Week LP Topic from LP Objectives Key Assignments at the End of This Class Readings for the Next Class week 1a 1 Examining What It Means to Know Science and Mathematics Examine aspects of their mathematical and scientific knowledge. Recognize the limitations in their ability to apply even basic ideas in mathematics and science. to problematize both their knowledge and the practices used to construct that knowledge in schools. Review the PISA data on mathematics and science literacy. Before reading, ask students to predict where the U.S. students will fare in comparison to other industrialized countries. Clinical Interview 1: Look over the description of Clinical Interview 1 and examine the examples posted on the course website. Post questions about this assignment on the website. Begin discussing this assignment with classmates, as next week they will each need a partner to work with. Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought (pp. 1-7). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). PISA data. Science literacy: Average scores. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). PISA data. Mathematics literacy: Average scores. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). Refining the images. In The teaching gap (pp. 55-72). New York: The Free Press. week 1b 2 NAEP and Mathematical and Scientific Proficiencies Recognize the status of the U.S. educational system in comparison to other industrialized countries. concepts of mean and median in a real-world setting. Analyze samples of student mathematical work, making conjectures about students’ reasoning and understanding. Examine the strands of mathematical and scientific proficiencies and their implications for teaching. Post group members for Clinical Interview 1 on Blackboard. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). Teaching as a cultural activity. In The teaching gap (pp. 85-101). New York: The Free Press. MATH ONLY: National Research Council. (2001). The strands of mathematical proficiency. In Adding it up: Helping children mathematics (pp. 115-155). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. SCIENCE ONLY: Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Goals for science education. In Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
in the lives of Black children (pp. 175-199). New York: Routledge. Leatham, K. R., & Hill, D. S. (2010). Math identities. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 16(4), week 11b 19 Inquiry Describe the structure and intent of the Argument-Driven Inquiry instructional model. Identify the disciplinary practices of science employed in this instructional design and how this relates to the Next Generation Science Standards. Explain how instruction that supports students’ participation in disciplinary practices is particularly effective in supporting the science learning of students traditionally underperforming in science. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). inquiry: A way to promote learning during laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 76(8), 42-47. Choppin, J. M. (2007). Teacher-orchestrated classroom arguments. Mathematics Teacher, 101(4), 306-310. Optional Resources Southerland, S.A., Strimaitis, A., Enderle, P., Grooms, V., & Sampson, V. (2014). The effectiveness of argumentation in fostering science for all: Examining the effects of challenging instruction in biology laboratories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA. Sampson, V. (2014). ADI in the classroom. . week 12a Small-group lesson week 12b Small-group lesson week 13a Small-group lesson week 13b Small-group lesson