Year 1 Annual Report For The UIC-CC CETP
May, 1999 - June, 2000
The UIC-CC CETP is a collaboration among six community
colleges and the
· Faculty development in the teaching of mathematics and science
· Course and curricular development in mathematics, science, and education
· Recruitment of future teachers with a special focus on candidates from underrepresented groups
· Induction and mentoring of teachers in the initial years of their careers with an emphasis on teaching mathematics and science
· Research and evaluation
I. PEOPLE
PI: Philip Wagreich, Dept of MSCS, UIC
Co-PIs: Naomi Fisher, Dept of MSCS, UIC; Maria Varelas, College of Education, UIC; Stacy Wenzel, Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago;
Donald Wink, Dept of Chemistry, UIC
Faculty and Research Assistants Listed Alphabetically within Institution
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
John Baldwin, Dept of MSCS; Participant in 1999 and 2000 Faculty Development
Institute
Janet Beissinger, Dept of MSCS; Curriculum Writer and
Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Rodrigo Carramiñana, Dept of MSCS; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Naomi Fisher, Dept of MSCS; Co-PI and Executive Director
Ray Forslund, Dept of Chemistry; Research Assistant
Sharon Fetzer Gislason, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development
Institute
Luke Hanley, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Cindy Harwood, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Steve Kelso, Biology Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Avani Khandhar, Dept of MSCS; Research Assistant
Judith Merlau, Dept of MSCS; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Antonio Pagnamenta, Physics Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Uri Peled, Dept of MSCS; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Bonnie Saunders, Dept of MSCS; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Margaret Small, IMP; Co-Leader 2000 Math Faculty Development Workshop
Philip Wagreich, Dept of MSCS; PI; Co-Leader, Math Faculty Development Component; and
Curriculum Writer
Robert Widing,, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Donald Wink, Dept of Chemistry; Co-PI and Co-Leader, Science Faculty Development Component
John Wood, Dept of MSCS; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Kristen Wottreng, Research Assistant
Joe Becker, Co-Leader of 1999 and 2000 Workshops for Science Faculty
Raphael Guadjardo, Research Assistant
Carole Mitchener, Director of CETP Student Recruitment Component
Michelle Parker, Director of CETP Mentoring and Induction Component
Erick Smith, Co-Leader of 2000 Workshop for Math Faculty and Course Developer
Maria Varelas, Co-PI and Co-Leader of Science Faculty Development Component
Amy Weaver, Research Assistant
Michael Carr, Biology Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Connie Churchill, Dean of Division of science and Health and Dept of Chemistry:
Co-Liaison and Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Tom Firak, Biology Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Julia Hassett, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Gloria Liu, Instructional Support Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Carol Murphy, Math Dept; Co-Liaison and
Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Nancy Ressler, Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Preet Saluja, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Dennis Lehman, Physical Sciences Dept; Liaison and
Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Karyn Collymore-Chalmers, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development
Institute
Cheryl Dias, Biology Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Arthur Divito, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Robin Gallagher, Biology Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Joseph Hardy, Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Robert Lyon, Physical Sciences Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Yvonne Harris, Biology Dept; Co-Liaison and Co-Leader of the 1999 and 2000
Workshops for Science Faculty
C. Jimmy Hsiao, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Sheila McNicholas, Math Dept; Co-Liaison and
Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Helen Valdez, Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Mercedes McGowen, Math Dept; Liaison, Co-Leader of 1999 and 2000 Workshops for
Math Faculty, and Curriculum Writer
Karen Duellman, Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Julie Ellefson Kuehn, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Nancy Vrooman, Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Dan Loprieno, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Nancy Rice, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Daniel Stanford, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Elizabeth Brindise, Science Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Brian Hayes, Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Math Faculty Development Workshop
Glenn Jablonski, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Myrna LaRosa, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Brian Leonard, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Kathryn Leonard, Chemistry Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Ellen O'Connell, Math Dept Chair; Liaison
