University

of Florida School of Teaching and Learning Spring 2012

EDG 6931, SMT 3100: Knowing and Learning in Mathematics and Science
3 credit hours Anu Sharma Tues. Pds 8-9 (3:00-4:55 PM) (C) 352-226-7124 Thurs. Pd 9 (4:05-4:55 PM) email: [email protected] NRM 0342 Office Hours: Weds. 3:00-5:00 PM (G521A) Description: This course focuses on what it means to know and learn science and mathematics as understood from multidisciplinary perspectives derived from a synthesis of the scientific basis for learning. This includes a fuller understanding of: (1) memory and the structure of knowledge; (2) problem solving and reasoning; (3) the early foundations of learning; (4) regulatory processes that govern learning, including metacognition; and (5) how symbolic thinking emerges from the culture and community of the learner. More than simply a general survey of theories of knowing and learning in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, the primary goal of Knowing and Learning is to provide students with the opportunity to construct models of knowing and learning that will guide their own classroom practice. That is, students will develop a powerful tool kit of relevant instructional approaches to teaching mathematics and science based on psychological perspectives relative to knowing and learning in each of these domains. Course Goals: Through successful completion of this course, participants will: 1. Describe theoretical frameworks relative to knowing and learning science and mathematics and implications for structuring learning environments (e.g., planning effective instruction) considering individual learning, social (classroom) learning, and learning within the context of larger social justice issues. 2. Articulate what it means to know and learn relative to cognitive structures and describe how what people know changes and develops. 3. Articulate various standards for knowing science and mathematics and the implications of these standards for assessment, especially standardized assessment. 4. Describe the links between knowing and developing in terms of learning theory, and the content and evolution of scientific ideas. 5. Examine ways of knowing particular to varying cultural groups. 6. Express informed opinions on current issues and tensions in education, especially as they relate to mathematics and science instruction. 7. Analyze ones own beliefs about how students learn and affective components of learning in each of these domains. 8. Examine the role of the mathematics and science teacher in supporting young adolescents self-regulation, metacognitive awareness, and cognitive development. 9. Analyze domain specific problem-solving activities and approaches in an applied fashion, such as through the clinical interview process.
K&L Spring 2012 syllabus Page 1 of 8

10. Explore the affordances offered by various technologies in supporting knowing and learning in mathematics and science. This course will support students beginning knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to the following Florida Educator Accomplished Practices: 5. Diversity; 7. Human Development and Learning; 9. Learning Environments; 10. Planning; 11. Role of Teacher. Required Texts: Some readings will be available on Purlieu/moodle and may be downloaded electronically and others will be available through a course packet from Target Copy (1412 West University Avenue) Topical Outline: This schedule is tentative and subject to change during the semester. Changes to reading assignments will be announced in class or via email. Students who are absent are responsible for obtaining information regarding changes to reading assignments. WEEK TOPIC/ISSUE Readings Introduction to Knowing and Learning; Examination of Week 1 Beliefs about Teaching and Learning in Math and T Jan 10 Science Week 1 Views of Mathematics and Science Bransford et al. (2000) Ch. 1 R Jan 12 Principles of Learning Week 2 Learning Theory in the Classroom: Historical Schunk (2012) Ch. 1 T Jan 17 Week 2 Learning Theory in the Classroom: Behaviorism Schunk (2012) Ch. 3 R Jan 19 Kilpatrick et al. (2001): Ch. 4 Week 3 Models of Competence in Mathematics and Science (MathEd) T Jan 24 Education Duschl et al. (2007): Ch. 2 (SciEd) Week 3 Ginsburg (1997) Alternative Assessment: The Clinical Interview R Jan 26 Long & Ben Hur (1991) Week 4 Conditioning Theory Schunk (2012) Chs. 4 & 5 T Jan 31 Cognitive Perspectives: Information Processing Week 4 Conditional Theory Schunk (2012) Chs. 4 & 5 R Feb 2 Cognitive Perspectives: Information Processing Bransford et al. (2000) Ch. 2 Expertise Experts vs. Novices in Mathematics and Williams (1998) Week 5 Science; Concept maps Baroody & Bartels (2000) T Feb 7 Clinical Interview task (I) due (MathEd) Novak (1996) (SciEd) Week 5 Competence, intelligence and standardized testing Popham (1999) R Feb 9 Alternative views of assessment Popham (2003)

K&L Spring 2012 syllabus Page 2 of 8

Week 6 T Feb 14 Week 6 R Feb 16 Week 7 T Feb 21 Week 7 R Feb 23 Week 8 T Feb 28 Week 8 R March 1 Week 9 Week 10 T March 13 Week 10 R March 15 Week 11 T March 20 Week 11 R March 22 Week 12 T March 27 Week 12 R March 29 Week 13 T April 3 Week 13 R April 5 Week 14 T April 10

