University of Illinois at Chicago – Community Colleges

Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation

Status of UIC-CC CETP Activities as of January 2001

A Report of Evaluation Findings

Submitted by Project Co-Principal Investigators,
February 14, 2001

Mission and description of the UIC-CC CETP

Begun in June, 1999, the UIC-CC CETP is a three-year project, funded by the National Science Foundation, to strengthen the preparation for teaching mathematics and science of K-12 teachers who complete their pre-service program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The members of the Collaborative are UIC and six community colleges: Harold Washington College, Oakton Community College, Olive-Harvey College, Triton College, Truman College, and William Rainey Harper College. The UIC-CC CETP efforts include activities in: faculty development; mathematics and science courses and curriculum development; induction and mentoring of teachers; recruitment and retention of outstanding teacher candidates, with a special focus on high quality candidates from underrepresented groups; and research and evaluation.

This report summarizes the status of Collaborative activities between summer 1999 and January 1, 2001 – the first half of the project. A “Year 1 Annual Report for the UIC-CC CETP” described the project’s first year in some detail. We refer to specific contents in the earlier report as needed. In this report after we describe our activities, we note initial lessons we have learned about facilitators of and barriers to our work. Finally we raise issues concerning possible adjustments to the project’s activities and questions for further discussion with the Collaborative’s National Visiting Committee and other UIC-CC CETP leaders.

Status of UIC-CC CETP efforts

We highlight the Collaborative’s major efforts and provide a timeline of some key events taking place as we work on each of these strands of activity.

Faculty development

At the midpoint of this project, the 1999-2000 faculty development Institute (Institute for

Developing Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Mathematics) is completed and the Collaborative is currently in the midst of its 2000-2001 Institute programming. The final 2001-2002 Institute will begin in May 2001. Each Institute begins with a weeklong workshop in May on high quality instruction. Faculty participants then continue to meet over the next year at four periodic follow-up meetings and individually with Institute leaders. The goal of the Institute is to facilitate reflective practice by faculty and support them as they implement reformed instructional practices in one of their courses.

The participants reached by the efforts of the Institute include faculty with a variety of backgrounds. The table below offers a summary of the characteristics of participating faculty. The 2000-2001 Institute is serving 7 UIC faculty and 23 community college faculty (from all six community colleges participating); the 1999-2000 Institute served 8 UIC faculty and 21 community college faculty. The groups have been evenly divided between math and science faculty and programming is designed specifically for these two fields. The workshop and follow-up meetings have been held as planned. The location of follow-up meetings has been purposefully varied to include all of the participating institutions.

Participants in UIC-CC CETP faculty development Institute	1999-2000 Cohort	2000-2001 Cohort
Home institutions	8 UIC 21 community colleges 3 Harper 5 Oakton 4 Olive Harvey 3 Triton 2 Truman 4 Washington	7 UIC 23 community colleges 3 Harper 3 Oakton 7 Olive Harvey 6 Triton 1 Truman 3 Washington

Participants in UIC-CC CETP faculty development Institute	1999-2000 Cohort	2000-2001 Cohort
Field	17 Math 2 Remedial math 6 College math 7 Math for education 2 left Project 12 Science 7 Chemistry 5 Biology	14 Math 16 Science 8 Chemistry 4 Biology 4 Physics
Class Size	27 classes ~ 10 – 30 students 2 classes of 100+ students	26 classes ~ 10 – 30 students 4 classes of 100+ students
Position	4 Chair/Dean 7 Professor 3 Associate Professor 4 Assistant Professor 10 Adjunct/Lecturer 5 TBD	1 Chair 8 Professor 5 Associate Professor 7 Assistant Professor 10 Adjunct/Lecturer
Gender	16 Women 13 Men	11 Women 19 Men

The 1999-2000 participating faculty members were recruited primarily through the efforts of the Collaborative PIs who recruited the campus liaisons and other individuals personally. The recruitment of the 2000 – 2001 cohort relied most heavily on the campus liaisons and 1999-2000 participants more actively recruiting their colleagues. While in both years, announcements were given to department chairpersons and faculty at their campuses, it was the personal recruitment that drew participants. Given differences in recruitment, there were more faculty participants in the 1999-2000 cohort than in the second cohort who were somewhat “experienced” in instructional reform efforts according to Collaborative PI’s.