Robert Olsson, Science Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Rainer Schochat, Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Alan Wade, Biology Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Mahammad Ashraf, Biology Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Addie Davis, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Austin Ferguson, Physical Science Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development
Institute
Hassan Kahvad, Physical Sciences Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development
Institute
Ahmad Kamal, biology Dept; Liaison and Participant in 1999 Faculty Development
Institute
Patrick Onaghama, Pre-Credit Math Dept; Part. in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Sylvester Roebuck, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Rajashree Sen, Physical sciences Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Michelle Smith, Pre-Credit Math Dept; Participant in 1999 Faculty Development Institute
Robin Wucherer, Math Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
David Zoller, Physical Sciences Dept; Participant in 2000 Faculty Development Institute
Consultants
David Boulanger, Director of Evaluation Component and Community College Advisor
Phyllis Chinn, Dept of Mathematics,
Leader of 1999 Math Faculty development Workshop
Stacy Wenzel, Consortium on
Co-PI and Consultant for Evaluation Component
II. ACTIVITIES
Preliminary
Activities
In anticipation of the award for the UIC-CC CETP a round of meetings was held at UIC with the PI, Co-PIs, Coordinator for the Community Colleges, and administrators and faculty from the six community colleges to get to know one another and learn about the strengths and needs of each campus, and plan the coordination among the seven member institutions. It was agreed that each community college campus would appoint a campus Liaison (or Co-Liaisons) to coordinate CETP activities on his/her campus and be the contact person between his/her campus and the Collaborative as a whole.
As the meetings progressed, discussions centered on the
proposed faculty development activities.
It was agreed that the first faculty development workshops should be
held at the beginning of the project.
The dates were scheduled to accommodate the semester schedules of the
seven institutions. Announcements and
applications for the 1999-2000 Institute for Excellence in Teaching
Undergraduate Science and Mathematics were distributed to faculty at UIC and
the six community colleges. The
Institute began with two week-long faculty development workshops, one for
science faculty on
Faculty
Development Activities
The annual Institute for Developing Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Mathematics includes two week-long faculty development workshops, and meetings throughout the AY. Participants target a particular course they will teach in the AY (or in some cases in the immediate summer session) for developing a teaching project to implement some curricular and/or instructional changes, develop and write-up their plans for change, and implement their plans when they teach the course.
1999-2000 Institute
for Developing Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Mathematics
The Institute began with two faculty development
workshops: Teaching Science Workshop on
The target size of each workshop was 18, with 6 faculty from UIC and 2 faculty from each of the community colleges. Due to the short timeline in planning the workshops the enrollment was below the targeted numbers. Twelve faculty participated in the science workshop and 17 in the math workshop. The combined distributions by institution were: UIC (8), Oakton (5), Washington (4), Truman (2), Harper (3), Triton (3), and Olive-Harvey (4).
Teaching Science Workshop:
The workshop was organized and run by a team of five UIC
faculty-- Donald Wink, Dept of Chemistry, Maria Varelas, Science Education,
The workshop program was organized by daily themes: Meaning Making, Supporting Student Learning, Assessment, Change, and Evaluation. The themes were illustrated by classroom case studies. Relevant instructional practices such as use of concept maps and cooperative learning were discussed, and small group activities were used to enable the participants to explore ways to use these practices. Small group configurations were varied throughout the workshop so that at times participants worked with faculty in the same discipline and at other times with faculty from other disciplines.
Teaching Mathematics Workshop:
The theme of the Teaching Mathematics Workshop was teaching
the mathematics content course for elementary education majors. Phyllis Chinn,
The workshop program had several daily activities for participants to explore topics from the elementary school curriculum which were introduced through problems using manipulatives. Participants worked in small groups to solve the problems and presented their solutions to the full group. Extensions of the mathematics were also discussed. The small groups mixed faculty from different institutions.
AY Activities
There were four meetings of the science faculty during the AY, and four meetings of the math faculty. The third meeting was a joint meeting. Meetings were held at UIC and 5 of the community colleges. The meetings gave participants the opportunity to discuss their teaching with one another and discuss how their teaching plans were working out. The participants indicated in their written evaluations that they very much valued talking abut teaching with their colleagues at the meetings.
