------------------------------------------------------------------------
UIC-CC CETP
UIC—Community College Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Evaluation
Since its inception in June 1999, the
n
To
document and evaluate the project’s efforts in faculty development, curriculum
development in science and mathematics, teacher preparation, collaboration, and
institutionalization.
n
To inform
other educators who work on similar projects in faculty development in
mathematics and science teaching, teacher preparation, and reform of
undergraduate education.
For the last three years, the primary emphasis of the Collaborative’s research and evaluation effort has been on faculty development and the collection of various kinds of data from participating members of the Collaborative.
The Collaborative has already collected baseline and
longitudinal data of both a quantitative and qualitative nature, particularly through the three Institutes
for Developing Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Mathematics and Science,
which are year-long programs for faculty that facilitated reflective practice
and disseminated successful initiatives in teaching mathematics and science in
the
n
Faculty
goal statements, plans for change and final reports about their change projects
from 92 faculty in mathematics and science teaching in
the
n
Interviews
with mathematics and science faculty members and class observation notes
collected from various meetings and visits by the Collaborative principle
investigators and research and evaluation members.
n
About
1,500 surveys from undergraduate students collected by the community college
liaisons who served as a bridge between UIC and community college campus. Data
includes student perception of change implemented by their teachers in various
mathematics and science courses.
n
Institutional
records on undergraduate students in teacher preparation programs.
n
Observations
of classroom instruction and Collaborative activities collected by the
Collaborative research team members. The observational data have been used to
allow evaluation staff to offer confidential feedback to faculty members about
their improvement of teaching practice.
n
Special
case study data such as in-depth interviews, long-term classroom observation,
email correspondence with faculty, and interviews with students were collected
as an effort to understand individual journeys of change.
n
Documentation
of mathematics and science curriculum and specific courses at collaborative
institutions.
Results to Date
Toward meeting our research goals, the following initial results will be shared and continuing efforts pursued.
In an effort to understand the Collaborative’s faculty development, journeys of mathematics and science faculty have been analyzed by looking at faculty’s goal statements, plans for change, and final reports regarding their change project. These data were written by faculty participants, giving us a chance to understand how they were making meaning of change in practice. In final reports, participating faculty members have described their experiences in introducing instructional and curricular changes in a detailed way [9]. Other sources of data such as field notes documenting workshops and meetings faculty attended, classroom observation notes and classroom materials collected in their targeted courses, interviews with faculty have also allowed us to analyze faculty journeys of change at given points of time and across time. Studying journeys of college faculty in different institutions and departments allowed the project members to understand similarities and differences between the journeys of educators:
n Higher education faculty began to reshape their teaching practices in their science and mathematics classrooms following very diverse pathways in their change journeys. This reform effort was initiated via the Institute and sustained over the intervention period through periodic meetings.
n For a sustainable change to happen, it seemed that faculty needed more support such as feedback on the impact of their teaching practice. Faculty reported helpful feedback mechanisms from a variety of sources—students, outside observers and through the faculty’s own reflection. A sustainable change, especially beyond a one-semester term, was a complex process for a person to plan and proceed to implement.
n Creative supportive structures are needed to support faculty. Lessons that were learned include the need for a rich source of classroom activities and best practices exercises.
n
Faculty members are capable of scaffolding and
re-shaping their classroom practices. The level of implementation varied from
the beginning considering the range of prior experiences.
n
Dimensions of teaching practices are observable,
although complex. Via formal and information interactions with higher education
faculty, we were able to see stages of development. This gives us hope that
this complex issue can yet be understood.
In particular, our analysis to date shed light on the journeys that 16 urban science faculty
took, in Year 2 of the project, to form or reform their teaching practices in
ways consistent with national science education standards and widespread calls
to better address diverse students’ needs. The journeys of change of science
faculty were presented at 75th Annual International Conference of
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) in
Recently, our analysis of student and faculty data has enhanced our understanding of faculty perceptions of their students as future teachers. According to faculty surveys, faculty did not expect their students to be interested in teaching. Only 23% of faculty said they had some future teachers in their course. Fourteen percent of the faculty said that only a few of their students are interested in teaching, and 11% said none of their students were interested in teaching. However student responses in surveys indicated a different picture. In most of the courses, there were students who were interested in considering teaching as a career. Recognizing this disparity, during the 2001-2002 faculty Institute, we shared this information with faculty. To provide additional feedback to faculty, we also shared with faculty a summary of student expectations toward their course.
