Appendix A
June Workshop Agenda and Participants List

AGENDA

Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education


Monday June 30, 2008

8:00 a.m.

Introductions

8:30 a.m.

Overview of the workshop goals

Susan Singer, Carleton College

8:45 a.m.

Panel: Linking Evidence and Learning Goals

 

Moderator:

Adam Gamoran, University of Wisconsin, Madison

 

Panelists:

Cathy Middlecamp, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Jose Mestre, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

Bruce Grant, Widener University

Following the meeting, each panelist will write a brief paper based on his/her presentation and input from the discussion. Panelists were asked to address the following questions in their papers and will select specific areas to highlight in their presentations.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 75
Appendix A June Workshop Agenda and Participants List AGENDA Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education Monday June 30, 2008 8:00 a.m. Introductions 8:30 a.m. Overview of the workshop goals Susan Singer, Carleton College 8:45 a.m. Panel: Linking Evidence and Learning Goals Moderator: Adam Gamoran, University of Wisconsin, Madison Panelists: Cathy Middlecamp, University of Wisconsin, Madison Jose Mestre, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign Bruce Grant, Widener University Following the meeting, each panelist will write a brief paper based on his/ her presentation and input from the discussion. Panelists were asked to ad- dress the following questions in their papers and will select specific areas to highlight in their presentations. 75

OCR for page 75
76 APPENDIX A 1. What are and what should be some of the most important learning goals for science students in lower division courses? We are interested in goals over a range of grain sizes from activities within an individual course to college-wide efforts. 2. In the context of the learning goals you identified, what types of evi- dence would be needed in order to conclude that a specific goal had been achieved? 3. With so many forms of evidence available to us in science education, are there some types of evidence that carry more weight in your experi- ence? If so, what makes that evidence particularly compelling? 4. As you consider learning goals and evidence, where are the biggest gaps in evidence in science undergraduate education? 5. How important has the quality of evidence been in influencing or guid- ing the widespread uptake of a promising practice? Can you identify specific examples where the presence or absence of evidence of effec- tiveness has had a major impact on dissemination or use? 9:30 a.m. Audience discussion of panel 10:00 a.m. Break and transition to small groups 10:15 a.m. Small groups to discuss learning goals and evidence Each group will hold a discussion, using the following ques- tions as guidance. Please take notes for the report out follow- ing the discussion. Questions to guide small-group discussion: • What are the varied learning goals in your discipline? Of these, what do you consider to be the most important learn- ing goals? • What types of evidence are needed to establish effectiveness given the goals identified? • Are there differences across disciplines in the desired learn- ing goals? In what counts as evidence of effectiveness? 11:00 a.m. Report out by small groups 11:30 a.m. Panel: What Is the State of Evidence in Discipline-Based Educa- tion Research? Moderator: Kenneth Heller, University of Minnesota

OCR for page 75
77 APPENDIX A Panelists: William Wood, University of Colorado, Boulder Edward Redish, University of Maryland Helen King, Consultant Each panelist was asked to respond to the following: 1. Summarize the major findings from discipline-based education research in your discipline. 2. Identify the most promising or important directions for future research. 12:15 p.m. Audience discussion of panel 12:45 p.m. Lunch and informal discussion of morning sessions 1:30 p.m. Panel: Surveying Promising Practices Moderator: Melvin George, University of Missouri Panelists: Jeffrey Froyd, Texas A&M University Philip Sadler, Harvard University Jeanne Narum, Project Kaleidoscope Following the meeting, each panelist will write a brief paper based on his/ her presentation and input from the discussion. Panelists were asked to ad- dress the following questions in their papers and will select specific areas to highlight in their presentations. 1. How would you categorize the range of promising practices that have emerged over the past 20 years? Consider practices that are discipline- specific as well as those that are interdisciplinary. 2. What types of categories do you find are most useful in sorting out the range of efforts that have emerged? Why did you choose to aggregate certain practices within a category? 3. As you chose exemplars for your categories, what criteria did you use to identify something as a promising practice? 2:30 p.m. Audience discussion of panel 3:00 p.m. Break and transition to small groups 3:15 p.m. Small-group discussion of promising practices

OCR for page 75
78 APPENDIX A Start this session with a one-minute written response to the following question: Reflecting on the panel discussion, from your experience what top three promising practices would you identify? Please list the promising practice, related outcomes, goals, audience, and context in which the practice is best suited. In a round robin format, discuss why these were the top picks and what the state of the evidence is related to each practice. 4:15 p.m. Report out by small groups 4:45 p.m. Steering committee’s and participants’ final reflections 5:30 p.m. Adjourn PARTICIPANTS Speakers Jeffrey Froyd, Texas A&M University Bruce Grant, Widener University Jose Mestre, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign Cathy Middlecamp, University of Wisconsin, Madison Helen King, Helen King Consultancy Jeanne Narum, Project Kaleidoscope Edward Redish, University of Maryland Philip Sadler, Harvard University William Wood, University of Colorado, Boulder Invited Guests Susan Albertine, Association of American Colleges and Universities Robert Beichner, North Carolina State University Myles Boylan, National Science Foundation Celeste Carter, National Science Foundation Amber Coleman, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, National Research Council Mark Connolly, University of Wisconsin, Madison Malcolm Drewery, National Academy of Engineering Adam Fagen, Board on Life Sciences, National Research Council Adam Gamoran, University of Wisconsin, Madison Pamela Hines, American Association for the Advancement of Science

OCR for page 75
79 APPENDIX A Kimberly Kastens, Columbia University Mary M. Kirchhoff, American Chemical Society David Mandel, National Center on Education and the Economy Tina Masciangioli, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, National Research Council Lillian McDermott, University of Washington Susan Millar, University of Wisconsin, Madison Michael Moloney, Board on Physics and Astronomy, National Research Council Lina Patino, National Science Foundation Dexter Perkins, University of North Dakota Ginger Holmes Rowell, National Science Foundation Carol Schneider, Association of American Colleges & Universities Dee Silverthorn, University of Texas, Austin Linda Slakey, National Science Foundation Carol Snyder, American Association of Colleges and Universities Brock Spencer, Beloit College James Stith, American Institute of Physics Larry Suter, National Science Foundation Partibha Varma-Nelson, National Science Foundation Jodi Wesemann, American Chemical Society Karl Wirth, Macalester College Robin Wright, University of Minnesota Terry Woodin, National Science Foundation