Dr. Tony Petrosino

The purposes in this course are to explore with you several issues related to curriculum and instruction. Classes are designed for active participants. Please come to class prepared to discuss the assigned material.

There are several things I hope you will gain from the course. They are: an understanding of historical curricula perspectives and concepts relevant to educational processes and settings; a greater sophistication in evaluating the contributions of curriculum theorists to educational research; and a reasonable idea of how to apply perspectives and concepts from this course to your own interests in mathematics and science education.

Class Attendance

Since this class is run as a seminar, regular and active attendance is critical. Discussion, presentation, and discourse are vital components of the course. In the event that you must miss a class, please make every effort to contact me as soon as possible. Failure to make up for a missed class will result in an unexcused absence. Three or more absences will result in the loss of at least a full grade for the course.

Course Requirements

Reading assignments have been made for each class period. You will be expected to read the assignments and prepare brief written or oral responses to the study questions before the next class. Sometimes questions will be assigned to groups; other times, to individuals. The study questions and your responses will be the basis for our class discussions. I will evaluate the quality of both your written and oral comments.

The final requirement (and in lieu of a final exam) is a paper on an issue of curriculum and /or instruction closely related to your own research interests, to be developed during the semester and due on July 26th, 2004 during class.

Due Monday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from the reading.

Due Thursday in class--Synthesis/analysis of readings (may be a response to a focused question or open ended as indicated by the instructor each week) and should be related to personal experiences as a teacher or learner.

ALL READINGS ARE EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY MONDAY OF CLASS WEEK.

Required Texts

Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement

Weekly Syllabus

Assignment : 2 page (500 words) paper describing personal philosophy about science and/or math teaching (Due June 3)

Week 2: The Struggle for the American Curriculum: Competing Groups-Competing Interests

Overview: We will focus this week on some historical antecedents and the competing interests groups that Herbert Kliebard has identified in his book “The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958”. We will read some historical documents, trace the development of certain political agendas as they relate to science and mathematics education and attempt to access where we stand today as the struggle continues.

Weekly Writing Assignment Due June 10: Of the four interest groups identified originally by Kliebard ( Humanists/Mental Disciplinarians, Child-Study Movement/Developmentalists, Social Efficiency Movement, and the Social Melorists) identify a primary and a secondary group that seem most responsible for curriculum today in Texas schools and support your conjecture with evidence (personal experience, newspapers, official documents, etc….)

Assignment: Due Monday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from this week’s reading.

Week 3: Historical Context for Mathematics and Science Curriculum Development Post WWII

Overview: This week we will focus specifically on factors that contributed to the development of science and mathematics curriculum reform efforts from the end of WWII to present. We will look at the impact of Sputnik and the National Science Foundation as well as the origins and some of the outcomes of the New Math movement. We will also review some original curricula materials from these time periods.

Weekly Writing Assignment Due June 17: Discuss the role and influence that scientists and mathematicians have had in the development of curriculum of the 1950’s--1970’s and juxtaposed that influence with current curricula reform efforts. Has their influence increased? Decreased? Have other groups become involved?

Assignment: Due Monday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from this week’s reading.

Reading : Garrett, A. W. & Davis, O.L. (2003). A time of uncertainty and change: School mathematics from World War II until the New Math. In (Eds. G. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick) A History of School Mathematics Volume 1. NCTM (Course Pack)

Payne, J. N. (2003). The New Math and its Aftermath, Grades K-8. In (Eds. G. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick) A History of School Mathematics Volume 1. NCTM. (Course Pack)

Week 4: Analysis and Implementation of Constructivist Practices in the Classroom

Overview: This week we will focus on the challenges that classroom teachers face when trying to implement curriculum that requires depth of content as well as extended engagement by the students (usually for a number of class periods). What are the conceptual barriers? The practical barriers? The political barriers? This week we will also examine video of classes trying to implement some of these practices and critique them from practical and theoretical perspectives. The readings this week involve research that evolved from real classrooms trying to implement constructivist activities.

Weekly Writing Assignment Due June 24: Using Windschitl’s framework for the challenges facing classroom teachers (conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political), analyze a favorite activity you now do in class. Where are the dilemmas? Were is there synergy?

Reading : Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research. Vol 72 (2). pp. 131-176 (Course Packet)

Assignment: Due Monday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from this week’s reading.

Reading : Petrosino, A.J., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2003). Structuring error and experimental distribution as error in the fourth grade. Journal of Mathematical Thinking and Learning Vol. 5(2&3), 131-156. (Blackboard)

Reading : Schoenfeld, A. (1998). Making mathematics and making pasta: From cookbook to really cooking. In (J. Greeno and S. Goldman) Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning. LEA. (Course Packet)

Reading : Driver, R. and Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122. (Course Packet)

Overview: The notion of “science for all” has many noble and worthwhile ideals behind it. But what does it actually mean in practice? What are the implications for this perspective on mathematics and science teaching? This week’s reading will look at the issue from a national perspective, and out classroom activities will look at the more local ramifications faced in Texas public schools.

Weekly Writing Assignment Due July 1: Considering this week’s readings, what are the existing pressures on the classroom teacher that make implementing a “science for all” (or “mathematics for all”) curriculum challenging? Please use your own experiences as well as observations you have made throughout your years of teaching.

Reading : Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, Representation and Identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 35 (4) pp. 379-394. (Blackboard)

Assignment: Due Monday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from this week’s reading.

