. "Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops
Appendix A
June Workshop Agenda and Participants List
AGENDA
Workshop on Linking Evidence and Promising Practicesin 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.
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
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops
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.
OCR for page 76
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops
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.
In the context of the learning goals you identified, what types of evidence would be needed in order to conclude that a specific goal had been achieved?
With so many forms of evidence available to us in science education, are there some types of evidence that carry more weight in your experience? If so, what makes that evidence particularly compelling?
As you consider learning goals and evidence, where are the biggest gaps in evidence in science undergraduate education?
How important has the quality of evidence been in influencing or guiding the widespread uptake of a promising practice? Can you identify specific examples where the presence or absence of evidence of effectiveness 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 questions as guidance. Please take notes for the report out following 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 learning goals?
What types of evidence are needed to establish effectiveness given the goals identified?
Are there differences across disciplines in the desired learning 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 Education Research?
Moderator:
Kenneth Heller, University of Minnesota
OCR for page 77
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops
Panelists:
William Wood, University of Colorado, Boulder
Edward Redish, University of Maryland
Helen King, Consultant
Each panelist was asked to respond to the following:
Summarize the major findings from discipline-based education research in your discipline.
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 address the following questions in their papers and will select specific areas to highlight in their presentations.
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.
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?
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 78
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops
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 79
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops
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