In an effort to better understand individual faculty change processes, several in-depth case studies (e.g., 1 mathematics faculty, Fall, 2001 [11]& 1 science faculty, Spring, 2002) were conducted. The following are questions that we address in our case studies with faculty:
n
How does
an individual faculty member form and reform his/her teaching practices?
n
What brings
changes in an individual faculty member’s teaching and what hinders changes?
n
What are
mathematics and science faculty’s beliefs about good teaching and learning of
mathematics and science?
n
How can
researchers better support faculty members who launch a change project in their
teaching practice?
n How can researchers support faculty members so that they sustain improvements in reform-based mathematics and science teaching and learning?
The results of the case studies are included in various parts of our dissemination efforts including professional meetings, presentations, and journal articles [10,11].
n An in-depth case study with a mathematics faculty member was conducted in the fall of 2001. The study describes a senior mathematics professor’s effort to change his teaching practice in a mathematical analysis course for secondary preservive teachers. Data were collected through semester-long observations and interviews with the professor and his students. The data were analyzed by the use of reflection as a tool for examining his experience of bringing about change. Discussions include the role of teacher reflection, teacher beliefs about good teaching and their manifestation in practice, the role of students in a reform-based classroom and the professor’s effort for changing pedagogy of the mathematics course and his search for continuing the effort [11].
n An in-depth case study was conducted with a science faculty member in the Spring of 2002. The goals of the study were to explore and document in depth the efforts towards reforming teaching and learning in a college classroom of a science faculty member and to support him in his efforts to make a close connection to the Collaborative. Through interviews and observations with him and his students, an attempt was made to create a sense of his teaching as well as his search for improvement.
The Collaborative’s co-PI, Maria Varelas, lead Teacher Research Projects for the last three
years. In her introductory article [2] for four papers by four chemists, she
describes how the four faculty members sought to contribute, from a different
slant, to the discussion on Best Teaching Practices that were launched in the
UIC-CC CETP. The Electronic Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of
Teachers (ECEPT) has short summaries of the four collaborative action teacher
research projects that the four chemists had worked on: Maria Varelas [2], Karyn Collymore-Chalmers at
Each year, the CETP’s evaluation produced an annual report about findings on research and evaluation [1], [7]. In these reports, we noted initial lessons we had learned about facilitators of and barriers to our work as well as describing our activities. We also raised 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. In January of 2002, the Collaborative evaluation team produced a final report guideline [8] to further support faculty. The purpose of the guideline is to encourage faculty to reflect on their experiences of change in teaching with a rich level of detail and self-reflection.
The following are samples of faculty’s final reports. Final reports are self-reflective documentation that faculty provided to the Collaborative at the end of their implementation effort. We introduce here 6 final reports (3 from Math & 3 from Science) that we received faculty’s permission to use in our Research and Evaluation website.
·
Karen Duellman
(
·
Sheila McNicholas (
· Uri Peled (UIC, Year Year 2 & 3 participant)
Science
·
Connie Churchill
(
·
Cecelia Hutchcraft (
·
Robert
Olsson (
In July 2002, the
UIC-CC CETP project began its fourth year through a no-cost extension of the
original 3-year grant. The research and evaluation planned for the fourth year
focuses on collecting and analyzing data based on our two basic goals for
research and evaluation efforts.
We have expanded
past analysis of faculty journeys in changing their courses to include more
faculty data (i.e., meeting notes, feedback/evaluation surveys, faculty
journals) and student data (i.e., student surveys). We have also expanded
analysis to include all science and math faculty in the project by looking for
similarities and differences in the way their journeys have been shaped. In
particular, we focused on identifying problems in teaching that were recognized
by faculty themselves (See Table
2-1 & 2-2 for more information.about problems in
teaching), We also focused on understanding what kind of solution
approaches that faculty newly adopted for their change projects, and how the
solutions approaches were actually implemented in teaching practice (See
Table 3 for types of instructional change strategies planned and enacted by
faculty participants).