Reading : Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counter resistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. The Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 35 (6) pp. 589-622. (Blackboard)

Reading : Tate, W. (2001) Science Education as a Civil Right: Urban Schools and Opportunity to Learn Considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 38 (9) pp.1015-1028. (Blackboard)

Reading : O’Connor, M., Godfrey, L., and Moses, R. (1998). The missing data point: Negotiating purposes in classroom mathematics and science. In (eds. J. Greeno and S. Goldman) Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning. LEA. (Course Packet)

Week 6: Qualified Teachers in the Classroom and High Stakes Testing: A Complex Relationship

Overview: In this abbreviated week we will look at two issues that are at the forefront of both statewide and nationwide debates in education. Namely, the issue of qualified teachers in the classroom and on a somewhat related note, the impact of high stakes testing on our educational systems. We will be reading from some of the nation’s leading authorities on these matters and get a sense of the problematic nature of these issues. We may not reach any clear conclusions, but after this week will be better informed about the issues centering around the debate. We will see some videotape in class as well as have some outside speakers join us for discussion.

Weekly Writing Assignment Due July 8: What is your definition of a “highly qualified” teacher? What criteria do they posses? How does your definition conflict or support those with which we read about this week?

Reading : The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in American Secondary Schools. Published in the March 1999 issue of Educational Researcher, this is a 12 page article summarizing Dr. Ingersoll's research on the how much, so what, who, where and why of out-of-field teaching. Copies can be downloaded from:

Stephen J. Friedman - How Much of a Problem? A Reply to Ingersoll's " The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in American Secondary Schools"

Published in the January-February 2001 issue of Educational Researcher, Copies can be downloaded from:

Assignment: Due Tuesday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from this week’s reading.

Reading : Kamen, M. (1996). A teacher's implementation of authentic assessment in an elementary science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33, 859-877. (Course Packet)

Reading : Linn, R. (2001). Assessments and Accountability Educational Researcher, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 4–16. (Blackboard)

McNeil and Valenzuela (2001). The Harmful Impact of the TAAS System of Testing in Texas: Beneath the Accountability Rhetoric. (Blackboard)

Overview: What works in the classroom? It’s a question that we all ask ourselves at one point or another. This week we will review what the most current research says about what types of pedagogies are most effective in classrooms. These principles apply whether out audience is high school students, middle school students or college level students. Using both research and practical experiences, we will explore effective strategies to use in our own mathematics and science classrooms.

Weekly Writing Assignment Due July 15: Summarize what research tells us about the most effective strategies that exist for helping students understand subject matter. Is this consistent or inconsistent with issues of assessment and accountability that we have looked at previously in this course?

Assignment: Due Monday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from this week’s reading.

Reading : Lewis, C. (2000). Lesson Study: The core of Japanese Professional Development. Invited address to the Special Interest Group on Research in Mathematics Education. AERA. New Orleans. (Course Packet)

Week 8: Rethinking Curriculum: Postmodernism Curriculum and the IPG’s: Issues and Trends

Overview: How can we best structure curriculum for the classroom with multiple and sometimes competing interests? Within the past 20 years, the area of postmodernism has made it’s way into current curricula theory. This week we will look at one of the most influential leaders in this area and see how new perspectives on curriculum can help inform us as we prepare for students of the 21 st century.

Weekly Writing Assignment Due July 22: Is the work of Doll and other current postmodern curricula theorists consistent with local trends in AISD such as IPG’s? Please present your argument and incorporate as much of this week’s readings as well as examples from actual IPG’s to support your conjecture.

Reading : Doll, William E A post-modern perspective on curriculum.(Required Text)

Assignment: Due Monday by e-mail (by 8:00 a.m.) Questions, comments, points to discuss from this week’s reading.

Reading : Doll, William E A post-modern perspective on curriculum.(Required Text)

Week 9:

If you qualify for accommodations because of a disability, please submit to me a letter from Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) early in the semester so that your needs may be addressed. SSD determines accommodations based on documented disabilities. For additional information, call (512) 471-6259, visit 100-B West Dean Keeton St, SSB 4.104, or refer to http://www.utexas.edu/depts/dos/ssd/

I will make every effort to accommodate all students who, because of religious obligations, have conflicts with scheduled exams, assignments, or other required attendance, provided they notify me in advance of the scheduled conflict. Whenever possible, students should notify me at least two weeks in advance of the conflict to request special accommodation.

Classroom Behavior

Students and faculty each have responsibility for maintaining an appropriate learning environment. Students who fail to adhere to behavioral standards may be subject to discipline. Faculty have the professional responsibility to treat students with understanding, dignity and respect, to guide classroom discussion and to set reasonable limits on the manner in which students express opinions. See http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/gi03-04/app/appc11.html for more information.

According to the General Information catalog, “the value of a university degree depends on the absolute integrity of the work done by each student for that degree, a student should maintain a high standard of individual honor in his or her scholastic work” (page 98).

dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the

course and/or dismissal from the University. Since such dishonesty harms the individual, all students, and the integrity of the University, policies on scholastic dishonesty will be strictly enforced. For more information, please refer to the Student Judicial Services website for official University policies and procedures on scholastic dishonesty.

Course Description and Objectives

Class Attendance

Course Requirements

Required Texts

Weekly Syllabus

Classroom Behavior