Assessments: Alternative, Formative vs. Summative, Formal vs. Informal Practice clinical interview process Quiz I Learning and Transfer Relational vs. Instrumental Understanding Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge Connecting Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge: The Case of Functions Constructivist and Social-Constructivist Perspectives Situative Perspectives on Learning SPRING BREAK Constructivist and Social-Constructivist Perspectives Situative Perspectives on Learning Sociocultural Theory Vygotskian Perspective

Black & Wiliam (1998) Guskey (2003) Bransford et al. (2000): Ch. 3 Skemp (1978/2006) Hiebert & Lefevre (1986) Davis (2005) Donovan & Bansford (2005): Ch. 8 Resnick (1987) Anderson, Reder, & Simon (1996) Schunk (2012): Ch. 6 Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) Biggie & Shermis Ch.6 Hewson (1996) Duit & Treagust (2003) (SciEd) Vosniadou & Verschaffel (2004) (MathEd) Bransford et al. (2000): Ch. 6 Donovan & Bransford (2005): Ch. 9 Olson & Loucks-Horsley (2000): Chs. 1-3 Donovan & Bransford (2005): Ch. 11 Donovan & Bransford (2005): Ch. 12 Donovan & Bransford (2005): Ch. 5

Conceptual Change Models Effective Teaching in Mathematics and Science Scientific Inquiry and How People Learn Exam I Scientific Inquiry and How People Learn Models of Scientific Reasoning Developing understanding through model-based inquiry Effective Teaching in Mathematics Clinical Interview II due (in class)

K&L Spring 2012 syllabus Page 3 of 8

Week 14 R April 12 Week 15 T April 17 Week 15 R April 19 Week 16 T April 24

Effective Teaching in Mathematics Role of technology in supporting knowing and learning Self-Regulated Learning Motivational and Affective Aspects of Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science Wrapping up How Students Learn Final Exam due by Tuesday, May 1st, 2:00 PM in G521A

Donovan & Bransford (2005): Ch. 7 Schoenfeld (1988) Pape (2005) Randi & Corno (2000) Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick (2003) Bransford et al. (2000): Ch. 10 Donovan & Bransford (2005): Ch. 13

Course Requirements: Reading Reflections: Weekly reflection assignments will be based on class readings and should reflect your reactions to and thoughts about the material. Your Tuesday and Thursday reflections must be posted on Moodle by Sunday at midnight of each week. You must also respond to at least one of your classmates posts each week. Clinical Interview: Students will conduct a clinical interview to examine an individuals (secondary student or adult learner) understanding of a fundamental mathematics or science concept. Students will complete the clinical interview in several stages throughout the semester. First, students will develop a task to actively involve the person with a fundamental concept. This activity will be accompanied by and based upon a deep examination of the mathematics or science concept. Second, students will conduct a clinical interview with one individual. The interview will be activity-based and interactive. Third, students will revise the task based on what they learned during the first interview and conduct a follow-up interview with the same person. Fourth, students will analyze the data from the clinical interviews and write an in-depth report of the persons understandings of the concept. (See Clinical interview Description handout) One Quiz and One Exam: These tests will be completed in-class. Course content up to the date of the quiz will be the focus. Final Exam: The final exam will be completed at home, is cumulative, and will cover important course content including pedagogical strategies and human development and learning principles. Grade Distribution: Grade assignment: Class Participation 5 pts Reading Reflections 8 pts Clinical Interview I 12 pts Clinical Interview II 20 pts Quiz I 10 pts Exam I 25 pts

93-100 = A 90-92 = A- 87-89 = B+ 83-86 = B 80-82 = B- 77-79 = C+

Final Exam

20 pts

73-76 = C 70-72 = C- 67-69 = D+ 63-66 = D 60-62 = D- Less than 60 = F

Notes: 1. It is expected that you will NOT use cell phones (texting) during class. The use of these devices may have a negative impact on your grade for the course. It is assumed that each student will exhibit a positive and professional attitude, attend every class, be on time, have completed required reading assignments, and actively contribute in a positive manner in classroom discussions. Grading will be based on successful and timely completion of assignments. Final grades will be determined by the instructors best professional judgment, based on information available at the time the grades are due. Tardiness is strongly discouraged. Many classes will begin with a group activity or reading reflection. Your group will depend upon you to be present and prepared for class. Missed assignments must be completed. Reading reflections will be considered late if not completed on time. The schedule of topics and reading assignments may change over the course of the semester. Any changes will be announced in class and/or via email. Students are responsible for these changes whether or not they are present in class. All out-of-classroom assignments are to be typed, double-spaced, 12 pt. font with 1-inch margins and in Microsoft Word (.doc) format. These assignments should adhere to the page limitations noted on the assignment description handout. Please hand in all written assignments on the date they are due. One-half of a letter grade will be deducted for late assignments. Because rewritten assignments are considered late, the maximum grade will be A- on any revised assignments. Instructor feedback provided on assignments will indicate if revisions are necessary. The instructor must grant permission for an Incomplete as early as possible and prior to the end of the semester. A contract for completion of course assignments must be developed by the student and signed by the student and instructor. Alternately, a failing grade will be assigned. Passing the class requires completion of all course requirements. Students with Disabilities: Students requesting classroom accommodation must first register with the Dean of Students Office. The Dean of Students Office will provide documentation to the student who must then provide this documentation to the Instructor when requesting accommodation. For more information consult the university policy found at http://www.dso.ufl.edu/stg/Stud_with_Disabilities.htm/

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

K&L Spring 2012 syllabus Page 5 of 8

9.