The level of engagement in the Institute by participants can be described in several ways. We documented their attendance at various meetings and their fulfillment of written required reports for the Institute. In addition, we tracked the level by which they exhibited extra professional activity in reform-oriented experiences and planned for future pursuit of improved teaching and curriculum in their courses. (We deal specifically with their course change project in the next section.)

Of the 29 faculty participants in the 1999-2000 cohort, 25 attended all five days of the summer workshop while others missed at least one day. Two participants dropped out of the Institute – one also leaving his position at the community college. At least eight of the participants presented their projects to new Institute participants through posters or panel participation at workshops during the 2000-2001 year. Four of the science participants formed a teacher-research group which has published their work at the website ECEPT (Electronic Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers). They have also submitted their work for presentation at the ChemEd 2001 Conference in summer 2001 in Toronto and (though it was not accepted) at the American Educational Research Association in April 2001. Several participants have very actively recruited colleagues from their home institutions for the 2000-2001 Institute.

In 1999 – 2000, two of the science and six of the math participants took the summer workshop for UIC course credit. In 2000 – 2001, four of the math and three of the science faculty participants took the summer workshop for UIC course credit. To earn this credit, the science group attended three extra sessions coordinated by PI Don Wink. The math group attended four additional classes where they discussed educational research, looked at educational software, looked at curriculum, and discussed the progress of their course change projects. They each are also required to write a ten-page paper relating their course change project to the research literature they read. PI Phil Wagreich coordinated these math sessions.

Thirty participants joined the 2000-2001 Institute. Of these about two-thirds have completed their plan for reforming a course. As we continue to monitor the work on this cohort, we will gain insight into the depth of their engagement in reforming teacher and learning.

The curriculum and experience of the summer workshops for 1999-2000 was described in detail in the “Year 1 Annual Report”. Evaluation forms from 1999-2000 faculty participants immediately after the summer workshop and again after the completion of their project experiences in summer 2000 show primarily positive response to the activities but some key recommendations for improvement. Most of the eight math participants who responded rated the year-long Institute as enjoyable, useful, and meeting their expectations – 4 and 5 on a 5-point scale. A couple rated the experience as a 3 of 5 on quality and met expectations. All of the six responding science participants gave the experience a 4 or 5 out of a five-point scale on usefulness, level of enjoyment, quality and expectations met. In all, the participants appreciated the opportunity to have reflective discussion with peers and to learn new teaching ideas from each other and the Institute organizers. However, some faculty saw a need for more specific goals for follow-up meetings around the change strategies targeted in their classroom reform efforts. In addition, they wanted more opportunities to practice the classroom activities that they would try with their students. These recommendations mirror some of the adjustments made to the 2000-2001 Institute.

There were opportunities during the 2000-2001 summer weeklong workshop when both the science and the math participants joined together. There was a joint session on collaborative learning. In addition, a poster session of projects completed by the 1999-2000 math and science participants was held and followed by a dinner together with all participants.

A number of adjustments were made to the science workshop for the 2000-2001 cohort that increased participants’ interactions with each other and with the information and activities about which they learned. The 2000-2001 summer weeklong workshop featured a session on K-12 standards that was “tightened up” to give participants a specific task on which to work within subject groups (physics, chemistry, biology). Another session provided time for faculty to practice creating a concept map rather than simply discussing how to use this tool with students. Faculty participants from the 1999-2000 Institute spoke on a panel about their experiences with collaborative learning. Several other sessions were altered to allow more interaction between peers and with Institute organizers. For example, participants read before some of the sessions and had small group discussions on the material. Finally, participants were asked to turn in a draft version of their course change project outline before they left the workshop and they were given time to work on it in teams and alone, given feedback from Institute organizers. Collaborative National Visiting Committee member Joan Ferrini-Mundy observed a few of the science Institute sessions.

Collaborative Institute faculty participants requested help in their work utilizing teaching assistants for large courses. The Collaborative provided training in instructional reform methods for teaching assistants in the sciences during the Fall 2000 semester and will be again in Spring 2001. TAs for CETP participating faculty attended these trainings that were also opened up for some non-CETP TAs on a space available basis. Twenty-two chemistry TAs attended the first training and 22 chemistry and physics TAs are expected for the spring session. Mathematics TAs were already required to participate in a department-sponsored seminar on teaching.

