ࡱ > q` bjbjqPqP 4 : : } & ( Z! Z! Z! 8 ! t " wd " " " # # # E$ $ D ?% $ c c c c c c c $ f h h c ] ) A$ E$ ) ) c 2 2 # # ; 1d w, w, w, ) p 2 8 # # c w, ) c w, w, D[ j _ # " v0 Z! g* p \ : Ba l Gd 0 wd \ 5i * 0 5i X _ _ 8 5i _ | c% & w, M' ' c% c% c% c c , p c% c% c% wd ) ) ) ) Z! Z! 2 2 2 2 2 2 Master Graduate Teaching Fellows:
An Evaluation of One Research Universitys Pilot Program to
Improve STEM Teaching and Learning
Working Paper
David May, Jennifer Frank, & Susan Bilek
ϡȱ
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
San Diego, California
April 15, 2009
Introduction
This paper presents an evaluation of a Master Graduate Teaching Fellows (MGTF) program at a public flagship research university. The MGTF program was part of a broader P-20 science education initiative funded through the National Science Foundations (NSF) Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program. The MGTF program sought to enhance the capacity for teaching excellence in graduate students in the sciences through the provision of intensive professional development and peer mentoring. MGTFs were assigned to lower-level science courses which traditionally enroll large numbers of first-year undergraduate students and employ large numbers of graduate teaching assistants (TAs). In addition to their own professional development and teaching responsibilities, MGTFs were responsible for mentoring new TAs, providing direct support to struggling TAs, administering mid-term and end-of-term TA evaluations, running weekly TA meetings, revising lab manuals and other instructional materials for their courses, and delivering professional development workshops for TAs. Fellows received 12-months of funding at current departmental stipend levels, including tuition and fees.
This paper focuses on the MGTF program during its pilot year of implementation, and its effects on participants, the courses they taught, and the fellow graduate students they mentored. The goals of the pilot were the following: to develop capacity for excellence in teaching for future STEM faculty; to provide peer support and instruction to novice STEM TAs to build increased capacity for future STEM teaching; to pilot and evaluate a TA peer mentoring system for lower-level STEM laboratory courses; and to develop and pilot a set of general professional development workshops for STEM TAs.
Program Rationale
The ability to compete globally requires that our nation recruit STEM (science, teaching, engineering, and mathematics) professionals, and while the need to produce them in ever greater numbers cannot be over-emphasized, our educational system has long failed to do so. This need has a cascading effect. The training of professionals qualified to do STEM research begins early in life, so well-qualified elementary and secondary STEM teachers are in high demand. Both the training of scientists themselves and the training of elementary and secondary science teachers culminates with their postsecondary education, creating a demand for faculty in postsecondary institutions with both expertise in the art of teaching and commitment to the recruitment of students to STEM disciplines. The production of faculty members who possess these teaching skills (along with the ability to do quality research and the willingness to offer service to the institution and community) poses both the mandate and the challenge to institutions of higher education to provide for the professional development of STEM graduate students whose career plans include a faculty position. Of course, graduate students ought not to be valued merely as future faculty. Even as TAs they impact the retention of undergraduates in the study of STEM disciplines as well as the recruitment of undergraduates into STEM disciplines. Research shows that undergraduates are influenced by graduate TAs with respect to the climate of the laboratory experience, information about career possibilities and, more directly, by the grades TAs assign.
In Preparing Future Faculty in the Sciences and Mathematics: A Guide for Change, Pruitt-Logan, Gaff, and Jentoft (2002) noted the well-known mismatch that exists across disciplines between graduate student expectations, training practices employed by academic departments, and actual career opportunities. While graduate students are predominantly trained for careers in research universities, such faculty positions are in short supply. Students often do not have a clear idea of other career paths that exist, nor are they well trained for the faculty positions they seek, insofar as their training in good teaching practices is minimal or lacking altogether. The authors point out that this institution-wide problem is particularly relevant in STEM disciplines, where many of the undergraduate students with whom TAs interact lack adequate background, fear their own inadequacies, and seek to avoid these subjects altogether.
Pruitt-Logan., et al, reported that research in the professional development of graduate students indicates that these students benefit from multiple mentoring relationships with faculty, both in their own institution and in others where emphases and practices differ. Future faculty also require training in pedagogy, particularly in the areas of experiential learning, the use of educational technology, and techniques to address the diverse needs of individual learners. To add to the complexity of the dynamics of such professional development, experiences cannot demand more of the student than his or her schedule can accommodate, taking into account the need to complete coursework and engage in research that is often emphasized by academic advisors at the expense of attention to teaching. Likewise, Henry et al. (2007) claimed that programs designed to train future faculty in teaching suffer from a particular drawbackthe difficulty of assessing the impact of mentoring on the actual classroom performance of TAs. In fact, this has been seen as a problem general to all teacher reform and improvement programs, as there are no evaluation instruments available ready-made that address all the possible techniques and practices focused on in the training sessions. Yet development of a valid and effective assessment instrument that is tailor-made can be quite time consuming and impractical. Because of these considerations, such programs often rely on self-reports, with all of the deficiencies inherent in that method of assessment.
