Search

The educational discourse in recent years in Australia, and in particular NSW has been on advancing the status of the teaching profession through the development of a framework of standards, and by supporting the nature of teachers' work in addition to improving student-learning outcomes. The close link between student learning outcomes and quality mathematics teaching has resulted in the call for an increase in teacher accountability and quality. This paper is an exploration of the relevant literature that focused on the professionalisation of the teaching profession in Australia and its potential impact on teaching in Australia. [For the complete proceedings, "Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (33rd, Freemantle, Western Australia, Australia, July 3-7, 2010)," see ED520764.]

Researchers at AAAS and BSCS have developed a six-week unit that aims to help middle school students learn important chemistry ideas that can be used to explain growth and repair in animals and plants. By integrating core physical and life science ideas and engaging students in the science practices of modeling and constructing explanations, the unit is designed to address major recommendations in national standards documents, including the National Research Council's "A Framework for K-12 Science Education" (2012). In this paper, the authors focus on the iterative design process used to select and refine a set of learning goals for the unit that target the three dimensions of science learning identified in the "Framework"--science core ideas, science practices, and crosscutting concepts. The paper also describes the data on alignment, classroom implementation, and student and teacher learning that informed the revision of the learning goals through three iterations of the unit. Numerous examples are provided to illustrate the kinds of design issues that arose and how they were resolved to address the challenges inherent in taking a standards-based approach to curriculum design. (Contains 5 tables and 3 figures.)

For the thirty-fifth year, the Research and Theory Division of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) is sponsoring the publication of these Proceedings. Papers published in this volume were presented at the national AECT Convention in Louisville, Kentucky. The Proceedings of AECT's Convention are published in two volumes. Volume 1 contains papers dealing primarily with research and development topics. Papers dealing with the practice of instructional technology including instruction and training issues are contained in Volume 2. (Individual papers contain references.) [For Volume 1, see ED546875.]

Papers in this collection were prepared for the annual meeting of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. This volume contains papers related to promoting student learning and effective teaching. Chapter 1, "Developing and Sustaining a Culture of Assessment," contains: (1) "Developing the Scholarship of Assessment" (Thomas Anthony Angelo); (2) "The Convergence of Assessment and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning" (David Sill, Douglas Eder, Lesa Stern, Susan Thomas, and John DenHouter); (3) "Creating an Assessment Culture" (Colene J. Lind and Mark McDonald); (4) "Employee Development to Campus Development" (J. Janelle Masters and Jane M. Shreck); (5) "Engaged Learner and Assessment" (Jian R. Sun and Greg Miller); (6) "From Crisis to Culture" (Rebecca Wojcik, Eric Martin, and Joyce Kennedy); (7) "Cultivating a Culture of Assessment of Student Learning at Rochester Community and Technical College" (Tammy J. Lee and Anne M. Niccolai); (8) "Assessment of Student Learning" (Patricia Dwyer); (9) "Taking Assessment Off the Shelf" (Sandra S. Bowles and Alan R. Belcher); and (10) "Integrating Assessment into College Life" (Barbara Edwards, Vincent Holtmann, Kelley Raftery, and Brad Sparks). Chapter 2, "Assessment Processes," contains: (11) "Assessing an Institution's Outcomes Assessment Efforts" (Jessica Jonson, Julie Wallin, and Karla Sanders); (12) "Assessing Student Learning: Elegance in Simplicity" (Gloria M. Rogers); (13) "Ensuring the Assessment Investment Pays Off" (Andrea Greene, Gail Mee, and Gayla Preisser); (14) "Evaluating Assessment" (Janice Collins and Josh Bullock); (15) "Gauging the Level of Faculty Participation in Student Academic Assessment" (Steve Boettcher, Bryan Tippett, and Clay Goodman); (16) "Are We There Yet? One Institution's Assessment Adventure" (Anneliese Homan and Beverly Wilkerson); (17) "The Road Not Taken" (Karen Jones, Michael L. Banks, and Jacqueline Gray); (18) "'Now Is the Summer of Our Discontent'" (Lisa Brandom); (19) "A Balancing Act" (Donald Carpenter and Badih Jawad); and (20) "Broadening the Discussion" (Jacqueline Johnson and Robert Ferguson). Chapter 3, "Assessment Tools and Measures," contains: (21) "Living beyond Our Means" (John C. Simonson and George E. Smith); (22) "A Handbook of Assessment for the Layperson" (Kenneth R. Ryalls); (23) "Activating Assessment of Student Learning" (Judith Neill and Jeanne Williams); (24) "Educating Seniors, Assessing Ourselves" (Beth Rigel Daugherty, Dan Thompson, and Susan Thompson); (25) "Active Learning" (Cy Leise); and (26) "English 101 Writing Assessment That Keeps Both the 'Quants' and the 'Quals' Happy" (Lynn Sykes and Helen Szymanski). Chapter 4, "General Education: Assessing Outcomes, Reforming Programs," contains: (27) "Creating and Implementing a More Focused and Effective General Education Program" (John C. Catau, William H. Cheek, and James P. Baker); (28) "It Can Happen" (Eric Gardner, Diane Boehm, Clifford Dorne, and Mary Hedberg); (29) "Assessing the Achievement of General Education Objectives" (Irene Kovala, Trudy Bers, Gary Mines, and Suzanne Stock); (30) "Effective General Education Assessment at Large Public Institutions" (Julie Wallin and Brenda Masters); (31) "Assessing the Ineffable Outcomes of General Education through Electronic Student Portfolios" (Sharon J. Hamilton); (32) "Assessing Critical Thinking in the General Education Program" (Becky J. Chadwick and Kim D. Schopmeyer); and (33) "Assessing Critical Thinking across the Curriculum" (Nannette Bagstad, Paul Batesel, Ronald Semmens, and Mark Skean). Chapter 5, "Assessing and Supporting Effective Teaching," contains: (34) "Integrating Faculty Development and Outcomes Assessment" (John Neibling, Alan Jacobs, and John Nagy); (35) "Effective Performance-Based Evaluation of College Faculty" (Earl Nicodemus); (36) "Data-Driven Decision Making" (Nancy Blackford and Kate Wiles); (37) "Capitalizing on Internal Talent" (Alex Birkholz and Renelle Gill); and (38) "Developing the Capacity for Synthesis" (Carol Canavan). Many papers contain references. (SLD)