The 2000-2001 math Institute weeklong workshop focused on teaching algebra in comparison to the 1999-2000 workshop with emphasis on the teaching of ‘math for elementary school teachers courses.’ The adjustment was made because most community college faculty do not teach ‘math for elementary teacher courses’ and many elementary education students start their college math in something like college algebra. Instead of bringing in an outside leader (Humboldt State University Professor of Mathematics Phyllis Chinn for the 1999-2000 workshop), the 2000-2001 workshop was jointly organized by Principal Investigator Phil Wagreich, Harper College Campus Coordinator Mercedes McGowen, UIC Associate Professor of Math Education Erick Smith, and Margaret Small, a co-leader of the Interactive Mathematics Project (IMP) at the University of Illinois - a project that supported implementation of a high school math curriculum that emphasized cooperative learning and integration of algebra and geometry. Smith and McGowan brought additional focus on educational research to the workshop.

The math group did have the opportunity to talk with an outside expert as Joan Ferrini-Mundy made a 1 1/2 day visit to the Collaborative in May to observe the faculty development workshops. During her visit she gave a presentation to the math faculty on the just released (April, 2000) NCTM document on "Principles and Standards for School Mathematics," discussing the background for the new document, highlights of the contents, and ways in which the issues raised and anticipated impact of the PSSM relate to undergraduate mathematics teaching.

Faculty development - Institute instructional change projects

The core activity of the Institute is the instructional change project that each faculty participant undertakes.

The 1999-2000 cohort math faculty fell into three camps when we consider the type of mathematics classes they chose for the reform effort: math for elementary education, college math, and remedial math. While the size of their classes were similar (between 10 and 30 students) and the common theme of their reform goals was to improve student ability to explain and understand how they solve math problems, other aspects of their chosen classes make it useful to consider the differences between their experiences.

The largest group (N=7) of participants were teaching courses aimed at potential elementary education majors at UIC (N=5) and Harper (N=2). More so than their colleagues teaching more traditional math courses, faculty working with elementary education majors tried the most ambitious pedagogical reforms. For example, the pedagogical elements targeted by the two Harper instructors included: group work and assignments, portfolios, new assignments pushing students to explain the analysis process, and student evaluation of homework using rubrics. Both remarked on the time consuming nature of trying these methods. In addition, they both credited CETP faculty at Harper and from other CETP community colleges for helping them find assignments and methods to carry out their efforts.

Another six participants were teaching college algebra (N=5) or calculus (N=1) at various community colleges. One instructor tried group work with her students and kept a reflective journal about her experiences. The level of detail with which she had developed the activities and introduced the collaborative process to her students was not strong enough – leaving her and her students somewhat confused. Yet her journaling shows that she has developed a stronger understanding of doing this type of teaching. She noted that one barrier to her success was that she had little time to spend on the collaborative group activities, because she had so much content to cover in her course. Another faculty member teaching calculus asked students to keep a portfolio of their homework. The instructor reported that he appreciated this activity, as it required students to do their own work and not just copy down solutions from the text manual. However, he noted that while his “good” students liked this, the others did not.

Four faculty participants who taught algebra worked together at the Institute’s summer workshop to develop a pre- and post- test to help them evaluate their success in teaching graphing and linear functions. Instructors reported some satisfaction with their success in using group problem solving activities and some sense that the activity helped deepen student understanding. The member of this group who had considerable experience in curriculum reform reported no problems and gave a great deal of credit to Institute leaders and to the shared planning she and the other three participants had done on the algebra unit. Two of the three less experienced reformers were particularly concerned that they spent a great deal of time in their class on the reformed activities and therefore found themselves with too little time to cover the other topics they were required to teach. One noted that she needed more guidance from the Institute on how to carry out the collaborative activities she tried.

Two participants were teaching remedial math to students at Olive Harvey. One reflected at length about her experiences trying to increase students’ ability to explain how they solve problems. She had students tutor themselves in a computer lab that would also help them improve their computer skills. The other instructor provided no reflection in his final report about his efforts to encourage group work. Both reported that their students did not fully accept the changes in the courses. Students complained about the time they needed to spend in the computer lab and asked not to have any group test grades made part of their final grades.

