ED 589:

Instructor:Dr. Patty Meek

Address:5155 South Elati Drive

Englewood, Colorado 80110

Email:

Phone:303-738-0399

COURSE CREDIT:2 graduate credits

DATES & TIMES:February 26 – February 27, 2016

8:00am-3:30pm

(Lunches will be working lunches)

Guided Project and Reflection Paper (Directed Instruction): 30 hours

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

Participants in this workshop will develop a knowledge base of how inequitable mathematical experiences contribute to counterproductive identities of struggling math students. Participants will expand their knowledge ofstrategiesto create classroom environments that empower students who struggle with learning mathematics and thus facilitate students’ progress within the standards. Specific questions to be addressed include:

1.What is an inequitable mathematical experience?

2.What types of elements, school wide and/or within individuals classrooms, contribute to inequitable mathematical experiences?

3.How might inequitable mathematical experiences contribute to learners’ willingness or unwillingness to take the academic risks necessary to succeed in mathematics?

4.How might educators, either knowingly or unknowingly, contribute to inequitable mathematical experiences and thus hinder students’ growth?

5.What interventions are available to shape more equitable and supportive mathematical experiences?

6.What intervention might be best for a specific situation and how will its efficacy be determined?

Specifically, participants in this interactive workshop will understand various types of inequitable mathematical experiences and how these experiences negatively impact students’ perceived self-efficacy as learners. Participants will learn how to create school wide and/or classroom environments that can counteract inequitable mathematical experiences and subsequently empower students struggling to learn mathematics. Participants will engage in deep reflection as they implement these strategies and communicate with students to gauge the efficacy of the strategies.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES:

Upon completion of this course, participants will be able to:

  1. Describe various inequitable math experiences
  2. Identify specific inequitable math experiences either within the participant’s broad school or particular classroom setting
  3. Hypothesize ways in which the specific inequitable math experience(s) identified might be hindering students’ self-efficacy regarding their ability to succeed in math
  4. Thoughtfully select and implement a specific strategy designed to counteract the identified inequitable math experience(s)
  5. Maintain a daily reflection journal describing the strategic activities implemented that day, along with the challenges, successes, and student reactions to the activities
  6. Gather data from students, identify, and describe specific reoccurring themes pulled from student reactions
  7. Reflect professionally and personally on challenges and successes of both self and students and set next steps

REQUIRED TEXTS:

Not applicable; conference participants will receive necessary materials as provided by various session presenters.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:

  1. Class participation and attendance: Course participants seeking two hours of credit are expected to first attend the two-day workshop (Math on the Planes) for a total of 15 classroom contact hours.
  2. Course participants will also be required to complete a project and reflection paper, with guidance from the instructor, containing:
  1. A detailed description of the type(s) of inequitable math experiences identified in one’s school or classroom
  2. A detailed hypotheses regarding how the identified inequitable math experience is most likely hindering students’ perceived self-efficacy as learners of mathematics
  3. A description of the strategy selected to counteract the inequitable math experience
  4. Articulation of the rationale for the selected strategy
  5. A minimum of two specific lesson sequences for the selected strategy
  6. Daily journal entries completed during the implementation of the strategy; journal entries to include a description of the strategy implemented that day, uncommon or unexpected occurrences during the implementation of the strategy, challenges or successes in implementing the strategy, observed student reactions, etc.
  7. Collection of feedback from students and a summary of student feedback over the course of the intervention
  8. A stand-alone self-reflection paper regarding the efficacy of the intervention and next steps for both the teacher and the students

Instructional Time, Project and Reflection:

  • Course participants must have strategies approved by the instructor prior to implementation. Participants should submit their ideas to the instructor for feedback by March 18, 2016.
  • Course participants must schedule a mid-project review with the instructor; please contact the instructor no later than April 15, 2016to schedule this review.
  • In addition to the mid project review, course participantsmust check in with the instructor a minimum of two times during the course of the project – more often, if questions come up.
  • Course participants will receive feedback upon submission of the final reflection paper prior to grades being posted.

3. The student is required to spend 30 hours working on their project and reflection paper.

It is also anticipated the completed paper will be 8 - 10 pages in length (double spaced).

Upon completion of the project and paper, the documentationmust be emailed to Dr.

Patty Meek () by or on Monday, May 9, 2016. *

*Late papers (those not received by or on Monday, May 9, 2016) will not be accepted, unless prior arrangements have been made with Patty Meek. Otherwise, failure to submit the required paper by the deadline, above, will result in an incomplete grade for the course.