We also took a
sub-sample of 18 faculty for whom we have a complete
set of data in order to analyze faculty’s negotiation processes when they faced
conflicts in practice. The short version of the teaching change story is as
follows. Faculty members recognize that their current ways of teaching are not
reaching students whose limited understanding of content and negative attitudes
toward science and math are problematic. When given an opportunity, like the
support given and requirements made of them by the Institute, faculty work to
change what instructional strategies they use in their courses. Changing
instruction is, at the logistics level, an issue of choosing and trying
practices like having students do collaborative group work, using concept maps
in classroom lectures, assessing students through portfolios or designing
inquiry laboratory experiences. However, when faculty implement these practices
they face tensions much deeper than the logistical challenges of, for example,
learning the nuts and bolts of setting up good collaborative groups. In
particular, faculty voice and negotiate three key dilemmas beyond the
logistical as they try to improve their teaching.
First, they
wrestle with their beliefs in what good teachers do and what is their identity
as a teacher—what role do they play in the classroom.
Second,
they struggle mightily with the limited time they have available to cover
content material in class and to deal outside of class with preparation for the
new teaching strategies they try and with the new ways of assessing student
learning through the new kinds of teaching artifacts they collect.
Third,
they experience student resistance to the new ways they attempt to organize
their class and puzzle over ways to overcome that resistance.
Faculty
working through these tensions report some ability to resolve partially the problems they encounter even
within the one-year period of the change project. However, faculty also
identified in their reflections several issues that they did not resolve in the
one-year experience of their change project. Some pondered these issues in
terms of what they might do in the future but others noted these problems as
‘givens’ of their teaching context. These contextual institutional issues
included lack of resources for new kinds of teaching, large class sizes or
unfavorable scheduling of course times, requirements to use common assessment
practices and cover a set amount of content for a given course in one’s
department, and faculty responsibilities that distracted them from teaching
efforts.
The Collaborative research and evaluation continued to gather some evidence on changes in faculty’s teaching practice in college mathematics and science courses. A survey with the whole 3 years’ cohorts was conducted from March through May of 2003. Out of the 85 participants, 35 (16 Math & 19 Science) surveys were returned. The survey data is under analysis and we will conduct a follow-up interview. From our initial analysis, the research and evaluation team noticed some patterns of faculty’s consistent use of newly adopted ideas from their change projects and those of dropped strategies. We have started analyzing how faculty members have used and modified the teaching strategies from their change project period.
We have discerned lessons on what succeeds and does not in terms of facilitating the preparation of future teachers in the teaching of mathematics and science. (Go to our Recruitment & Retention webpage: http://www.uic.edu/educ/mathsci/)
From new teachers
who graduated from UIC’s teacher education programs,
we have learned about what supports and challenges their early success in
teaching mathematics and science. (Go to our Mentoring & Induction webpage:
http://www.math.uic.edu/IMSE/CETP/mentoring.html)
Dissemination of
Evaluation and Research
n
[10] Wenzel, S., Jeon,
K., Varelas, M., & Grim, N. (April 2002). Faculty
journeys: Studying change in college science teaching and learning. Paper
Presented at 75th Annual International Conference of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST),
n [9] Liu, G., & Jeon, K. (2002). Getting over the Atlas complex: A college professor’s reflective journey through journalizing of her own teaching. Research in Mathematics Education, 6(2), 123-133.
n [8] UIC-CC CETP. (2002). End of Semester Report: Guidelines.
n [6] Churchill, C. (2000). Reform Journey Through Introductory Chemistry: Keeping Students Engaged. (http://ecept.net/article.pl?sid=00/10/09/1913251&mode=thread)
n [5] Ellefson-Kuehn, J. (2000). Working Hard In Chemistry: What Does It Look Like and Is it Worth It? (http://ecept.net/article.pl?sid=00/10/09/1916220&mode=thread)
n [4] Harwood, C. (2000). Group Quizzes And Exam Reflections: Do they Help Or Hurt. (http://ecept.net/article.pl?sid=00/10/09/1918206&mode=thread)
n [3] Collymore-Chalmers, K. (2000). Concept Mapping: As A Tool for Developing Independent Thinkers. (http://ecept.net/article.pl?sid=00/10/09/1920204&mode=thread)
n [2] Varelas, M. (2000). Collaborative Teacher Research As A Venue for Advancing Our Teaching Practices. (http://ecept.net/article.pl?sid=00/10/09/1922248&mode=thread)
n [1] UIC-CC CETP. (2000). Year 1 Annual Report for the UIC-CC CETP.