Background and Context
NSFs MSP programs are research and development efforts that aim to improve STEM education through partnerships between K-12 schools and higher-education institutions, particularly through the involvement of STEM faculty. The broader partnership that housed the MGTF program was comprised of several very different institutions, including one of the largest school districts in the country, a flagship research university, a research-extensive university, a comprehensive university, a two-year community college, and a non-degree granting research institute, with overall management led by a state university system office.
Because of the diversity of institutions in the partnership, multiple programs were designed to meet the projects central goal of improving science education in high-school and college classrooms. These included teacher- and faculty-designed professional development and associated curriculum guides for 350 high-school science teachers, and learning communities of science faculty focused on reforming undergraduate courses. Despite multiple invitations to faculty members from a number of science departments at the flagship research university, none of them agreed to participate for the first three years of the project. The difficulties encountered by project leadership to engage faculty at this institution led them to shift focus to another key population in the science education pipeline: graduate students. Undergraduate courses at this institution, as at most research institutions, are taught largely by graduate teaching assistants, most of whom have little formal training or support before stepping into their teaching roles.
Description of the Pilot Program
In order to meet the specific challenges of this research-intensive university, a new program, MGTF, was designed with the purpose of enhancing the capacity for teaching excellence among graduate students in the sciences through intensive professional development and peer mentoring. The MGTF program was directed by the director of the campuss Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), a campus support center for faculty and teaching assistants. The program was implemented in three entry-level science courses, two in biology and one in chemistry. These courses routinely enroll large numbers of first-year undergraduates and utilize the services of approximately 30 graduate TAs. Although the course lectures are given by full-time faculty or lecturers, the management of each course and the implementation of laboratory sections are handled by a dedicated course coordinator, who is a member of the departmental staff. These course coordinators are also in charge of orienting TAs to their assignments.
The centerpiece of the program was the appointment of six MGTFs, two for each of the three entry-level courses. These fellows, all doctoral students in chemistry or biology, were experienced TAs in these courses. They received standard stipends, tuition remission, and benefits for their participation, funded by the MSP grant. Their participation in the program consisted of special training and experiences in teaching, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and mentoring of other teachers (namely, other TAs assigned to their course). In particular, the MGTFs participated in:
UNIV 798a, Introduction to University Teaching: a special course in teaching and learning at the college level, taught by the CTE director
Bi-weekly meetings with the CTE director
Structured, multi-faceted experiences in supporting other TAs, including:
Mentoring new TAs
Providing direct support to struggling TAs
Administering mid-term/end-term TA evaluations
Running weekly TA meetings, with support of course coordinators
Revising lab manuals and other instructional materials
Developing rubrics for grading student work
Designing and delivering professional development workshops for all STEM TAs at university
While the MGTF program that was the focus of this evaluation study incorporated many aspects of professional development discussed in the literature, it was innovative in several respects. First, as a mentoring program, it utilized peer mentors to provide advice and support in teaching STEM courses. Second, the mentoring in question occurred at two levelsthe mentoring of less experienced TAs by MGTFs, and the mentoring of more experienced MGTFs by faculty involved with the campuss Center for Teaching Excellence. Third, it did use feedback and consultation as a mentoring technique, but depended on mentor evaluations rather than student evaluations in the consultation process. Fourth, it avoided the problem of added stress and workload by awarding a graduate fellowship to the MGTFs so that they could focus on their professional development in teaching for one year. It also required their enrollment and participation in UNIV798a, a teaching and learning seminar. The final innovative aspect of the MGTF program was its focus on STEM inquiry instruction with undergraduate students.
Research Questions
Using data gathered throughout the pilot year, this paper presents evidence for each of the following four research questions that were developed at the outset of the MGTF program:
To what extent does the MGTF program help future faculty to understand and use basic principles of teaching and learning central to university teaching and student learning?
To what extent does the MGTF program produce peer TAs who are effective in working with and supporting novice TAs?
To what extent does the presence and use of MGTFs in STEM laboratory courses improve performance of novice TAs in laboratory-based teaching and learning?
To what extent do professional development workshops for STEM TAs impact their interest and understanding of teaching and learning?
Data Collection and Methods
Program impact was evaluated in four areas aligned with the research questions: (1) MGTF understanding and application of principles related to inquiry and the scholarship of teaching and learning, (2) MGTF effectiveness as peer mentors to novice TAs, (3) classroom performance of novice TAs, and (4) broader TA professional development on campus. Analyses were triangulated across multiple data sources collected during the one-year pilot program. Interviews with and surveys of MGTF participants, TAs who were mentored by MGTFs, and supervising course coordinators were central to this analysis. These data were supplemented with course records, teaching observations, and documents produced by the MGTFs themselves, including journal entries, reflective papers, and final reports. A complete list of data sources is shown below.