GRADE DISTRIBUTION AND SCALE:

Grade Distribution:

Conference attendance and participation 20%

Project documentation and reflection 80%

Grade Scale:

90 – 100%A

80 – 89%B

70 – 79%C

60 – 69%D

59% and belowF

CLASS SCHEDULE:

Course Calendar

Feb. 26 and 27, 2016
Attend full two days of Math on the Planes conference / March 14, 2016
Identify a type of inequitable mathematical experience present within your school or your classroom that you believe may be hindering students’ perceived self-efficacy as learners of mathematics.
Confirm with instructor that you have identified an inequitable mathematical experience and students to work with;communicate both the experience and potential strategy to the instructor, prior to implementing the intervention / March – April, 2016
Implement strategy; record daily journal entries; gather feedback from students / April 15, 2016
Continue to implement selected strategy, record daily journal entries, and gather feedback from students
Communicate with the instructor regarding any questions you might have regarding your project and submit a brief mid-project review / Early May, 2016
Review your journal entries, student feedback, and identify themes in both
Write papers for project
Submit final copy of project to Patty Meek
(Deadline for submission of project and paper is May 9, 2016)

Grading Rubric for Project

3 Points / 2 points / 0 points
General background information about your school (should you elect a system-wide strategy) or classroom setting is complete, including demographic information (socio economic status, number of students, grade level, general overview of students served, etc.) / General background information about your school (should you elect a system-wide strategy) or classroom setting is included but is incomplete; the reader lacks a clear sense of your work environment and the students you serve / General background information is not included
A specific inequitable math experience has been identified within your educational setting that may be hindering students’ self-efficacy in math; the inequitable math experience is clearly pulled from and can be located within conference materials / A specific inequitable math experience has been identified within your educational setting that may be hindering students’ self-efficacy in math but the source of the description of the inequitable math experience is unclear / A specific inequitable math experience has not been identified
The hypothesis regarding the means by which the selected inequitable math experience may be hindering students’ self-efficacy as math learners is clearly described and supported by examples(observations of students, comments from students, etc.) drawn from your student population / The hypothesis regarding the means by which the selected inequitable math experience may be hindering students’ self-efficacy as math learners is only generally described or is not supported by examples(observations of students, comments from students, etc.) drawn from your student population / The hypothesis regarding the means by which the selected inequitable math experience may be hindering students’ self-efficacy as math learners is not included
A clear objective is identified, including a means by which, qualitatively or quantitatively, the participant will know if the objective has been met / A clear objective is identified, but a means by which, qualitatively or quantitatively, the participant will know if the objective has been met
has not been included / A clear objective not been included.
The rationale for the strategy selected to counteract the identified inequitable math experience is clearly articulated and can be directly linked to the examples drawn from your student population (see above) / The rationale for the strategy selected to counteract the identified inequitable math experience is somewhat or vaguely articulated and/or is not directly linked to the examples drawn from your student population (see above) / The rationale for the strategy selected to counteract the identified inequitable math experience is not articulated, nor does strategy appear to be directly linked to examples drawn from your student population (see above)
Two activities within the selected strategy that hold promise for counteracting the identified inequitable math are thoroughly described; activities are selected from materials presented at the conference / One activity within the selected strategy that hold promise for counteracting the identified inequitable math is thoroughly described; activity is selected from materials presented at the conference / No activities within the selected strategy that hold promise for counteracting the identified inequitable math are described or the activities are not selected from materials presented at the conference
Brief reflections are noted daily in teacher journals; reflections include a description of the activity implemented, along with any challenges, surprises, or successes experienced / Brief reflections are noted occasionally in teacher journals; reflections include a description of the activity implemented, along with any challenges, surprises, or successes experienced / Teacher journal reflections are not completed or there is no evidence of such reflections
Anonymous feedback from a minimum of 4 students is collected at least three times weekly / Anonymous feedback from a minimum of 2-3 students is collected at least three times weekly / Feedback is collected from only one student or feedback collected from multiple students does not meet the minimum of three times a week
At the conclusion of the project, a reflection paper thoroughly describes the outcome of the project, including whether the initial objective was met, challenges and successes experienced by the teacher and the students, and next steps for reducing inequitable math experiences and enhancing students’ self-efficacy as math learners.
The reflection paper includes details drawn directly from the teacher’s daily journal and students’ feedback. / At the conclusion of the project, a reflection paper somewhat describes the outcome of the project, including whether the initial objective was met, challenges and successes experienced by the teacher and the students, and next steps for reducing inequitable math experiences and enhancing students’ self-efficacy as math learners.
The reflection paper includes details drawn directly from the teacher’s daily journal and students’ feedback. / The reflection paper lacks the necessary detail and/or is not supported by or inclusive of
details drawn directly from the teacher’s daily journal and students’ feedback
Paper is well written in terms of organization, detail, language mechanics, and scholarliness. / Some errors or omissions in terms of organization, detail, and language mechanics somewhat impede the efficacy of the writing. / Numerous errors or omissions in terms of organization, detail, and language mechanics significantly impede the efficacy of the writing.

For conference participants who wish to earn two semester hours of credit from Adams State:

  1. Youmust attend each full day (8:00am-3:30pm) of the Math on the Planes (February 26 and February 27). Attendancewill be taken, participation will be noted several times throughout the day(s) of the conference,and lunch will be a working lunch. As noted above, attendance and participation will comprise 20% of your course grade.
  1. Your project will comprise 80% of your final course grade.
  1. Regarding your final course grade, consider the following example: If you attend both days of the conference and earn 25 of 30 points on your case study, your final course grade from Adams State would be:
  • Day 1 attendance and participation: 10%
  • Day 2 attendance and participation: 10%
  • Project: 80% (25/30) x .80 = 66%
  • Final grade: 66% (project) + 20% (full attendance) = 86% (“B”)