The meetings held on community college campuses, included lunch
by the hosting institution, were open to all interested math or science faculty
from the campus, and CETP faculty from other campuses were encouraged to bring
interested colleagues, as well. The
hosting institution helped plan or took full responsibility for the meeting
program. The joint meeting on
A series of classroom observations by Research Assistants took place in the spring semester. The purpose of the observations is to help faculty gather information about classroom dynamics by having the RAs focus on particular student performance such as their interactions in cooperative groups, and to give faculty the opportunity to discuss particular aspects of their teaching. RAs observed classes of 15 faculty.
Participants were asked to submit a written, final report of their experience in implementing changes in their teaching during the 1999-00 AY. These reports are being reviewed and outlined in a common format for a general summary of the projects, (October, 2000).
2000-2001 Institute
for Developing Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Mathematics
The Institute began with two faculty development workshops
held concurrently on
There were several other joint sessions of the workshops, including a panel on cooperative learning by three faculty who have used cooperative learning effectively in their teaching, and an extended discussion about the evaluation procedures for the AY.
Sixteen faculty participated in the science workshop and fourteen participated in the math workshop. The combined distributions by institution are: UIC (7), Oakton (3), Washington (3), Truman (1), Harper(3), Triton (6), and Olive-Harvey (7). Arrangements for course credit and payment of stipends is the same as for the first year's workshops.
Teaching Science Workshop:
The workshop was organized and run by the same six-member faculty team as the first year. The 16 participants came from 6 of the 7 Collaborative institutions: UIC (4), Oakton (2), Washington (2), Harper (1), Triton (3), and Olive-Harvey (4).
Although the program followed a similar format as the first year's, the themes were revised somewhat. This year's themes were: Making Meaning; Relationships Among Science Knowledge, Experiences, and Standards; Looking at Course Syllabi; Instruction- Cooperative Learning; Assessment and Instruction- Concept Maps and Portfolios; Change Over Time and Diversity in the Classroom; Evaluation and Assessment. Each day several articles were assigned as reading in preparation for the following day's program. Participants had the opportunity to try out the Inspiration software for developing concept maps.
Teaching Mathematics Workshop:
The workshop was organized and run by Philip Wagreich, Dept
of MSCS, UIC, Erick Smith, Mathematics Education,
This year's workshop theme was teaching algebra. The sessions focused on cooperative learning rooted in solving problems from high school level algebra, although often participants extended the mathematical content. Problems were selected from classroom materials including materials from the Interactive Mathematics Program, TIMS laboratory experiments, and workshop materials for a developmental math course and an intermediate algebra course. The group read and discussed the Grades 9-12 standards in the NCTM Principles and Standards for School Mathematics and the Illinois State Standards for algebra, and reviewed and critiqued selected test items from a final exam for a traditional course and a college placement exam. Graphing was one focus topic of the workshop, including using graphing calculators to find curves of best fit for experimentally generated data. The activities often lead to in-depth, lively discussions about different ways to conceptualize the problem and the solutions.
AY Activities:
The science faculty and the math faculty arranged four meetings for the academic year. The meeting scheduled for January 26 will be a joint meeting.
Curriculum and
Course Development
Three UIC-based activities are in progress: (1) curricular materials for the two-course mathematics sequence for elementary education majors (Math 140-141); (2) development of a new education course (ED 194), Mathematics for Elementary Teachers; and (3) curricular and instructional support for the 3-course mathematics sequence for elementary education students doing their study in one discipline in mathematics.
Math 140: Introduction
to Conceptual Foundations of Mathematics and Math 141: Algebraic and Geometric
Structures
Philip Wagreich and Janet Beissinger wrote two units for Math 141 that focused on graphing, proportional reasoning, and similarity: Algebraic and Geometric Structures and taught the units in the second semester. The first unit is organized around an experiment measuring the circumferences and diameters of different sized can and plotting circumference versus diameter. The unit progresses to drawing a line of best fit for the points, observing that the quotient of the two variables is constant, and using the observation to make predictions for other points on the graph. Students progress to the conjecture that circumference divided by diameter equals a constant of value a little more than 3. Students apply the proportional reasoning they have developed to an example of similarity where a figure is scaled by linear factors. The unit includes student materials for in-class work (lab sheets), homework, text materials for the similarity section, and drafts for the general material on graphing and proportional reasoning.