PRESENTATIONS AT PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS
n
Proweller, A.,
& Mitchener, C. (April 2003). Crafting a science
practice in an urban context: Voices of beginning middle school science
teachers in an alternative certification program. Presented at the 2003 Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
n
Proweller, A.,
& Bay, M. (April 2003). Becoming teachers of math and science: “I can make
this happen!” Presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association,
n
Varelas, M.,
House, R., & Wenzel, S. (April 2003). Teacher candidates within scientific
research communities: salient elements of the practice of science and the
practice of science teaching. Presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research on Science Teaching.
n
Meldrim, P.,
House, R., Lannert, M., & Torres, M. (April
2003). Birds, butterflies, and particle physics: Lessons learned from
pre-service teachers in scientific research apprenticeships. Presented at the 3rd
Symposium of the Fifth Annual Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and
Mathematics: Research and Practice,
n
Mitchener, C.,
& Proweller, A. (March 2003). What’s
“alternative” about preparing middle grades science teachers for urban contexts?
Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
n
Jeon, K., & McNicholas, S. (March 2003). How do college teachers use
pretest/posttest and group activities in the teaching of mathematics?: The practitioners’ perspectives. Presented at the 2nd
Symposium of the Fifth Annual Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and
Mathematics: research and Practice,
n
Higgins,
T., Wenzel, S., Olsson, R., & Dias, C. (February 2003). Reports from the
science alumni of the UIC-Community Colleges Collaborative for Excellence in
Teacher Preparation. Presented at the 1st Symposium of the Fifth
Annual Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Mathematics: Research
and Practice,
n
Ellefson_Kuehn,
J., & Varelas, M. (March 2003). Student
reflection in undergraduate chemistry classes: How do students make sense of
assessments and classroom experiences? Presentation at the annual national
meeting of the National Science Teachers Association,
n
Wenzel, S., Jeon, K.,
& Grim, N. (May 2002). Faculty journeys: Studying change in college science
teaching and learning. Presentation at 3rd Symposium of Fourth
Annual Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate science and Mathematics: National
and Chicago Perspectives,
n
Jeon, K., & Lewis,
J. (March 2002). On becoming a reform-oriented mathematics teacher: A senior
mathematics professor’s reflection both on teaching process and students’
process of learning. Presentation at 3rd Symposium of the Fourth
Annual Excellence in Teaching Undergraduate Science and Mathematics: National
and
n
Fisher, N., Mitchener,
C., Varelas, M., Wagreich,
P., Wenzel, S., & Wink, D. (2002, January).
n
Parker, M.
(April 2001). Curriculum
resources as a vehicle for facilitating reform during induction into
teaching. Presentation at Annual CETP PI
Meeting,
n
Harwood, C., Ellefson-Kuehn, J., & Varelas,
M. (2001, August). Student reflection in undergraduate chemistry
classes: How do students make sense of assessments and classroom
experiences? Presentation at the meeting of the American Chemical
Society,
n
Churchill, C., Collymore-Chalmers, K., & Varelas,
M. (2001, August). Various forms of writing in undergraduate
chemistry classes: Exploring journaling and concept mapping as ways of reflecting
and communicating. Presentation at the meeting of the American Chemical
Society,
n
Churchill, C., Collymore-Chalmers, K., Harwood, C., Ellefson-Kuehn,
J., & Varelas, M. (2001, July).
Teachers as researchers: Studying reform in college chemistry classes.
Presentation at the meeting of the Chemical Education group,
n Stacy Wenzel (swenzel@uic.edu): Director of the research and evaluation component of the Collaborative.
n Kyungsoon Jeon (ksjeon@uic.edu): Postdoctoral research associate.
|
Course and |
|||
Copyright © 2001 Institute for Mathematics and Science Education. All rights reserved.
UIC—