Although institutional characteristics are assumed to influence student learning and intellectual development, this link has not been empirically confirmed. This study examined whether institutional mission, represented by Carnegie classification, is related to student learning and development. Participants were a stratified random sample of 1,500 undergraduates from across the United States. Strata were the six dominant Carnegie classifications for four-year colleges and universities. After controlling for student background characteristics, no meaningful differences were found in students perceptions of the college environment, levels of academic and social involvement, integration of information, or educational outcomes by Carnegie classification. (Contains 2 figures, 2 tables, and 50 references.) (Author/SLD)

This paper outlines a method for professional assessment of music therapy students' learning and recall. The purpose of the assessment is to examine the Model of Domain Learning (P. Alexander, 1997) within an Australian context and to provide a professional assessment for application within music therapy education. Despite the music therapy specific content, the assessment is applicable to students of other disciplines. It is also applicable to students for the purpose of investigating learning in terms of subject domain, recall, and interests. The assessment examines learners' individual recall abilities against their strategy use and interests. Within the Model of Domain Learning, three longer-term experience-based states are proposed: acclimation, competence, and expertise. Each of these stages is further divided into short-term stages. The assessment contains a domain knowledge test based on the music therapy postgraduate class, an individual interest measure, and a recall test. The assessment used in the study is attached. (Contains 12 references.) (SLD)

These narrative accounts follow a group of young adults searching for meaning during the ten years after their college graduation, and offer insights into how higher education might create conditions for this search to occur during college. This longitudinal study is based on interviews with 39 participants at various points during their undergraduate, graduate, and/or early working years for a 13-year period beginning in 1986 when they entered college. All participants were traditional-age students attending state institutions with a liberal arts focus. The primary focus of the college phase of the study was on epistemology, or students' assumptions about the limits, certainty, and criteria for knowing. Phase 2 of the research explored development after college. Sections of the paper examine the implications for educational practice of holistic education and the developmental dimensions of the search for meaning. Interview data inform discussions of complexities encountered in the search for meaning; realization of the need to search for meaning; construction of internal authority and meaning; and solidifying internal meaning-making. Interview responses were analyzed using grounded theory methodology. A final section discusses the creation of educational contexts for internal meaning-making. (Contains 21 references.) (CH)

This comparative case study investigated instructional methods that effectively enhance the development of students' critical thinking. Four institutions were selected for study; two at which students reported experiencing high degrees of growth in the ability to think critically, and two at which students reported experiencing low degrees of growth. Analysis of the data, which came primarily from 55 interviews and 28 classroom observations, suggests that the development of critical thinking is linked to an emphasis on writing and rewriting. At the two schools scoring high on an institutional growth in critical thinking (IGCT) measure, there was a strong focus on writing, a focus absent from the two schools that scored low on IGCT. At one school (high IGCT, low selectivity) a curricular policy stipulates that writing be an integral part of all course programs (which are taught by a multi-disciplinary team of faculty members). Another classroom factor that appears related to the development of critical thinking is an emphasis on class discussion, which again exists at the two high IGCT institutions. Appendices include a table showing selection criterion for case study sites, a summary of classroom observation data, and descriptions of categories for the observation data. (Contains 38 references.) (RH)