The 1999-2000 cohort science faculty addressed the following instructional elements as seven of them taught chemistry and five taught biology: in-class group work, group assignments and quizzes, concept mapping, student journaling, portfolios, ‘exit tickets’/’minute papers’ and other tools to increase student participation in class discussion. While most taught classes sized between 10 and 30 students, two of the UIC faculty had classes of over 100 students.

After they completed the 1999-2000 Institute, four of the chemists spent considerable time working together on their teacher-research with PI Maria Varelas outside of regular Institute activities. In their Institute project, all had worked to get students involved in group activities and evaluated them in both group and individual ways. Two used video materials in class. Two tried minute papers to elicit feedback from students on their in-class understanding. Another chemist also spent considerable time talking with Varelas individually. He focused on group work with collective and individual assessment. Three of these five were senior administrators at their institutions. Two served as CETP community college liaisons. With each of these participants, we documented a great deal of reflective consideration of their attempts with new pedagogy and curriculum. Each has been involved with additional professional presentation of their work. All report at least partial implementation of their plans. However, several reported that they ran out of time to use all of their new ideas as much as initially planned. One participant described another key obstacle to her ability to change her course as much as hoped – she did not want to compromise her department’s efforts to assure some consistency of course content across instructors. She refrained from making big changes until she could work on changing the course requirements for the other instructors also teaching it.

Another chemist worked to add cooperative groups, reflection papers, and student team teaching to his course. Unfortunately his final report provides too little reflection to understand much about the results of his efforts.

The five biology instructors tried a variety of reforms. Three included some type of group work. Two tried having students complete portfolios in addition to the group work. Both of these community college instructors made very similar comments on their success – students were more active discussants in class and fewer students failed their course. Another instructor tried student journaling and concept maps. Some of the students in his class credit the journaling for helping them to prepare better for tests. The instructor noted that compared to previous years when students did not write journals, quiz and test scores increased. These instructors cited lack of student time and interest in these courses as a key challenge to overcome. One instructor also mentioned that there was administrative pressure on her to make sure her enrollment was large so the program would remain open.

The two science faculty members with large lecture courses faced challenges different from those of other instructors. One worked to revise laboratory sessions so that the lecture and lab complemented each other better. The other attempted to keep his students more engaged with his lecture by using group work. To do this, he stopped lecturing half way through the class period. Then for ten minutes he had the students do a brief group activity. His hypothesis was that given this interaction, students would be more alert for the second half of the lecture and would therefore achieve a better understanding of concepts covered in the second half of lecture compared to those covered in the first half of class. He planned to judge his success based on an analysis of student performance on certain exam questions.

The 2000-2001 cohort math faculty members are currently addressing the following types of course and instructional elements: group collaborative activities, group quizzes, student journaling, pre- and post-tests to assess student learning, concept maps, more use of computers, and ‘exit tickets’. Seven of these faculty members tried reform efforts in the Fall 2000. The 2000-2001 cohort science faculty participants are current addressing the following types of course and instructional elements: group collaborative activities, group quizzes, student journaling, concept maps, portfolios, and peer evaluation of student work. Nine of these faculty tried reform activities in their Fall 2000 classes. Descriptions of the experiences of Fall 2000 and the current Spring 2001 efforts will be forthcoming.

Faculty named many challenges and supports that impacted their change projects. The most mentioned challenge was that of too little time available. Faculty noted that a great deal of time is needed to develop and pilot test good assignments for student group work. After the assignments are developed, they typically require a substantial time within the curriculum in order to be introduced and explored successfully by the students. Faculty participants note that in a very full curriculum of topics that must be taught – this is a major problem. Finally, students themselves resist the extra time and effort needed to successfully work together on group projects.

There are institutional pressures and individual faculty skills that contribute to this issue of time. At the institutional level, most faculty have been given very clear direction as to what topics must be covered in their course. This is particularly true for community college faculty, for adjunct instructors, and for faculty teaching one section of a large departmental course. On the individual level, creating new plans and curriculum material is time consuming even for those with great experience in doing it. For faculty new to teaching using group work and other reform methods, the planning and implementation process is very time consuming.