The second unit leads to a set of multi-stepped problems on area and perimeter of various regions, some of which are based on materials developed by David Page. The unit begins with an exercise in measuring the radius and area (by tracing the circles on graph paper and counting square cms) of the regions and graphing radius versus area. After noting that a straight line is not a good fit for the points, a second graph is drawn using area versus radius squared. Materials from the TIMS tutor are incorporated into the unit.
ED 194: Mathematics
for Elementary Teachers
ED 194 is an experimental course designed as an alternative
to the college algebra course (Math 090) that many elementary education majors
are placed into by the UIC math placement exam as a prerequisite for Math 140,
a required course for elementary education majors. Math 090 is a significant barrier for many
students who want to become elementary school teachers, especially students of
color. While the experimental course
overlaps with Math 090 by including some coverage of algebra, the intent of the
course is to prepare students for Math 140 and to teach elementary school
mathematics. The project is a joint
undertaking of the CETP, the
Specific goals of the course include: creating an inclusive classroom that supports students from diverse backgrounds in learning the mathematics in the elementary curriculum; helping students develop a positive attitude towards mathematics and their own ability to do mathematics; providing students with an experience with the mathematics of children as a way to help them connect their own mathematical learning to the mathematics of teaching; and providing students with an experience of being a learner in a class whose pedagogical principles and curriculum are based on NCTM Standards. The course covered three topics: fractions and percents, algebra and modeling, and geometry. Each topic was developed using one of the NSF exemplary middle-school curricula as a basis. For the unit on fractions and decimals, videos and case studies from elementary classrooms were used to examine work on fractions and decimals by elementary students.
Overall, students seemed quite satisfied with the course. Students were asked to write about important strengths and weaknesses of the course. A strength: "The many challenges we were faced with. The way we had to open our minds to many other ideas and ways of thinking." A weakness: "Spending too much time on one simple problem. From one small problem we made a huge one out of it." In agreement with the Mathematics Dept, the course will be offered in AY 00-01. The evaluation process for the course will include following up on how students perform in Math 140.
Three course
mathematics sequence for the study in one discipline
The three course sequence, Number Theory, Calculus, and Geometry, which were developed by Prof. David Page and taught by him for 30 years, is unique in content and pedagogy. Students are mentored and do all the teaching in the classes, and the use of programmable calculators is integrated into the courses. CETP efforts are targeted at documenting the course materials and preparing other faculty to teach these courses, so that the courses will continue in their present form when Prof. Page retires. As a first step, a former student in the sequence worked as an advisor to Prof. Baldwin who taught the Number Theory course following Page's pedagogy. Several undergraduate students, who have taken the courses, are working with Page on curricular materials for dissemination including prototype teacher guides.
Mentoring and
Induction
The mentoring and induction program, Teachers Making Change
Project (PCMP), began its activities with a kick-off program on
Student
recruitment
This first year of the grant was largely a planning year for recruitment and retention. There were many meetings that took place over the year to consider various recruitment and retention concerns, needs, and possibilities. In late spring, the plans for recruitment and retention were summarized into 7 categories of targeted tasks in each area.
A major task for this year was getting baseline information on the status of our current enrollment of
future teachers of math and science.
This baseline information includes our elementary and secondary,
undergraduate and graduate, and
This year there were also efforts aimed at beginning the following projects: 1) setting up a potential recruitment partnership with a local after-school program for urban high school students; 2) creating a recruitment and retention administrative position devoted to math and science education; 3) developing an on-line communication network for enrolled students in math and science education programs, and 4) setting up community college recruitment liaisons.
Two of the community colleges organized events for future teachers. At
(A
Evaluation and
Research Activities
The first year's evaluation and
research activities have focused on the faculty development activities of the
CETP:
Faculty in the year-long institute on instructional change toward national standards have provided formative feedback on the effectiveness of the institute. Formative evaluation of faculty development and AY teaching activities has been ongoing throughout the May 1999 - May 2000 period.
