Noyce Regional Dialogue Survey

  • The American Association for the Advancements of Science is developing a guide for a coherent approach to innovation in science and mathematics pre-service teacher education and leadership development. The guide will include input from leaders in elementary and high schools, state and district education agencies, colleges and universities, and others that recruit, prepare, evaluate and license teachers, as well as current and former Noyce Scholars and Fellows. If you wish to provide input you can submit answers to any, or all, of the questions below before August 31, 2017.

  • I. What should be the main goals of evidence-based STEM teacher education and leadership development programs, and how do these goals translate into desired outcomes?

  • 1. Outcome Goals for Graduates

  • 2. Outcome goals for general education for all students in STEM teacher education programs

  • II. How do we design a curriculum to achieve these goals, and what is the best way to deliver that curriculum?

  • 1. Curricula, Laboratories, Pedagogy, and Learning Technologies

  • From the NRC Framework,

  • How can we design courses that provide science teachers “to be” (including teachers in alternative certification programs) with a deep understanding of:
    1. The scientific ideas and practices they are expected to teach, including an appreciation of how scientists and mathematicians collaborate to develop new theories, models, and explanations of natural phenomena.
    2. The initial ideas students bring to school and how they may best develop an understanding of scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas across multiple grades.
    3. Science-specific pedagogical content knowledge in order to choose the pedagogical approaches that can build on those notions while moving students toward greater scientific understanding of the topics in question, such as the ability to recognize common prescientific notions that underlie a student’s questions or models.
    4. How to use student-developed models, classroom discourse, and other formative assessment approaches to gauge student thinking and design further instruction based on it. A single “science methods” course cannot develop this knowledge in any depth across all subjects for high school science teachers, nor across all grades for elementary school teachers.

  • From MET II,

  • How can we design courses that provide mathematics teachers (including teachers in alternative teacher program) with the need to monitor their own progress as they solve problems, attend to precision, construct viable arguments, seek and use mathematical structure, and make strategic use of appropriate tools, e.g., notations, diagrams, graphs, or procedures (whether implemented by hand or electronically) and a deep understanding of the:
    1. Important mathematics at every grade level—elementary, middle, and high school—that is both intellectually demanding to learn and widely used, such as reasoning strategies that rely on base-ten algorithms in elementary school; ratio, proportion, and exploratory statistics in middle school; algebra, geometry, and data analysis in high school.
    2. Connection between mathematics taught at prior and later grades.
    3. Mathematical consequences of different choices of numbers, manipulative tools, or problem contexts.
    4. Need to recognize definitions in mathematics.
    5. Mathematical aspects of software, manipulatives, and other tools and their uses.
    6. Flaws in students’ arguments, and how to find them and to help students understand the nature of the errors.
    7. Structures that occur in school mathematics, and how to recognize them and to help students perceive them.
  • 2. Other Questions

  • III. How do we best prepare our faculty and structure our departments and institutions to achieve these goals?

  • 1. Faculty, Departments, and Institutions

  • 2. External Influences and Constraints