Faculty responses to:
For what potential thesis topics (broad areas) would you be EXCITED about serving as a faculty advisor?
In the proposed center, we are aiming to address problems of learning and teaching that have direct effect on helping our partners in the Portland Public Schools, so a sampling of possible issues may be: "What are the barriers to changing teaching methodologies, and how can they be dealt with effectively?", "Why is it so hard to significantly increase minority participation in math and science (and what can be done about it)?", "What is the evidence that the new state standards (CIM/CAM/PASS) effectively measure and/or increase student learning?"
The proposed Center will not only support graduate work (MST, PhD in Math Ed, and PhD in Science Ed at collaborating campuses), but also postdocs and interns, so the level of projects you visualize can span quite a range.
Bill Becker (CSE)
I would like to see the CLT partnership create a PSU institional infrastructure and commitment to post-masters research in science education. Our CSE contribution to this effort would be in the research areas that coincide with the scholarship of our faculty. Pleaser refer to Linda George, Marion Dresner, Julie Smith, Michael Flower, and Joe Maser to get their input. Laurie has a CSE research prospectus from last year and you might find it useful. Speaking for me...
I have strong research interests in the following areas:
Developing the capacity for teaching science as an inquiry process. How can we create an education system in which science inquiry is a normal part of every science program? I would like to build a regional support partnership among major stakeholders (scientists, local industry, professors, teachers, parents, etc.) that would increase and enhance the opportunities for students to work on SMET projects. I know that we already have several venues for this kind of learning. We need to institutionalize it the same way as we do the athletics programs. What I am suggesting is that we need K-12 teachers who have experience in teaching SMET from a perspective for a question asker, i.e., science in the making. I would be interested in helping to develop a teacher preparation program that produces scientists who are teachers.
Assessing the higher level cognitive skills in science. I think that we need to develop better tools to assess the higher level thinking skills in science. If you think of Bloom's taxonomy, we need to provide tools for assessing things like application, synthesis, etc. I think that science projects provide students with a vehicle for developing these skills but we need to be able to document this if we are going to convince people that it is worth the time and money to do it - also at what expense to the standard curriculum.
I think that Centers need to in fact function as "Centers." What I mean by this is that they should be a "convening place" and "think tank" for a diverse population of clients. I would hope that a Center for Learning and Teaching would be responsive to the needs of a constituency and the work of the Center would be focused on strategic intervention. Assessment of the Center's programs should be directly connected to measurable outcomes that in turn link to a functional mission statement. I don't think that a CL&T should be too involved in curriculum development. It seems to me that it would be better to focus on teaching and learning strategies.
Julie Smith (CSE)
Does the use of technology in the classroom improve student learning?
Is the use of technology the most appropriate means for helping students understand spatial data?
What type of capacity building is needed for middle school students to gain the skill necessary to help community partners collect and analyze spatial data?
Mike Shaughnessy (Math)
The principal areas that "inspire" those of us working with Math Ed doctoral students are student learning in mathematics (both individuals and groups of students) and the growth of teacher's pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics. Thus, more broadly defined, student learning, and teacher knowledge.
Linda George (CSE)
I am very interested in examining the efficacy of "science as practiced" pedagogy in the sciences, across science preparation levels and trajectories, and gender, class and ethnic/racial differences. I think the definition of this pedagogy is itself of interest and I would be keenly interested in working with other institutions in examining how the "real world" enters the classroom in science instruction. It seems to me that we (at PSU) have a growing expertise in interfacing education with community issues and have made some forays into assessing this (?). I think there is some evidence that science instruction using "science as practiced" coupled with community-based issues could make science more accessible to some underrepresented groups and non-traditional learners. (Even NSF cites something like this in their reports.) I believe there is fertile ground for research here and the payoff in terms of diversifying the ranks of scientists and the science-interested could be significant.
Teresa Bulman (Geography)
Anything related to geographic education, topics in fieldwork (instruction and implementation), observation techniques, water resources curriculum, climate change curriculum, and theses addressing the intersection of science and policy.
Bulman and Rice, Fieldwork in the K-12 Curriculum: Addressing
the Rhetoric-Reality Gap.