MGTF, TA, and Course Coordinator Interviews (semi-structured)
TA Teaching Observations (twice-semester feedback/consultation model)
TA Evaluations of MGTFs (post-survey)
TA Evaluations of Professional Development Workshops (post-survey)
Course Artifacts (revised lab manuals, grading rubrics)
MGTF Artifacts (initial applications, journal entries, reflective papers, final reports)
Observations and Findings
When viewed in light of the literature on the preparation of future faculty, several findings emerged from this evaluation study. Perhaps the most interesting observation was the extent to which enrollment and participation in UNIV798a, which provided an academic introduction to the scholarship of teaching and learning, had an impact on the MGTFs, who saw themselves as better prepared for teaching than many new faculty. According to the MGTFs themselves, the program was effective in preparing them as future faculty members with respect to their own teaching and the skills they would need to mentor graduate students in the art and science of pedagogy. The opportunity to participate in a community of educators and the responsibility of actual mentorship provided them insight into the role of teaching in STEM disciplines. In particular, they recognized the advantage to be gained from utilizing the accumulated wisdom of that professional community, rather than trying to reinvent teaching individually. Their success in applying for and receiving grants to fund the development of courses and curricular materials testifies to this commitment to effective teaching.
MGTF Growth in Inquiry and Teaching and Learning
With respect to the first research question, the extent to which the MGTF program helped participants understand and use basic principles of teaching and learning, several findings emerged. First, there were documented shifts in the ways the MGTFs perceived and regarded their roles as teachers, as illuminated in interviews, journal entries, and written reports. When triangulated across several data sources and across several individual MGTFs, these shifts occurred in the following areas:
Table 1
Regarding selves as seasoned and comfortable in TA role ! B e i n g w i l l i n g t o t a k e r i s k s a n d t r y n e w a p p r o a c h e s i n t e a c h i n g V i e w i n g t e a c h i n g a s a n i n s u l a r a c t i v i t y ! V a l u i n g p e e r n e t w o r k s a n d c o m m u n i t i e s o f p r a c t i c e S h a r i n g t i p s , f o l l o w i n g i n t u i t i o n , a n d u s i n g c o m m o n s e n s e ! G a i n i n g d e e p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s c h o l a r s h i p o f t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g S e e i n g T A r o l e a s f a c i l i t a t o r o f a f a c u l t y m e m b e r s c u r r i c u l u m ! D e v e l o p i n g o w n e r s h i p f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a n d s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g T e a c h i n g b a s e d o n o w n l e a r n i n g s t y l e a n d p r e f e r e n c e s ! F e e l i n g r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e a c h i n g s t u d e n t s w i t h d i v e r s i t y o f l e a r n i n g s t y l e s S e e i n g t e a c h e r a t c e n t e r o f l e a r n i n g ! S e e i n g s t u d e n t s a t c e n t e r o f l e a r n i n g C o n v e y i n g c o n t e n t ! H e l p i n g s t u d e n t s r e l a t e s c i e n t i f i c c o n c e p t s a n d p r o c e s s e s t o t h e i r o w n e x p e r i e n c e s t o e n h a n c e u n d e r s t a n d i n g B e i n g t h e e x p e r t w i t h t h e a n s w e r s ! M o d e l i n g s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y t o h e l p s t u d e n t s f i n d t h e i r o w n a n s w e r s
M G T F s a l s o r e p o r t e d a d e e p e n e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p r o c e s s o f i n q u i r y l e a r n i n g i n t h e s c i e n c e s a s a r e s u l t o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p r o g r a m . A s o n e M G T F w rote in his/her journal, I never had thought of how mimicking the process leading to real scientific discoveries could help students learn in a classroom setting. Another explained, Teaching is about discovery. Students get excited when they come up with something on their own or interpret something correctly and are able to formulate an understanding on their own. Inquiry is very well in sync with what a scientist has to do. MGTFs also reported new insights and perspectives on the role that they themselves played in teaching. As one MGTF shared in his/her final report, My original idea of teaching turned out, after an informed review, to be presentation rather than teaching. My take on the experience had been that the instructor showed me information and I learned upon seeing or hearing it. This overly simplistic notion completely left unaccounted my own contribution to the equation. Another explained during an interview, I was always just comfortable teaching the way I was taught. I realized you have to take yourself outside of your comfort zone in order to help other people get into theirs. Another MGTF wrote, What surprised me most was how little I really understood my own learning and how it affected my teaching.
Likewise, the other TAs involved in the program, and especially novice TAs, agreed that the MGTFs impacted their success in many waysas teachers who led them through the weeks lessons in detail, as advisors to be consulted with problems, and as old hands who could lend emotional and practical support. Through having the MGTFs available to observe their teaching, answer their questions, and provide tips and resources, TAs became more confident in their roles over the course of the semester and also realized that they were not in this all alone. In addition to face-to-face help in individual and group settings (weekly lab meetings), MGTFs supported TAs by creating grading rubrics for lab reports, revising lab manuals, and writing grant proposals for additional course improvements.
The fact that professional development with regard to teaching would place demands on time that would otherwise be available for study or for research was readily recognized by the participants of the program, who acknowledged that these challenges were part of the culture of graduate STEM education. Likewise, several of the TA interviewees mentioned that the MGTFs had helped to create a more positive climate for STEM teachingit wasnt just something to endure or check off the list of things to do on their degree planas the MGTFs provided a degree of encouragement and support (and practical resources) that they did not necessarily receive from their advisor or other faculty in their department.
TA-to-TA Peer Mentoring
The second research question addressed the extent to which the MGTF program produced peer TAs who were effective in working with and supporting novice TAs. The components of the program that most directly addressed peer mentoring included expanded lab prep meetings involving both MGTFs and TAs, built in time for TAs to observe MGTFs and experienced TAs teaching the lab, and periodic feedback and consultation (both formal and informal observations). Peer mentoring with regard to teaching proficiency was seen as beneficial by both MGTF mentors and those TAs being mentored, and these data add to what was previously known about the impact of various sorts of mentoring relationships.