Institute participants mentioned a number of events, people, and materials that they found helpful as they reformed their courses. Foremost, they appreciated receiving curricular materials from others within the CETP project. Assignments for group work, grading rubrics, movies to show, pre- and post-tests, and simple assessment tools were mentioned. In some cases, these materials were developed collaboratively by CETP members. In other cases, they were created by others and shared among CETP faculty. Access to advice and support from CETP faculty at their own institution or elsewhere was credited for helping participants in their efforts. Finally, some faculty mentioned that because they had tenure, their pursuit of new instructional work through CETP was possible.

Though no Institute participant mentioned this as supporting his or her work, we note an additional effort we have made to help support his or her classroom work. Collaborative research assistants observed teaching in the targeted courses of 14 (of 29) faculty participants in 1999-2000 and plan to observe the classes of all 2000-2001 participants. Researchers took notes on their observation and conducted pre- and post-interview with the instructors observed. The goal of these visits is three-fold. First and foremost, the aim is to provide some useful feedback to the participants on how they carry out the new aspects of their courses. To this end, observers wrote up notes about what they observed, discussed and sent a written note to the participants. The science Institute leaders reviewed these notes before they went to the instructors. For math participants, the research assistants sent their notes directly to the instructors. Second, Collaborative organizers hope to promote the usefulness of having colleagues observe each other’s teaching and discuss pedagogy and curriculum together. The presence of our observers in the participants’ classrooms can serve as a first attempt to demonstrate that this type of process can be non-threatening and useful. Third, the observations provide an evaluation tool to document the presence of the elements that the participants have said they are adding to their course.

Teacher induction and mentoring

Teacher induction and mentoring activities are now underway after completing a planning phase. During February through April 2000, the Teachers Making Change Project (TMCP) recruited new teachers and mentor teachers. In May, TMCP held its kick-off event at the Adler Planetarium where 15 teachers toured and learned about the Planetarium’s resources and then heard an overview of the TMCP induction and mentoring project. New teachers attended another meeting in June at Jones HS where they participated in demonstrations and activities on teaching science and math. During the summer 2000, groups were created, each with a mentor teacher and several new teachers. These groups meet at least once on their own and then with the full TMCP group in both July and August. New teachers were assisted as they planned what materials they would need for their science and math lessons. The Project provided them each with $150 of new materials that they selected. During the Fall 2000, the groups held small group meetings, interacted over an electronic listserv, and had one-on-one consultation with Collaborative staff. In February 2001, TMCP teachers participated in a workshop on second language learning, math, science and teaching – cosponsored by the UIC College of Education. At this meeting potential new TMCP mentors and new teachers were recruited.

In all, there are approximately 20 active new teachers and five mentors currently involved in TMCP. This first cohort of participants has given their experience high marks. They appreciated learning about several key issues: what to do in their first few days of school and how to find and use resources for good math and science lessons. Within their small groups of

new teachers and mentors, they planned specific science and math lessons that they could use in the first week or two of their teaching. They appreciated the relevance and candor of their discussions with TCMP staff and mentor teachers.

Michelle Parker, who directs the TMCP efforts, will be attending the April 2001 national CETP meeting in Virginia will be presenting the paper: ‘Curriculum Resources as a Vehicle for Facilitating Reform During Induction Into Teaching.’ Additional information about the TMCP program is available at http://www.ed.uic.edu/elementary/TMCP.htm.

Student recruitment and retention

The first year of work on recruitment and retention in math and science teacher education has provided a number of accomplishments. Key among these are the development of a database of UIC students in pre-service education programs and recent graduates; recruitment fairs for future teachers held at UIC and community colleges; website featuring information for potential and current teachers of math and science; and development at UIC of alternative certification programs in math and science teacher education. See the attached report written by Carole Mitchener, who directs these recruitment efforts of the Collaborative’s work.

Math and science college curriculum reform efforts

In mathematics, three curriculum reform efforts are underway (outside of the course reforms by Institute faculty participants). First, Janet Beissinger and Phil Wagreich have developed two units for the Math140-141 UIC sequence for math education majors. These units are: (a) Circumference vs. Diameter and (b) Counting Out ¼R squared. The topics covered in these units include measuring length and area, collecting and graphing data, finding functions that fit data, measurement error, and proportional reasoning. They have piloted the units in the Math 141 class that Beissinger taught Spring 2000 and are currently in the process of revising the units. Second, Wagreich has developed and tested course materials for a course on integrating mathematics and science (Math 470). He currently is in the process of revising this material with the help of a student who is serving as a pre-service student working with the Collaborative. Third, in conjunction with the College of education and the Big Cities project the Collaborative is supporting the design and implementation of an alternative course for incoming students who fail to meet prerequisites for the required Math 140-141 sequence for elementary education teachers in training. Refer to the report you have received on this course, Education 194.

