peer Learning in Mathematics Theory Courses: Experiments in Student-Centered Learning

Tanya Cofer, Northeastern Illinois University and Nancy Wrinkle, Northeastern Illinois University

White Oak A

Northeastern Illinois is a commuter university with a diverse student population. Our mathematics students are strongly career focused; many of our majors are pre-service secondary teachers, and many of our graduate students are in-service secondary mathematics teachers. With this population in mind, we designed two “experiments” in team teaching and peer learning: one undergraduate and one graduate mathematics theory course. Our goal was to create a variety of learning opportunities in a student-centered and active classroom. Our two experimental courses (“Advanced Calculus” and “Groups and Symmetry”) blended lecture, problem-solving and writing activities.

Throughout our courses, we focused on the following questions:

Design: How do we design writing assignments and student-centered problem-solving activities to maximize learning opportunities for the students while coordinating the teaching styles of two different instructors and maintaining a sense of course coherence and cohesiveness? How do we balance lecture with group activities? It is presumed that most of our students have a common interest in education in general and the teaching of mathematics in particular. How can our course design best utilize this interest?

Assessment: Is this type of learning environment appropriate for mathematical theory courses taken by pre-service and in-service teachers? Does this format promote a deeper understanding of course material in the majority of students compared with traditional lecture-based courses?

We intend to share sample class activities, student work (including writing) and course feedback with session participants. The session will include a mediated a whole-group discussion on the value of such learning formats and how they should be designed. Participants will invited to spend some time working in groups to brainstorm the design of an appropriate student-centered lesson in a theory course they are teaching or have recently taught, with justification in mind for why such an activity is worthwhile and appropriate. The goals of the session are: (1) to critically examine two related case studies in student-centered teaching (including constructive debate over the appropriateness and effectiveness of such endeavors) for the purposes of improving the design of such courses, and (2) to share novel pedagogical techniques and experiences with our immediate mathematics teaching community.

Teacher Priorities for Professional Development Related to Science and Mathematics

Gwen Pollock, Principal, Illinois State Board of Education, Karen E. Schnite, Northern Illinois University, and Lee Patton, Northern Illinois University

White Oak B

In 2003 and 2004, Illinois teachers were invited to respond to an anonymous online survey regarding their interests and priorities for professional development in and related to mathematics and science. The importance of each topic was rated independently on a 1-4 scale. More than 2000 teachers responded in each survey year, providing a valid sample of teachers throughout the state and across all grade levels.

The session will focus on the findings of these surveys, which were conducted by Northern Illinois University on behalf of the Illinois State Board of Education. Participants will be given a copy of the report and recommendations, including all data charts, and the presenters will identify key findings, the implications for state policy, and the implications for action by various professional development providers, including institutions of higher education.

Participants will discuss their perceptions of the findings of the study and its implications. New and/or alternative interpretations of the data will be encouraged and presenters will also seek suggestions for improvements to the survey.

It is hoped that participants’ familiarity with the study and its implications for their areas of responsibility will encourage them to use the survey findings as benchmarks for review and improvement of their respective professional development programs. The organizers would also like to encourage the participants to identify additional implications of the data and offer suggestions for action, including improvements to the survey.

Break-out Session II

4:15 – 5:15 pm

Improving Students’ Quantitative Skills: A Cooperative Venture for Math, Science and Engineering

Cathryn Manduca, Carleton College

Cardinal Room

The session will include an overview of the discussions in geoscience about the differences between the educational issues at introductory and upper division levels, and the web resources that are being developed to address these differences. After the introduction, participants will be invited to discuss (1) if the issues facing geoscience also relate more broadly to math/science/engineering, and (2) the types of projects/activities the group thinks would help overcome the identifies problems and foster improvements in learning.

Math and Science Curriculum Analysis at the Fermilab Teacher Resource Center (TRC)

Susan Dahl, Fermilab Lederman Science Center

White Oak A

Educators need to decide which instructional materials they will use to teach mathematics and science. New teachers should not just review the instructional materials but also participate in a professional, data-driven selection process. Inservice and preservice teachers need to be aware that this selection process is only part of the decisions needed for an aligned mathematics or science curriculum.

The Fermilab Teacher Resource Center (TRC) is a preview collection of trade books, educational software and curriculum materials. The collection includes all of the NSF-funded mathematics and science materials, the major publisher programs, and many supplementary materials. Important national documents, tools and reports inform the professional development to support the use of this collection. Fermilab makes these TRC services and resources available to educators free of charge.

This session will provide a background article to support a comprehensive discussion regarding the necessary components of an aligned curriculum. Benefits and drawbacks to the latest national initiative reports that examined mathematics and science instructional materials will be debated. Participants will receive a list of instructional materials available in the TRC by grade level and content area; summaries of major programs and multimedia lesson examples; and a variety of instruments to gather data regarding features and quality of instructional materials during the analysis process.

This session will provide participants with an opportunity to discuss a big picture philosophy of curriculum alignment from a practical, local point of view. Tools for several stages of curriculum analysis will provide awareness of key resources. Familiarity with the latest instructional programs and contact with the Fermilab TRC may provide opportunities for universities working with local schools, or possible seminars and workshops for preservice students.

CMSI University Partners: Common Issues and Concerns: Part III

Rachel Shefner, Loyola University Chicago, Bonnie Saunders, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Bret Feranchak, Chicago Public Schools White Oak B

Join us for the culminating discussion of this series. Many of the Symposium participants are engaged in partnerships with CPS to offer courses for teachers. Some of the University Partners are completing their second year of course offerings for CPS teachers, so it is time to think about whether or not we are having an impact. CPS teachers from several of the CMSI-University Partners programs will be on hand to share their experiences. We will gain insight as to what motivates teachers to sign up for these programs, how they have applied the coursework to their own classrooms and their suggestions as to how these programs might be improved in order to attract more teachers and better serve them.

This session, moderated by Rachel Shefner of Loyola University, Bonnie Saunders of UIC, and Bret Feranchak of the CPS Office of Mathematics and Science, continues the discussion from the February 4th and March 11 symposia. Please feel free to join the discussion regardless of whether or not you participated previously. We welcome newcomers to the discussion and the participants from the first two discussions.