One of the most important findings that emerged from this aspect of the evaluation was the role that the MGTFs played in helping novice TAs build the necessary level of confidence to effectively teach their lab sections and to better relate to the students with whom they were working. For the novice TAs, it was less about improving their pedagogy and more about developing their ability to transition from the role of student to teacher. In comparison, the most important function with the experienced TAs, most of whom were already confident in their roles through semesters of teaching experience, was to help them build their capacity for effective teaching through improving their teaching skills and challenging them to try new approaches to engage students.
When asked to rate the impact of the mentoring of their MGTFs, TAs (N=39) provided the following survey responses summarized in Table 2. Perhaps not surprisingly, novice TAs were slightly more positive in their assessments of the utility and impact of the MGTFs than were experienced TAs.
Table 2
1=strongly disagree
5=strongly agreeAll
TAsNovice
TAsExperienced
TAsMGTF feedback was useful4.314.354.25Access to MGTF improved teaching4.194.383.94Having peer mentor was useful4.144.244.00Interactions with MGTF helped with understanding of teaching4.034.323.57Would consult MGTF with a problem3.773.953.53MGTF program was beneficial4.154.293.97
Mentored TA Classroom Performance
The third research question addressed the extent to which the presence and use of MGTFs improved the classroom performance of the TAs with whom they worked. As part of their responsibilities, the MGTFs were charged with implementing a plan for assessing the development of the pedagogical skills of the TAs whom they mentored. During the pilot program, the TAs were observed twice a semester using an evaluation protocol developed by the MGTFs, which included both quantitative and qualitative measures for two basic dimensions in the teaching of the labs: (1) organization/presentation/mechanics, and (2) learning environment/student engagement. The MGTFs also developed a rubric that was used for scoring the instrument. Average TA scores increased on 9 of 12 measures between the first and second MGTF observations. Across the board, the greatest positive changes were in the TAs abilities to articulate the goals of the lab, the TAs abilities to explain the next steps of the lab to the students, and the TAs abilities to link the broader relevance of the lab to the lecture.
Since this protocol was an internally developed instrument without established validity and reliability, one cannot interpret the above findings as caused by the effects of mentorship. The lack of consistent objective data on the improvement of classroom techniques was problematic for the evaluation of the program as a whole, as was the heavy reliance on self-reported data from program participants, and the fact that the evaluation design was not experimental, comparative, or longitudinal in nature. In general, the MGTFs observed that TAs improved their teaching in several key areas over time, although since this was not established as a control-comparison evaluation, it was impossible to separate out the effect of the MGTFs versus the normal maturation of the TAs as they gained teaching experience.
TA Professional Development
The fourth and final research question focused on the impact of professional development workshops on participating TAs. During the pilot year of the program, the MGTFs developed and offered five workshops open to all STEM TAs on campus: two pedagogy-focused (chemistry) and three role-focused (classroom communication, time management, and managing student interactions/relationships). Designing and implementing these professional development workshops for fellow TAs was seen as a challenging and beneficial activity by the MGTFs, as it provided them with the opportunity to apply their mentoring skills in a broader and more formalized teaching and learning setting. All five workshops received consistently high ratings from TA participants, with the highest ratings being in the areas of participation activities and question/answer periods, and the lowest ratings being in the areas of formal presentations and handouts/resources. As gleaned through interviews and surveys, participating TAs saw the primary benefits of these workshops as having the opportunity to compare notes and share knowledge with fellow TAs. The MGTFs themselves interpreted this feedback as reflecting the relative isolation that many TAs experience on campus, and the lack of formal opportunities that they have to come together in community with other TAs.
At the same time, the MGTFs encountered some challenges with respect to this portion of their fellowship experience, in that the workshops were sparsely attended by TAs in spite of strategies and incentives to help encourage and reward participation. Several TAs cited that the timing of the workshops (i.e., mid-day) posed a challenge, while others suggested that unless the workshops were embedded in existing TA responsibilities such as lab meetings, very few TAs would take it upon themselves to take advantage of such an opportunity. This particular feature of the MGTF program was structured as a one-shot professional development program versus a more sustained and embedded approach (which was reflected in the other portions of the MGTF program including the teaching and learning course and weekly lab meetings). One of learnings from this aspect of the program was the limitation inherent in the workshop model of professional development in reaching a broad-based audience of STEM TAs who were dispersed across campus in various departments and programs.
Unexpected Findings
In addition to the findings presented above around each of the four research questions, there were also a number of unexpected findings that emerged during the course of the program evaluation. First, structuring this experience as a fellowship (which included summer funding) ended up serving as a means for legitimizing this work in the eyes of the MGTFsproviding students with dedicated time during their graduate program to focus on their personal and professional development as teachers. The MGTFs shared that while their advisors or departments did not seem to generally support activities that took them too far away from their research agendas, the fellowship was seen as a prestigious form of recognition and something that would be worth the time investment. Second, it was surprising to the program administrators and faculty who worked with the MGTFs to witness the extent to which the MGTFs, as a newly formed community of six graduate students, initiated sustainable changes to course curricula and supporting instructional materials that fell outside the boundaries of their fellowship responsibilities. For some MGTFs, this work extended to applying for and receiving additional university grants to support these self-initiated curriculum reform activities.