(in press at the National Council for Geographic Education)
Marion Dresner (CSE)
I am mostly interested in knowing more about why and how "science as it is practiced by scientists" (called authentic science for ease of reference) is getting implemented in the Pacific Northwest. How can we at universities best support pre-college teachers in learning how to teach this way? And how can they, in turn, help us to modify our own teaching? I agree with Linda (George) that assessment per se is not what I am after, but only if it pertains to how we examine our science teaching and student learning practices. For example, I am interested in teachers who are trying to implement a new practice, such as using authentic science projects with their students. What are the particulars about which teachers will try something new at first? What are the parameters of what is legitimately a real piece of science practice, and what falls short of this? Why is doing field projects, such as all of the forest ecology projects going on in the PNW that I am aware of, so powerful a metaphor and so popular with students? What are they getting out of it that is of an enduring nature? (suggestive of longitudinal studies)
Pah Chen (Mechanical Engineering)
I believe it is very important to include the "design" component in the group of ideas. It is an essential part of learning and teaching. The thrust of our engineering program is focused on "design".
This term I'm teaching "Fluid Mechanics" class. There
is a lab component with it. I tried 2 new ideas for the lab.
1. Search for MR fluids and potential applications
2. Design a windmill for testing.
Since it is a new territory, I was concerned how they will turn
out. To my surprise, they went so well, over and beyond my expectation.
The students were very motivated as compared to previous rigidly
controlled lab activities. They like to explore the new "things"
as said. They like to work together and making presentations.
They like to design their own windmills.
What I learned? Students are encouragible if properly guided. Students are willing to accept challenge. Students are still interested in hands on learning. I believe we should do more of that to enhance learning.
As for minority student participation, I suggest that PSU initiates summer institutes to attract and encourage this group of students to our campus. Being in a metropolitan area, we have the opportunity and responsibility to provide service to them.
Dalton Miller-Jones (Psychology)
The topics you outline are all exciting and relevant to my work.
First, "What are the barriers to changing teaching methodologies, and how can they be dealt with effectively?"
I have spent much of the last 3 years working with teachers in Tubman middle school (Science, math, & English/Social Studies. It is clear that there needs to be significantly more focused inservice on (1) How do student's learn? = we know a great deal here about the need for active participation by students and for the work they do in science and math to be connected to issues and interests they currently have. (2) What are the developmental constraints and knowledge that teachers need to understand in order to produce the most effective learners; (3) The barriers also include social organizational and professional development issues like: Teachers feel powerless to effect change .. they are constantly told what they need to and have to do instead of feeling they are part of solution to producing greater student achievement and that they are asked & heard.. "Help" needs to be focuses around the questions that these teachers have. They need to be encouraged to think outside the constraints of time schedules and classroom structure... if they were going to design the ideal learning environment for these students (i.e., inner-city culturally diverse female and male students) what would that be? ( I just heard the Principal of Reynolds High on NPR. He was in Washington DC to receive an award for the school as one of the nations top high schools- He described a natural resources course of study they put together that spends most of the time outdoors in research and forest/river/wetlands management work...). One of the psychology graduate students I work with is designing and doing a study of what students are learning when they learn Stella - a systems thinking computer-based problem solving paradigm. This is taking place at Tubman Middle School in Science and Math classes and is supported by the Waters Foundation, Mary Scheetz, Director, which has its Portland office located at Tubman middle school. I can tell you more about this.
"Why is it so hard to significantly increase minority participation in math and science (and what can be done about it)?"
I have an ongoing and active interest in this question (which I code as "opportunities to learn") and to issues around appropriate assessment practices. I don't think it is very difficult to get "Minority" participation in math and science once we get away from teaching it as the rote learning of facts and begin to introduce the excitement of inquiry and finding out how things work. I spent my first years after my master's degree in Physiological Psychology as a science curriculum developer at Elementary Science Study of the Educational Services Inc. which is now Education Development Center in Boston. I had a whole classroom devoted to hands-on science materials in New York City and in Washington DC and gave workshops for teachers on-site. The students and the teachers couldn't get enough of it! We need to tie our efforts here to the state and PASS Standards. I can cite research (Wade Boykin's CRESPAR Model of Talent Development, Jeff Howard's Efficacy Institute), including my own work...(e.g., Informal Reasoning in Inner-City Children) that documents how science and math (e.g., Uri Treisman) can be connected to culturally relevant dimensions for African American students.
"What is the evidence that the new state standards (CIM/CAM/PASS) effectively measure and/or increase student learning?"