In science, Marlynne Mishimura and Maria Varelas are working together to explore how to best develop the science course sequence for elementary school teachers. Marlynne looked at the 1999 class of UIC elementary education students and identified the UIC science courses they had taken. She has also examined national, state, and local Science Education standards and identified the "big ideas" that pre-service teachers need to know. We have identified courses that our students tend to take as: BIO 100 and 101, CHEM 100 and CHEM 112, GEOL 101, and PHY 121. The syllabi for these courses were collected and content analyzed for each course. The content of each course is being juxtaposed with the science standards. Conversations are underway with science faculty who may be involved to further developing these courses.

Evaluation and research

Evaluation efforts to date have been carried out by the Collaborative PIs, Michelle Parker, Carole Mitchener, community college liaisons, and research staff: David Boulanger, Raphael Guadjardo, Avani Khandhar, Joanne Woodson; Ray Forslund, and Amy Weaver. Considerable work has gone into collecting, managing, and analyzing data including: participants’ evaluation of specific meetings, participants’ planning and summative reporting documents, surveys and observations of students in Collaborative reformed courses, and case studies of several Institute faculty. As we mentioned last year, an inordinate amount of time has been required to negotiate the approval to do this evaluation and research by UIC’s Institutional Review Board overseeing human subjects research. A partial inventory of the data we have collected follows in the Appendix.

Evaluation findings have been formative in a number of ways. First, the reports and plans and evaluation forms from those participating in Collaborative events are read by the PIs in order to tailor one-on-one work with them and or to plan the next round of programs. Second, observations of courses in which Institute participants try new pedagogy or content are discussed with these faculty members and with PIs. Third, summary reports of compiled survey data is circulated to PIs and staff. Finally, as in this report, findings from our evaluation serve as a foundation with which to talk to about Collaborative plans with our advisors.

There have been great efforts to carry out the data collection to date. However, the time to reflect on the analysis and meaning of our findings for the project has been scarce. At this time, we have recognized the need for more tightly structured evaluation work that focuses on understanding our work in the context of the people we serve with the Collaborative: Institute faculty participants, new teachers working with TMCP, potential teachers whom we recruit. Making sense of our work requires us to work on the individual-level of analysis to learn how these key people make sense of what they learn at Collaborative functions and try to use what they learn with their own students and in their own careers and studies.

In addition to the evaluation work underway, several additional research projects are also beginning based on Collaborative activities. Raphael Guadjardo, Collaborative RA and Ph.D. student in Education at UIC, has begun an in-depth study of the course reform efforts of four math and science faculty participants from the 1999-2000 Institute. He will learn about the factors affecting their decisions and experiences with collaborative learning with groups of students in the classes they are working to reform. As we mentioned earlier, PI Maria Varelas and four Institute participants (Karyn Chalmers, Connie Churchill, Julie Ellefson-Kuehn, Cindy Harwood) are collaboratively pursuing their teacher research. Furthermore, PI Don Wink is pursuing his own teacher research on changes he is making in the large chemistry course he teaches at UIC. He is investigating how his students’ use of portfolios impacts their learning.

Timeline of UIC-CC-CETP Activities

Given the many activities underway, here we highlight activities that publicly gathered CETP faculty, K-12 teachers, and potential K-12 teachers in order to provide them with information, workshops, reflective discussion, and other developmental opportunities. The myriad planning activities, one-on-one interactions, and evaluation activities are not documented here.