Third, there were findings around the analysis of benefits and costs that were associated with a university-level approach to TA professional development (as was the case with the MGTF program) versus more traditional departmental or discipline-specific approaches to TA training. In terms of benefits, external funding was available via the broader MSP grant to support this model of TA professional development, which otherwise would have required a substantial investment of resources on the part of the institutionfinancial, intellectual, and human. In addition, this model was shaped and led by faculty members from across the campus who had substantial expertise with the scholarship and research on teaching and learning in STEM. On the flip side, the lack of departmental ownership for the MGTF program ultimately resulted in the lack of institutionalization of the program beyond the initial one-year pilot. While the program had broad-based campus support and was generally viewed as yielding positive benefits to the MGTF participants, the graduate TAs whom they mentored, and the courses with which they worked, it did not have champions or backers within individual STEM departments who were willing to make it a funding priority after the grant ended.
Conclusion
According to the fellows themselves, the MGTF program was effective in preparing them as future faculty members with respect to their teaching and the skills they would need to mentor graduate students in the art and science of pedagogy. The opportunity to participate in a community of educators and the responsibility of actual mentorship provided them insight into faculty roles in higher education. In particular, they recognized the advantage to be gained from utilizing the accumulated wisdom of that professional community, rather than trying to re-invent approaches to teaching and learning individually. Their success in applying for and receiving grants to fund the development of courses and curriculum materials testifies to this commitment. Likewise, the other TAs involved in the program, and especially novice TAs, agreed that the MGTFs impacted their success in many waysas teachers who led them through the weeks lessons in detail, as advisors to be consulted with problems, and as old hands who could lend emotional and practical support. The TAs felt that their jobs had been made easier because of that support, and many believed that they had become better teachers due to the assistance of the MGTFs.
When viewed in light of the literature on peer mentoring and the preparation of future faculty, there were few surprises from the evaluation results discussed herein. Peer mentoring with regard to teaching proficiency was seen as beneficial by both MGTF mentors and those TAs being mentored, and these data add to what was previously known about the impact of various sorts of mentoring relationships. The lack of consistent objective data on improvement of classroom techniques was problematic for the evaluation of the program as a whole, and highlights the challenges of evaluating such programs given the difficulties of using standard student evaluations, of developing new instruments for measurement that are both precise and valid, and relying on self-reported data. The creation of the fellowship opportunity, given the recognition that professional development with regard to teaching would place demands on time that would otherwise be reserved for science research, was appreciated by the participants of the program. In addition, one of the most valuable insights from the evaluation may be the extent to which enrollment and participation in the UNIV798a course and the corresponding introduction to the scholarship of teaching and learning was appreciated by MGTFs, who saw themselves as better prepared in this respect than many new faculty.
References
Business-Higher Education Forum. (2007). A commitment to Americas future: Responding to the crisis in mathematics and science education.
Hardr, P.L. (2005). Instructional design as a professional development tool-of-choice for graduate teaching assistants, Innovative Higher Education, 30(3).
Henry, M.A., Murray, K.S., & Phillips, K.A. (2007). Meeting the challenge of STEM classroom observation in evaluating teacher development projects: A comparison of two widely-used instruments. Available online at: HYPERLINK "http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/ RTOP_ITC_article_Final 120707.pdf?media_000000002574.pdf" http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/ RTOP_ITC_article_Final 120707.pdf?media_000000002574.pdf.
