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 140
Appendix C
Workshop Agenda
Criteria and Benchmarks for Increased Learning from Undergraduate STEM Instruction Committee on Undergraduate Science Education National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW, NA Room 100 November 19–20, 2002
AGENDA
Tuesday, November 19
8:00 a.m.
Continental breakfast
8:30
Welcome and introductions
Bruce Alberts (President, The National Academy of Sciences)
Richard A. McCray (Chair, CUSE)
Robert L. DeHaan (Director, CUSE)
OCR for page 141
8:45
Discipline-based research in undergraduate STEM (USTEM) student learning: two pedagogical approaches to education research and practice at the introductory classroom level
Exemplar 1: Physics
Paula R. L. Heron, University of Washington: Research as a guide to improving student learning in undergraduate physics.
9:30
Exemplar 1: Biology
Brian Reiser, Northwestern University, BGuILE: Scaffolding student scientific inquiry in biology.
10:15
Break
10:30
USTEM student learning: concurrent discipline-based working groups
Physics (Facilitators: Laws, Henry)
Life sciences: (Facilitators: Allen, Sundberg)
Geosciences: (Facilitators: Olin, McCray)
Chemistry: (Facilitators: Khan, Gosser)
Each working group will complete three tasks: (1) Develop a list of a few additional examples of highly reputed courses/programs within its discipline; (2) come to agreement on the characteristics of each entry that justified its selection for the list (pedagogy, conceptual content, use of interactive IT, inclusiveness of diversity, social relevance, etc., being as specific in each category as possible); and (3) extract from those characteristics a list of criteria or indicators that would enable an observer to assess programs in that discipline. This list represents our “working hypothesis” regarding benchmarks and criteria for evaluating courses and programs.
11:30
Working groups report: discussion
12:15 p.m.
Lunch
1:15
Processes for development of student learning outcomes
Barbara Baumstark, Georgia State University, Dept. of Biology
OCR for page 142
2:00
Evaluating student outcomes: E=MC2
Gloria Rogers, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
2:45
Break
3:00
Student outcomes: concurrent discipline-based working groups
Physics (Facilitators: Wilson, Heron)
Life sciences: (Facilitators: Chamany, Uno)
Geosciences: (Facilitators: Brunkhorst, Lopez)
Chemistry: (Facilitators: Serum, Tong)
Each working group has two tasks: (1) Prepare a consensus list of student outcomes for the discipline; and (2) identify conceptual and cognitive outcomes that might serve as cross-disciplinary learning goals.
4:00
Working groups report: discussion
Both discipline-based and cross-disciplinary learning goals will be identified.
4:45
Tools for Assessing Quality USTEM Instruction: Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP)
Anton Lawson, Arizona State University, Dept. of Biology
5:30
Day 1 plenary session adjourns
Wednesday, November 20
8:00 a.m.
Continental breakfast
8:30
Curricular and pedagogical improvement: effecting faculty change
Susan Millar, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WCER
OCR for page 143
9:15
Barriers to change: resistance is the normative mode
Elaine Seymour, University of Colorado, CARTSS
10:00
Break
10:15
On encouraging faculty to pursue instructional reform
Robert M. Zemsky, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education
11:00
Institutional/departmental governance and incentives to promote quality USTEM instruction: a panel discussion
Jack Wilson, UMassOnline
David F. Brakke, James Madison University
Herb Levitan, NSF, Education and Human Resources
12:30 p.m.
Lunch
1:30
General discussion: What did we learn? Next steps?
Richard A. McCray, Robert L. DeHaan
The discussion will focus primarily on the three overarching workshop questions: How to define and teach desired student outcomes? How to evaluate exemplary instruction? How to promote exemplary teaching at the institutional/departmental level?
3:00
Meeting adjourns
Representative terms from entire chapter:
student outcomes