We highlight the various strands of our activities using the following coding conventions:

· Faculty development Institute and follow-up in bold

• TMCP mentoring project in italics type
• Teacher recruitment project in CAPITAL type
• Other related activities in regular type

Activities completed

Month	Highlights
January 1999	Revised CETP proposal to NSF
February	UICCCCETP proposal accepted by NSF
March	Planning begins: Selecting campus liaisons and staff
April	Official award of UICCCCETP grant
May	1999-2000 Science Institute faculty workshop May 24-28, 12 participants
June	1999-2000 Math Institute faculty workshop June 1-5, 17 participants
July
August	UIC suspends all human subjects research
September	Math faculty follow-up meeting Sept 17 at UIC Science faculty follow-up meeting Sept 24 at UIC
October	Math faculty follow-up meeting at Truman
November	Science faculty follow-up meeting at Harold Washington
December	Workshop for future teachers at Triton, 20-25 Triton students attend
January 2000	Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Math (HECA) symposium at DePaul
February	Math and science faculty follow-up meeting at Oakton, 80 attendees Mentoring (TMCP) recruitment letters, calls, flyers begin National Visiting Committee meeting at UIC
March	Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Math (HECA) symposium at Adler Planetarium

April	Workshop for future teachers at Triton, 25 Triton students attend Information session for interested future teachers at Oakton, ~ 35 Oakton students attend Second workshop for future teachers at Triton, 20-25 Triton students attend Science faculty follow-up meeting at Olive-Harvey Math faculty follow-up meeting at Harper
May	2000-2001 Science Institute faculty workshop at UIC, 16 participants 2000-2001 Math Institute faculty workshop at UIC, 14 participants Science Teacher-Research Group begins meeting with 4 1999-2000 Institute participants Mentoring (TMCP) kickoff meeting at Adler Planetarium, 15 teachers attend Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Math (HECA) symposium at Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum
June	TMCP mentor teachers at UIC Mentor Institute, 2 mentor teachers attend TMCP workshop at Jones HS with science and math demos and activities for mentor and new teachers TMCP mentor – new teachers groups formed and make plans
July	TMCP small groups meet at their schools TMCP meeting at UIC of mentor-new teacher groups – report on small group work
August	Math and science follow-up faculty meeting at UIC Two TMCP meetings at UIC of mentor-new teacher groups – report on small group work

September	Math and science follow-up faculty meeting at Triton CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC TMCP listserv begins. Small groups continue to meet at their schools.
October	Science follow-up faculty meeting at Olive Harvey CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC TMCP mentors and staff make check-up calls to new teachers. Small groups continue to meet at their schools.
November	College Fair for Future Teachers at UIC, 31 students attend K-12 Teacher Information Session at Oakton, 24 students attend CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC
December	CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC TMCP small groups continue to meet.
January 2001	Special lunch/discussion meeting at Oakton for faculty who participated in CETP faculty workshops Math and science faculty follow-up meeting at Oakton CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC
February	National Visiting Committee meeting at UIC Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Math (HECA) symposium at Chicago State U. TMCP workshops cosponsored with UIC College of Education, ~ 20 TMCP new and mentor teachers attend or present TMCP new teachers receive another check-up phone call from mentors and staff. First TMCP newsletter distributed Recruitment of Cohort II TMCP participants begins at above workshops, at seven student teaching seminars. CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC

Activities planned

March 2001	Science faculty follow-up meeting at Washington Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Math (HECA) symposium at UIC -Special coordinated meeting for CETP science faculty with symposium speakers at UIC CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC TMCP meeting at UIC of mentor-new teacher groups
April	Math faculty follow-up meeting at Truman Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Math (HECA) symposium at Northeastern Illinos U. CETP math faculty have weekly discussion group at UIC TMCP meeting at UIC of mentor-new teacher groups Second TMCP newsletter distributed Cohort II TMCP recruitment letters, calls, flyers begin
May	2001-2002 Science Institute faculty workshop at UIC 2001-2002 Math Institute faculty workshop at UIC
June	UIC Mentor Institute – TMCP mentors and possibly new teachers invited TMCP Cohort II kickoff meeting with Cohort I teachers assisting TMCP large and small group meetings for Cohort I and II --Cohort I focus: Investigation of math and science learning --Cohort II focus: Connecting resource, curricular goals and instructional possibilities

July

TMCP Cohort II: at least one large group meeting about investigating instruction (forming small teacher inquiry groups) TMCP Cohort II workshop with science and math demos and activities for mentor and new teachers TMCP Cohort II mentor – new teachers groups will form and make plans TMCP Cohort II small groups meet at their schools TMCP Cohort II meeting at UIC of mentor-new teacher groups –