ONeal, C. (2007). The impact of teaching assistants on student retention in the sciences: # 8 A B P R ^ ` \
b
M `
Q R Z e f G ] s ȹϭĦ h{ h _HT
h _HT h" h 5_HT
h# 5_HT h9u| hzk hzk h B*ph h{ h B*ph h% h{ h h h 5 hH. 5h{ hS7 5 hS7 5 h 5h{ h 5h{ hU9 5 4 # ` , B Q R _ `
R e f i d 7$ 8$ H$ `gd 7$ 8$ H$ gd d `gdzk d `gd gd $a$gd s t y R V - 4 8 9 U V e f z { D F ̺̺
hH. _HT h" h 6_HT$h{ h 0J CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ "h 0J CJ OJ QJ ^J _HTaJ (h{ h 0J CJ OJ QJ ^J _HTaJ
h _HT h{ h _HT j h{ h 0J U_HT ; z { ~ ! ! s! ! " " # Y$ `$ $ $ $ $ $ ^% d% y% |% % % & ' ' ' ,' =' >' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ( #( E( J( X( ) ) .) 6) =) F) G) Y) Z) ) ) ) ) * * * * ӻ˴˴˴˴˭ ht h h^
h hH. 5h# h h h hH. h 5 hn 5 h# 5 j h{ h 0J U_HTh{ h _HT
h _HTDi ~ # ' >' 0+ x- . ,. v. . . . "/ Y/ / /
& F d gd
& F d gd d gdH. d `gdH. d `gd gd d 7$ 8$ H$ ^ `gd * -+ /+ D+ q+ + + m, r, , , v- - - - - . . U. i. u. / / / / / / / #0 0 1 G1 N1 v1 w1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 3 83 S3 V3 [3 d3 j3 3 3 3 3 3 .4 /4 04 B4 C4 r4 v4 4 4 4 4 M6 N6 <7 Y7 h]U hO h h 5 hS7 5$h{ h 0J CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h{ h h \hUc h \ ht h h# h D/ /4 C4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 <7 =7 ]7 ^7 : : '; M; ; ; #< =< ><
& F d gd gd
& F gd d `gd d gd d 7$ 8$ H$ `gd Y7 ]7 ^7 q7 7 8 8 9 !9 q: s: : : #< 4< << >< < < < < < < = )= G= = = = = = = = = = = m? ? @ @ @ @ A A A A A A B B ;B GB B B B C C C C 㷲 h h h? hE% hhQ h1? h"It h"It 5hzM h 56 h{ h h% 5 hu h hYX h9u| h hFn h h
, hjT h h 5h{ h 5 :>< @ A B
C BC D D $$If a$gd $If gd d gdhQ d gdYX d `gd C
C AC D D D D D D D D D "E $E :E >E E E E E FF JF F F F F >G BG G G G G FH JH H H H H H H I
I I I I I *J ,J .J 0J J J J \K K L L L L L M M M *N 4N JN O O þ÷ h8 T h}7 h5C hhQ hi \ h}7 \h 5>*\hD h 5\ hRV h 5\ h5C h 5\ h h5C h h"It h"It CD D D D E E E HF q h \ h $$If a$gd $If gd kdu $$If l F $ 0 L
t 0 6 4 4
l a HF JF F F @G q h \ h $$If a$gd $If gd kd $$If l F $ 0 L
t 0 6 4 4
l a @G BG G G HH q h \ h $$If a$gd $If gd kd_ $$If l F $ 0 L
t 0 6 4 4
l a HH JH H H H q h \ h $$If a$gd $If gd kd $$If l F $ 0 L
t 0 6 4 4
l a H H
I I I q h \ h $$If a$gd $If gd kdI $$If l F $ 0 L
t 0 6 4 4
l a I I ,J 0J J q h \ h $$If a$gd $If gd kd $$If l F $ 0 L
t 0 6 4 4
l a J J J P
T V V q e ] Q Q I d gdY d `gd d gd}7 d `gd1? kd3 $$If l F $ 0 L
t 0 6 4 4
l a O O O eP {P |P P P nQ {Q R R T
T T T T T T LU V V V *W >W ?W MW pW W W W X X _X nX X X X X X Y Y Y Y [ [ [ [ \ \ \ \ ] ] ] H_ I_ ƻƻƷ hx2i >* hF h hZe hZe >*hZe h h h{ h h6b h5C h hS7 h&6 hO hzM hzM hzM h 56 hS7 56 h h{ h h5C hhQ h}7 hY 8V Y \ ] ] ] ] ] ] ^ ^ ^ ^ $$If a$gd $If gdx2i d gd6b d `gd ^ ^ .^ 3^ 8^ =^ n e Y Y Y $$If a$gd $If gdx2i kd $$If k\ p T d 6 2 H 2
4 a p( =^ >^ _^ d^ i^ n^ n e Y Y Y $$If a$gd $If gdx2i kd $$If x\ p T d 6 2 H 2
4 a p( n^ o^ ^ ^ ^ ^ n e Y Y Y $$If a$gd $If gdx2i kdZ $$If \ p T d 6 2 H 2
4 a p( ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ n e Y Y Y $$If a$gd $If gdx2i kd3 $$If \ p T d 6 2 H 2
4 a p( ^ ^ _ _ _ _ n e Y Y Y $$If a$gd $If gdx2i kd $$If \ p T d 6 2 H 2
4 a p( _ _ 8_ =_ B_ G_ n e Y Y Y $$If a$gd $If gdx2i kd $$If \ p T d 6 2 H 2
4 a p( G_ H_ I_ k_ c f f n f f Z N F d gdLFi d `gd>bB d `gd]U d gdx2i kd $$If ,\ p T d 6 2 H 2
4 a p( I_ k_ _ _ _ _ _ /` 5` :` G` T` ` ` 'a ?a a a a a a a a Ab b b b b b b c c c c c #c Zc bc dc fc mc pc c c c c c d d ,d bB hBr hT hZ h h0@ hO h]U h]U h.d h 56Jdf f f f g \g jg pg g g g xh h i :i @i Fi i i i i i j ,j -j 2j 3j Jj {j j j j j j j j j k 2k gk k k Fl nl rl l l l 2m @m n n n n n n n n n o o o yp zp }p p ߽ hW h 56 hW hh 56 hh 56 hq hj% h3J hx< hy$ h hQ hh h h#e hLFi h 56 hZe h{ hZe Af Fl zp p u z z p Ä Ą ń ф ҄ ] ^ 0^`0gd $a$gd gd d 7$ 8$ H$ `gdpy% d `gdpy% d gd d `gdtwo d `gdz d gdh d `gdh d `gd p p q Z z ~ & ; C D z " Ä Ą ń Ƅ ф 0 1 : ; ὸ h 6h h 6 hyb h hyb h 5 h 5h{ h 5h h hpy% 5hpy% hp hb! h} hpy% H; J K R S ] j s
Å ˅ ̅ օ ׅ # ) - 0 ҆ ӆ ߆ 9 ; < = Ň Ƈ Ӈ ԇ ۇ ܇ = [ Uhor? h 0J j h U h9 h j h Uhe h 6h hyb h h 6h h 6 I^ L M 4 5 # 4 } 7$ 8$ H$ ^`gd gd gd 0^`0gd Lessons for TA training, Journal of College Science Teaching, March/April.
