National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×
  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 evidence 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 experience? 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 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

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×

 

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 address 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

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×

 

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

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: June Workshop Agenda and Participants List." National Research Council. 2011. Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13099.
×
Page 79
Next: Appendix B: October Workshop Agenda and Participants List »
Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Summary of Two Workshops Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $21.00 Buy Ebook | $16.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Numerous teaching, learning, assessment, and institutional innovations in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education have emerged in the past decade. Because virtually all of these innovations have been developed independently of one another, their goals and purposes vary widely. Some focus on making science accessible and meaningful to the vast majority of students who will not pursue STEM majors or careers; others aim to increase the diversity of students who enroll and succeed in STEM courses and programs; still other efforts focus on reforming the overall curriculum in specific disciplines. In addition to this variation in focus, these innovations have been implemented at scales that range from individual classrooms to entire departments or institutions.

By 2008, partly because of this wide variability, it was apparent that little was known about the feasibility of replicating individual innovations or about their potential for broader impact beyond the specific contexts in which they were created. The research base on innovations in undergraduate STEM education was expanding rapidly, but the process of synthesizing that knowledge base had not yet begun. If future investments were to be informed by the past, then the field clearly needed a retrospective look at the ways in which earlier innovations had influenced undergraduate STEM education.

To address this need, the National Research Council (NRC) convened two public workshops to examine the impact and effectiveness of selected STEM undergraduate education innovations. This volume summarizes the workshops, which addressed such topics as the link between learning goals and evidence; promising practices at the individual faculty and institutional levels; classroom-based promising practices; and professional development for graduate students, new faculty, and veteran faculty. The workshops concluded with a broader examination of the barriers and opportunities associated with systemic change.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!