As you know the PASS assessments stress teacher designed assessment tasks and teacher verification of proficiency assessment. While the ODE's assessments include some student work samples, the primary focus has been on multiple choice (or selected response) standardized tests. The reasons for this according to Wayne Neuberger (not sure this is the correct spelling) is that the state has to be able to defend the scores on these high stake tests in court and that teacher judgments are simply not very reliable. There is a significant research project to be done here. First, how valid are performances on multiple choice tests? Do they predict performance in other contexts like working with faculty and graduate students in science lab-based research projects or how well students design and carrying out experiments in science classrooms, etc. I'm beginning to be concerned that there might be some other factors influencing the multiple choice performance of African American students that are related to endogenous language patterns. For example, some studies have argued that African American children do not get asked the kind of rhetorical "Known-Answer" questions that so much typifies language practices among middle class European American families and which predominate school and classroom discourse. Could the lack of familiarity with these kinds of structures in language affect performance on the tests. I see similar patterns among students of African, Asian, and Latino backgrounds here at PSU as well. I have lots of other specific possibilities to investigate around the question of "test taking" Vs other more "authentic" forms of assessment (see my paper on "Culture and Testing" in the American Psychologist - I'll send you a copy).
John Rueter (Biology)
appropriate role and effectiveness of technology, web-based learning, information structures, simulations
student problem-solving approaches
What works and why?
Dean Atkinson (Chemistry)
I would suggest that an aspect of our Science, Math, Engineering and Technology center proposal be the development and maintenance of a library of supported Science and Pre-Engineering teaching/content modules. These modules would be inquiry-based and accessible (but not necessarily maintained) on the internet. I will flesh out the various aspects of this proposal below, but first I would like to try and motivate it by relaying my (admittedly meager - I'm only a fourth year assistant professor in Chemistry) impressions about the difficulties faced by our local K-12 science teachers.
My perception is that the teachers become disenchanted by the fact that they know old fashioned teaching styles of textbook reading and lecture format are ineffective, but there is a tremendous activation barrier to overcome to offer high quality inquiry based learning materials. The barrier comes largely from the difficulty and intellectual expense of preparing these materials, but also from a lack of support for materials that are out there. That is to say, even well prepared and presented materials are ineffective if the teachers are not trained in their use and have no recourse when they run into problems. When you realize that many of our science teachers are teaching three to four preps per day, comprising up to six classes, often with more than twenty to thirty students per class; and are afforded about 40 minutes of preparation time per day, it becomes obvious that they don't have the time to assess these materials, let alone develop them. A particularly successful maifestation of this content module strategy, of which I am aware, is Leonard (Chuck) Smith's biotechnology modules, which are used very successfully at many of the area high schools.
The cornerstone of this proposed aspect, and the particular strength that Portland State University brings to the table, is the development of these inquiry-based content modules. Faculty in the science and math departments and the Center for Science Education have been working on developing these types of exercises as part of their regular teaching for the past (5) years. Thus, these pre-developed projects could easily be incorporated into a uniform structure, giving us a real jump-start on the development of a basic teaching/content module set. One important conclusion that many of us who have attempted these types of project based learning exercise have come to is that they are rarely very successful on the first try. There is a definite development process, where the relationship between the input parameters and the end results are tested and refined, finally producing a high quality product. It is the pre-existence of many of these tested learning modules that really enhances PSU's ability to pull this thing off.
A very important implementation feature of this database of content modules would be a comfortable, user friendly, and most importantly, uniform interface for the teachers. Rather than struggling with the individual quirks that many of us are prone to build into these types of exercises, pains would be taken to make the layout of the input information, statement of goals, and suggestions for assessment uniform across all of the modules. Thus a teacher would at least approach a new module comfortable with the format, if not the content, which should make the prospect of tackling a new one much less daunting. Although the teacher would have ready access to the database via the internet, the student exercise may actually not incorporate much web-based activity. The modules would be designed to be able to be implemented in a completely technology-free mode, if that is desirable for some reason. Alternatively, the instructor could choose to allow the students limited access to the database, e.g., for background information.
The single most important facet of the this strategy would be the fact that the content modules would be supported by the SMET center at PSU. Teachers who come through PSU's education streams would be indoctrinated early and would be involved in the development and testing of modules while here. They would be the best suited for Phase I deployment. Teachers who are already active in the local districts could be brought up to speed by the implementation of summer workshops similar to, but less rigorous than the Center for Science Education's Horizons project. Workshops within the school year, perhaps even out in the schools, could be conducted by graduate students in the Science and Science Ed departments, to introduce teachers to the content module database. The other feature of support is continuing support during implementation. I propose that be handled by an email based distribution list which will include all Science, Math and Engineering faculty and Graduate students. With this big of an information base, I would predict that we could guarantee one hour turnaround on questions directed to the list. This will foster desirable communication and interaction between our faculty and graduate students and the local K-12 teachers.
I think this plan is exciting and technologically feasible. I also think that it addresses many of the guidelines spelled out in the RFP and other information/guidelines distributed by the NSF.