Our research and evaluation interest, in general, is to identify, gather information on, and examine relationships among student, faculty and course variables, with particular attention to variables that have the greatest impact on:
· instructor, curricular and pedagogical change toward national standards and
· prospective teacher achievement and attitude regarding mathematics and science and how it is, or should be, taught.
We have a special interest in those variables over which we have some influence through our workshop content and requirements, etc. In spring 2000, the following information was gathered from students who have consented to the use of their data for Collaborative research and evaluation:
Consent Form: Gender and Ethnic Background
Opening Survey: College and high school math/science course work, time since last math/science course, reason for taking a particular course, expectations for the course, college field of study, enjoyment of past math/science courses, interest in teaching.
Assessment of Learning Experience: Student assessment of a particular course in terms of meeting expectations, most and least helpful aspects, greatest struggle in course, recommendations for change, similarity to other math/science courses taken, projected grade, teaching interest and how the course was useful in learning how to teach.
Closing Survey: Student “low” to “high” ratings on the “presence” and “usefulness” of 16 course characteristics based on national standards for desirable practices in teaching mathematics and science.
Background Variables: Information on student academic backgrounds from college databases will be gathered as control variables and to examine as predictors of achievement and attitude characteristics related to success in science and math courses and an interest in teaching. This information could help us focus the recruitment of students on those having the best chance of success in our program.
Faculty are documenting their teaching innovations and their effect on student attitude and achievement. Faculty conclusions on effectiveness will be compared with Collaborative independently collected data.
Findings from these
activities
May 1999 science workshop evaluation. Participants evaluated the workshop daily and on its last
day. Overall, they liked sharing ideas
with a new network of colleagues and discussing real problems of teaching with
frequent reference to concrete examples.
They liked exposure to a variety of new pedagogical methods including
concept maps and cooperative learning.
There was a suggestion that some discussions could be shortened and kept
more focused and more time might be spent orienting the group to new topics and
the purposes of some activities. The
participants valued the readings but thought they should be provided in
advance. In general, they felt their
expectations were met and rated the workshop highly with words like “best,”
“great,” “ unique” and “helpful.”
Academic year science workshop follow-up meetings. Major accomplishments reported were the introduction into their classes of group work, portfolios and concept maps. Some faculty reported a better than expected experience with group work and using concept maps while others reported struggling with these same innovations along with individual student problems. All felt that Collaborative/Institute group meetings and feedback on classroom activities were important supports for their change efforts.
June 1999 mathematics workshop evaluations. Participants evaluated the workshop daily and after completion. They found most useful and enjoyable small group interactions, the variety and level of activities, the focus on the development of specific materials to address different needs, and presentations and discussions on such topics as assessment and cognitive styles. Least useful and enjoyable were the symmetry activities. Some felt the sessions were too long. Overall, they enjoyed the presentations and discussions, especially when they related to the actual experiences of teaching. They wanted more planning time and more discussion on project requirements presented earlier.
Mathematics workshop follow-up meetings. Written reports were submitted and progress was discussed including, for example, participant faculty presentations on how their projects: (1) Used cooperative learning and pattern analysis exercises to investigate functions and base-ten and other number systems; (2) Used elementary school math class videos to observe and analyze children’s reasoning on math problems; (3) Taught elementary school teacher candidates how children can be challenged to create graphs that relate to what is happening in a story; (4) Discussed work on improving algebraic manipulations in pre-calculus, without so many definitions.
Evaluation of classroom innovations. Due to federal restrictions on research approvals, UIC Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of Collaborative research and evaluation plans was not received until mid-January, 2000, allowing data gathering to begin in spring semester. Four student surveys were developed and approved by the IRB to assess progress in classroom-based change toward Collaborative goals. These instruments were administered in 23 Collaborative classes in the spring semester and the results are being analyzed now as formative information to share with Institute faculty teaching classes in the 2000-2001 academic year.
Case Studies
Case studies are being conducted of four faculty-- one in
Chemistry and one in math from UIC, one in math from a