Pruitt-Logan, A.S., Gaff, J.G., & Jentoft, J.E. (2002). Preparing future faculty in the sciences and mathematics: A guide for change. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools & Association of American Colleges and Universities.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Before its too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.
U.S. Department of Education, 2000, p. 9. See also BHEF, 2007.
ONeil, 2007.
Pruitt-Logan, Gaff, & Jentoft, 2002, p. vi. See also Hardr, 2005.
Ibid, p. 15.
Ibid, pp. 18-19. See also Hardr, 2005.
Henry, 2007.
PAGE
PAGE 16
[ a f n v 6 7 8 9 R [ # $ 4 5 K L [ \ ^ _ ` t | } ~ Ĺ j hH. 0J Uj hN. UhN. h^{ h CJ _HTaJ h CJ _HTaJ h CJ aJ h^{ h CJ aJ !j h^{ h 0J CJ UaJ huM h h} h j h 0J Uh h 6 hyb h h 3 h h 6h hN. h 0J mH nH uhU9 hH. j hH. 0J U
hH. 0J 0^`0gd &`#$gdU9
2 1h:px2i / =!"#$% s $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055Ls $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055Ls $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055Ls $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055Ls $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055Ls $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055Ls $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055Ls $$If !v h5 055L#v 0#v#vL:V l
t 6 5 055L $$If p!v h5 555T#v #v#v#vT:V kd 6 5 555T/ 2 H 2
4
p( $$If p!v h5 555T#v #v#v#vT:V xd 6 5 555T/ 2 H 2
4
p( $$If p!v h5 555T#v #v#v#vT:V d 6 5 555T/ 2 H 2
4
p( $$If p!v h5 555T#v #v#v#vT:V d 6 5 555T/ 2 H 2
4
p( $$If p!v h5 555T#v #v#v#vT:V d 6 5 555T/ 2 H 2
4
p( $$If p!v h5 555T#v #v#v#vT:V d 6 5 555T/ 2 H 2
4
p( $$If p!v h5 555T#v #v#v#vT:V ,d 6 5 555T/ 2 H 2
4
p( D y K [ h t t p : / / h u b . m s p n e t . o r g / m e d i a / d a t a / R T O P _ I T C _ a r t i c l e _ F i n a l 1 2 0 7 0 7 . p d f ? m e d i a _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 4 . p d f y K h t t p : / / h u b . m s p n e t . o r g / m e d i a / d a t a / R T O P _ I T C _ a r t i c l e _ F i n a l 1 2 0 7 0 7 . p d f ? m e d i a _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 4 . p d f @ @ @ N o r m a l CJ _HaJ mH sH tH D A@ D D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t R i@ R T a b l e N o r m a l 4
l 4 a ( k@ ( N o L i s t B ' B ^? C o m m e n t R e f e r e n c e CJ aJ D D ^? C o m m e n t T e x t *$ CJ aJ tHH H ^? B a l l o o n T e x t CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ H j H !` C o m m e n t S u b j e c t *$
5\tH J C@ 2J G B o d y T e x t I n d e n t dh ` 6 U@ A6 G H y p e r l i n k >*B*ph Z O QZ G h i g h l i g h q u e r y 1 & CJ OJ QJ aJ o( ph q
N g@ aN { H T M L T y p e w r i t e r CJ OJ PJ QJ ^J aJ > @ r> {
F o o t n o t e T e x t CJ aJ @ &@ @ { F o o t n o t e R e f e r e n c e H* Z O Z yb d k b l u e h e a d 1 + 57>* CJ OJ QJ S*Y( \aJ o( ph ,a F V@ F 9 F o l l o w e d H y p e r l i n k >*B* ph 4 @ 4 H. F o o t e r
! . )@ . H. P a g e N u m b e r j @ j
T a b l e G r i d 7 :V 0 s U e z +~ C T +~ P P +~ # ` , B Q R _ ` R e f i ~ > 0# % & ,& & & & & "' ' ' ' /, , , - - . . . . 4 8 9 :
; B; D; ; ; ; ; ; ; < < f< g< < < < < = = f= g= = = = = = = 5> 6> X> Z> > > > +D LG J -J L O Q
Q "Q 3Q 7Q ;Q BQ FQ RQ VQ WQ pQ uQ zQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q R !R &R +R ,R NR SR XR ]R ^R zR R R R R R R V Z 8Z _ c c h m m r x x x x x x x x =y >y z z { { k| l| } Z} k} } } } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %~ &~ '~ (~ )~ ,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,& 0 ,& 0 ,& 0 ,& 0 ,& 0 ,& 0 ,& 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 0 0 @ 0 I 0 0 @ 0 I 0 0 @ 0 I 0 0 @ 0 I 0 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 I 0 0 0 0 % % % ( s * Y7 C O I_ df p z ; [ D G H J L N W ` a c d e j k i / >< D + #, / z z , + +, /, / / z z , # w Ew Fw Gw Nw Rw dw z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ $~ ,~ z z } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ '~ (~ ,~ $f$ #f̌N KTBH ~ #7 #f+#f- l )ā @-|b3 ! 3f̌N E A>X u Cv;R ?aFz [[x v]`?P. x^x WheH}t sRgvλ Hxj@ h h^h` . z ^`zo( ( )