Statement on Academic Honesty: Students are required to be honest in all of their university class work. In the fall of 1995, the UF student body enacted a new honor code and voluntarily committed itself to the highest standards of honesty and integrity. The Honor Code: We, the members of the University of Florida community, pledge to hold ourselves and our peers to the highest standards of honesty and integrity. On all work submitted for credit by students at the university, the following pledge is either required or implied: "On my honor, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid in doing this assignment." Because we, as educators and future educators, are held to a higher ethical standard as teachers, the School of Teaching & Learning takes infringements of academic honesty very seriously. For the first violation of academic dishonesty in a course, the student will receive a zero on that assignment and no opportunity for make up. If the student has an additional violation in the course, the student will fail the course and meet with the Director to establish a Performance Improvement Plan that will need to be completed before the student can enroll in additional coursework. The University of Florida also has a formal process for addressing issues associated with academic dishonesty that you are also welcome to use. You can learn more about this formal process at: http://www.dso.ufl.edu/judicial/academic.php

10. Statement on Plagiarism: Plagiarizing has become easier and more prevalent in todays educational systems. Recent events indicate this is a problem at all levels of the educational system in K-12 and in higher education. The University of Florida Academic Honesty policy includes plagiarism. In STL, we want to emphasize this policy to ensure students are aware of what plagiarism is and steps to take in avoiding plagiarism. Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary states that to plagiarize is: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own; use (another's production) without crediting the source; to commit literary theft; to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. Examples of plagiarism/academic dishonesty include: Using words, sentences, ideas, and/or organization from a source (book, webpage, etc.) without providing the proper citation Submitting the same paper for multiple classes Submitting an assignment obtained from commercial firms, websites, fraternity or sorority files, or any other group or individual.

Often education students believe they can use materials that are not their own by claiming their actions are protected by the Fair Use section of the Copyright Laws. This is often not the case. All materials put in a tangible form after January 1, 1978 are copyrighted. A work does not need the copyright symbol to be copyrighted. In the 1976 Copyright Act, educators have been given fair use guidelines. In order to be able to claim fair use, you must meet all four of the following factors: 1. Purpose of the use is for nonprofit educational reasons 2. The nature of the work and spontaneity 3. Amount and substance of the work
K&L Spring 2012 syllabus Page 6 of 8

4. Financial impact on the market Additional information about Copyright can be found at the Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/), Stanford University Fair Use website (http://fairuse.stanford.edu), and the University of Texas at Austin (http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm). The University of Florida Library system has a website for students about plagiarism (http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/msl/subjects/Physics/StudentPlagiarism.html). 11. Please feel free to speak to me regarding any questions or concerns. You may arrange an appointment via email, speak to me before or after the class, or email your questions directly. Required Readings: Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, 5-11. Baroody, A. J., & Bartels, B. H. (2000). Using concept maps to link mathematical ideas. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5, 604-609. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144, 146-148. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (Expanded Edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Davis, J. D. (2005). Connecting procedural and conceptual knowledge of functions. Mathematics Teacher, 99 (1), 36-39. Donovan, M. S. & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ginsburg, H. (1997). Entering the childs mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge. Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11. Hewson, P. W. (1996). Teaching for conceptual change. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 131-140). New York: Teachers College Press.
K&L Spring 2012 syllabus Page 7 of 8

Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Long, M. J., & Ben-Hur, M. (1991, Feb.). Informing learning through clinical interview. Arithmetic Teacher, XX, 44-46. Novak, J. D. (1996). Concept mapping: A tool for improving science teaching and learning. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit and B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (pp. 32-43). New York: Teacher College Press. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Pape, S. J. (2005). Intervention that Supports Future Learning: Developing Self-Regulated Learners. In S. Wagner (Ed.), PRIME: Prompt intervention in mathematics education (pp. 77-98). Columbus, OH: Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading and Ohio Department of Education. Popham, W. J. (1999). Why standardized test dont measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56, 8-15. Popham, W. J. (2003). The seductive allure of data. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 48-51. Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651-685). San Diego: CA: Academic Press. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of well- taught mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145-166. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (6th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Skemp, R. R. (2006). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 12 (2), 88-95. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and sixth graders reported affect and achievement behaviors in two high-mastery/high-performance mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 357-382. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14, 445-451. Williams, C. G. (1998). Using concept maps to assess conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 414-421.
K&L Spring 2012 syllabus Page 8 of 8