This study evaluated two competing explanations of the learning-satisfaction relationship in the college experience. The first model represents a true relationship between reported learning and satisfaction, while the second model treats this relationship as an artifact of a halo effect. The study took place at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) and involved data collected in 1988 using a campus-wide assessment program where all seniors were administered a survey designed to elicit information about perceptions of their college experiences, satisfaction with college, and learning and development during college. In 1990, the same subjects were mailed an alumni survey containing many of the items from the senior survey, with 989 responses. The data were evaluated according to goodness-of-fit of the models, invariance of the measurement models across senior and alumni data, and multitrait-multimethod tests of the relationships between latent variables representing the same constructs for the senior and alumni data. Analyses revealed that treating the learning-satisfaction relationship as an artifact of a halo effect provided the best representation of the data. Although not conclusive, results suggested that educational researchers and assessment practitioners should be careful in interpreting self-reports of learning and development, particularly as they relate to satisfaction with college. Included are 47 references. (JB)

This study sought to measure what factors contribute to the learning and personal development of traditional and new majority students at six metropolitan institutions: University of Alabama, Birmingham; University of Louisville (Kentucky); Wichita State University (Kansas); University of Lowell (Massachusetts); Cleveland State University (Ohio); and University of Toledo (Ohio). The study used the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) to solicit information on student effort (involvement), student perception of their campus environment, and how much students believe they have gained in certain areas. Demographic information was also obtained on year-in-school, age, and enrollment status. The total number of subjects was 3,084. Results of factor analysis suggested the following conclusions: (1) learning gains of traditional-age full-time students and new majority students are affected by institutional environmental factors and student involvement factors; (2) learning gains are influenced by age and enrollment status; (3) age and enrollment status interact with each other and with involvement and environmental factors to affect gains in learning and personal development. Three appendixes contain CSEQ scales. Includes 21 references and 1 table. (JB)

Alternative approaches to learning are the subject of these approximately 50 papers on non-traditional and interdisciplinary programs in higher education. The first set of papers addresses adult learning, including possible teaching and learning strategies, and ways to develop faculty and student performance through college fairs for adults, adult developmental psychology, educational planning, competition versus collaboration, and discourse analysis. The next group of papers describe alternative delivery systems such as various computer based methods, videotaped programs, and televised instruction. Assessment of prior learning and program assessment is considered in six papers which look at assessment methods, 2-year and 4-year college cooperation, and work autobiographies. Consortial, cooperative and collaborative programs are the subject of several papers which describe corporate-university partnerships, an interdisciplinary approach for soldiers and sailors, how to link the needs of industry and business with the educational approach, and developing effective communication for non-native employees. Four papers address philosophical issues in non-traditional and interdisciplinary education. The next five papers treat the recruitment and retention of special students and faculty through marketing, service management, commitment and other approaches. The following section includes eleven papers each of which describes special non-traditional or interdisciplinary courses. In the last group twelve papers describe special programs. (JB)

Abstracts of most of the papers presented at the 55th annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), held at the Abbey, Lake Geneva, WI, April 5-8, 1982 have been collected in this publication. Papers relate to such topics as teacher education: preservice and inservice, cognitive development, research techniques, metaanalysis, science learning and instruction, science education research in foreign countries, reasoning and problem solving, and science curriculum. (PEB)

Investigated was the question of whether understanding is explained by means of concepts referring to tasks, being domain-specific for certain subject matter areas, or is it explained by concepts which extend across tasks and are not domain-specific? Also explored were: (1) which explanatory concepts are present, that is, which steps and conditions of understanding are thematized in the explanations? and (2) do explanatory concepts differentiate according to success and failure in understanding or by sex? A two-dimensional table was constructed for coding explanations of 20 male mathematics teachers in grades 5 and 6 of schools in West Germany. Results indicated a marked predominance of explanations referring to domain-specific tasks as compared to explanations extending across tasks. The order of frequency of steps and conditions of understanding are noted, and sex differences in a few categories were found. The discussion focuses on: (1) reference to the task and type of explanation; and (2) obtaining explanations referring to task: problems and opportunities. (MNS)