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h p p^p`OJ QJ o( h H h @ @ ^@ `OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h P P^P`OJ QJ o( h H h z ^`zo( ( ) h
^`h H . h
pL p^p`Lh H . h
@ @ ^@ `h H . h
^`h H . h
L ^`Lh H . h
^`h H . h
^`h H . h
PL P^P`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . h z ^`zo( ( ) h
^`h H . h
pL p^p`Lh H . h
@ @ ^@ `h H . h
^`h H . h
L ^`Lh H . h
^`h H . h
^`h H . h
PL P^P`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H o h p^p`OJ QJ o( h H h @ ^@ `OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H o h P^P`OJ QJ o( h H h h^h`OJ QJ o( h H h 8^8`OJ QJ o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^ `OJ QJ o( h H h ^ `OJ QJ o( h H o h x^x`OJ QJ o( h H h H^H`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h p p^p`OJ QJ o( h H h @ @ ^@ `OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h P P^P`OJ QJ o( h H h 8 8^8`o( ( ) h
^`h H . h
L ^ `Lh H . h
^ `h H . h
x x^x`h H . h
HL H^H`Lh H . h
^`h H . h
^`h H . h
L ^`Lh H . ^`o( .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H . h
@ @ ^@ `o( h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . z ^`zo( ( )
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . h
^`h H . h
^`h H . h
pL p^p`Lh H . h
@ @ ^@ `h H . h
^`h H . h
L ^`Lh H . h
^`h H . h
^`h H . h
PL P^P`Lh H . h
^`o( h H .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . h h^h`OJ QJ o( h H h 8^8`OJ QJ o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^ `OJ QJ o( h H h ^ `OJ QJ o( h H o h x^x`OJ QJ o( h H h H^H`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o p p^p`OJ QJ o( h H @ @ ^@ `OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ o( h H ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o P P^P`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h p p^p`OJ QJ o( h H h @ @ ^@ `OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ o( h H h ^`OJ QJ ^J o( h H o h P P^P`OJ QJ o( h H
^`h H .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . $f ?aF # K v] Hxj #f+# u C E A ~ [[ # ! 3 sRg 0@- l ) x^ Whe W W 8 N u m 1 6 *M 6 6 z 6 \CT U :{ Y X Q ? } z w| [ T x< N. ~ E% j% py% o& H. bB
E mJ I K 9K 8 T ]U W YX Y :w] lz` a 6b .d #e Ze x2i LFi zk two Br UQs "It b! 0@ % Y hQ Ur i i? n D Fn S7 t
p 0% \! h @ # Yb
, zM 3J W Zu q B ? 9
; B; D; ; ; ; ; ; ; < < f< g< < < < < = = f= g= = = = = = = 5> 6> X> Z> > > K L
Q 3Q ;Q FQ VQ WQ pQ uQ zQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q R !R &R +R ,R NR SR XR ]R ^R zR R R R R 8Z x } ~ ,~ 3 3 @ w w gO w w X B; B< B= B> B? 7{ +~ P @ P D P F P H P J P @ P @ U n k n o w n G z T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 S y m b o l 3& z A r i a l 5& z a T a h o m a 7& V e r d a n a ?5 z C o u r i e r N e w ; W i n g d i n g s " 1 h ӆ۽& Ȧp J lj ? lj ? 4 d | | 2q HX ? U 2 ) C h a r g e t o C A S H A d v i s o r y B o a r d W o r k g r o u p s J e n n i f e r F r a n k J e n n i f e r F r a n k X
Oh +'0 8 D
d p |
, Charge to CASH Advisory Board Workgroups Jennifer Frank Normal Jennifer Frank 112 Microsoft Office Word @ <. @ q@ WĨ@ Zld0 lj ՜. +,D ՜. +,p , h p
ϡȱ ? | * Charge to CASH Advisory Board Workgroups Title P < X p x _PID_HLINKS _AdHocReviewCycleID _EmailSubject
_AuthorEmail _AuthorEmailDisplayName _PreviousAdHocReviewCycleID _ReviewingToolsShownOnce A P [ h t t p : / / h u b . m s p n e t . o r g / m e d i a / d a t a / R T O P _ I T C _ a r t i c l e _ F i n a l 1 2 0 7 0 7 . p d f ? m e d i a _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 4 . p d f q U#. AERA Proposal Submitted jfrank@umsa.ums.edu Jennifer Frank 0
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m o p q r s t u w x y z { | } ~ R o o t E n t r y F v0 D a t a
n 1 T a b l e v i W o r d D o c u m e n t 4 S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8 C o m p O b j q
F Microsoft Office Word Document
MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 9q