How we Think

미국의 “전국 수학 교사 협의회”(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, NCTM)는 1989년부터 〈학교 수학의 교육과정과 평가 규준〉(1989), 〈수학 가르침(교수)의 전문성 규준〉(1991), 〈학교 수학의 평가(시험) 규준〉(NCTM, 1995), 〈학교 수학의 원리와 규준〉(2000)을 출판하여 미국의 수학 교육 의 전망(목표, 나아갈 길)과 규준(실행 지침)을 제시하였다. 수학 교사들로 구성된 미국의 NCTM은 학생, 학부모, 학교 행정가 등 많은 사람들과 힘을 합하여 모든 학생들에게 수준 높은 수학 교육을 받을 수 있는 여건(환경, 기회)을 조성하는 데 구심점의 역할을 하였다. 한편 많은 관련 단체들은 여러 배경과 능력을 가진 학생들이 전문성을 지닌 교사(특수 교사를 일컫는 밀이 아니다. 수학 교과를 이해하고 수학의 전문성과 특수성을 가르칠 수 있는 일반 교사를 일컫는 말이다.)로부터 미래를 대비해 평등하고, 진취적이며, 지원이 잘 이루어지고, 공학 도구(IT)가 잘 갖춰진 환경에서 중요한 수학적 아이디어를 이해하면서 학습할 수 있는 수학 교실(미국에서는 우리나라처럼 수학 교사가 수학 시간에 학생의 방(교실: Homeroom)에 찾아가지 않고 학생들이 선생의 방(수학 교실: Classroom)을 찾아온다. 전형적인 수학 교실의 사진은 2쪽에 나와 있다.)을 만들기 위해 함께 힘썼다. NCTM에서 출간한 여러 규준들은 우리나라의 제6차와 제7차 교육과정에도 큰 영향을 미쳤다. 이 글에서는 NCTM(2000)에서 제시한 학습 원리를 간단히 살펴본 다음 이를 중심으로 현재 미국 수학 교육의 교수ㆍ학습 이론의 동향을 살펴본다.

미국 NCTM의 Principles and Standards for School Mathematics에 나타난 수학과 교수,학습의 이론

I. INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION. 1. Evaluation's Basic Purpose, Uses, and Conceptual Distinctions. 2. Origins of Modern Program Evaluation. 3. Recent Developments and Trends in Evaluation. II. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PROGRAM EVALUATION. 4. Alternative Views of Evaluation. 5. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 6. Management-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 7. Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 8. Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 9. Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 10. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 11. Alternative Evaluation Approaches: A Summary and Comparative Analysis. III. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING EVALUATION. 12. Clarifying the Evaluation Request and Responsibilities. 13. Setting Boundaries and Analyzing the Evaluation Context. 14. Identifying and Selecting the Evaluative Questions and Criteria. 15. Planning How to Conduct the Evaluation. IV. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING AND USING EVALUATIONS. 16. Dealing with Political, Ethical, and Interpersonal Aspects of Evaluation. 17. Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Quantitative Information. 18. Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Qualitative Information. 19. Reporting and Using Evaluation Information. 20. Evaluating Evaluations. V. EMERGING AND FUTURE SETTINGS FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION. 21. Conducting Multiple-Site Evaluation Studies. 22. Conducting Evaluations of Organizations Renewal and Training in Corporate and Nonprofit Settings. 23. The Future of Evaluation. Appendix: Some General Areas of Competence Important in Education Evaluation.

http://platform.almanhal.com/Files/?ID=T2-41793-MLA0011322.pdf

تقويم البرنامج : طرق بديلة و إرشادات عملية = Program evaluation Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines

Social Learning and Clinical Psychology.

This article describes the ICAP framework that defines cognitive engagement activities on the basis of students’ overt behaviors and proposes that engagement behaviors can be categorized and differentiated into one of four modes: Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive. The ICAP hypothesis predicts that as students become more engaged with the learning materials, from passive to active to constructive to interactive, their learning will increase. We suggest possible knowledge-change processes that support the ICAP hypothesis and address the limitations and caveats of the hypothesis. In addition, empirical validation for the hypothesis is provided by examining laboratory and classroom studies that focus on three specific engagement activities: note taking, concept mapping and self-explaining. We also consider how ICAP can be used as a tool for explaining discrepant findings, dictate the proper choice of a control condition, and evaluate students’ outputs. Finally, we briefly compare ICAP to existing...

The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes.

Education equity is achieved when all students have the ability to fully develop their talents and interests, regardless of where they live, how much money their parents earn, or where they go to school. While no country has reached complete equity, some education systems are closer to meeting the goal than others. Australia’s performance on international tests of student achievement is causing the Australian education system to be seen as high quality but only moderate equity. In this chapter we provide an overview of the ways in which school socioeconomic composition, one of the main drivers of educational inequality, is associated with inequalities in educational opportunities, experiences and outcomes in Australia. We draw on previously published work as well as report the findings of our secondary analyses from the 2009 cycle of the Programme for Student International Assessment (PISA) to show how educational opportunities, experiences and outcomes vary by school socioeconomic context. The findings show that schools in Australia are highly segregated, and that this segregation is accompanied by large inequalities in educational opportunities, experiences and outcomes.

Mapping educational inequalities by school socioeconomic composition in Australia

In science education, and STEM more generally, inquiry based teaching and learning has been a dominant pedagogical approach, particularly in Western countries, for at least half a century (e.g., Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010). In Europe, inquiry-based teaching has become part of science education orthodoxy, receiving policy support and funding from the EU following the Rocard report (2007) recommendation that “the introduction of inquiry-based approaches in schools ... should be actively promoted” (p. 17). Recently, however, the availability of large-scale, high-quality international assessment data in science and mathematics—like Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)—has allowed scaled-up analysis of associations between various pedagogical approaches, and students’ achievement and engagement in science (e.g., Areepattamannil, 2012; Kang & Keinonen, 2017; McConney, Oliver, Woods-McConney, Schibeci, & Maor, 2014).


In this study, we report research that builds on previous investigations of inquiry-based teaching in science that used PISA 2006 (McConney, et al., 2014). Our previous study found that in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, students who reported high levels of inquiry also showed above-average levels of interest in science, but below-average levels of science literacy. We also found the corollary to be true. These findings ran counter to orthodox views about the efficacy of inquiry-based teaching in science. 


In the current study, using PISA 2015, we extend our analysis of teaching and learning in science to six countries, and ask two research questions:

RQ1: To what extent is the variability observed in science literacy (as measured in PISA 2015) associated with the frequencies of three distinct approaches to teaching science, reported by students from their science classrooms? To what extent does this vary by country and/or gender?
RQ2: To what extent is the variability in students’ interest in science associated with the frequencies of three distinct approaches to teaching science, as reported by students? To what extent does this vary by country and/or gender?


Consistent with the primary analysis of PISA 2015 as well as our previous analysis of PISA 2006, this study shows that the frequency of inquiry-based teaching is negatively associated with students’ science literacy. For students in six countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the USA), the more frequently students experienced inquiry-based activities, the weaker their literacy in science, on average. This negative relationship between science literacy and inquiry-based activities was strongest for students in the USA and Canada, but was also evident to varying degrees in all six countries. In contrast, our analysis also revealed a moderately strong positive association between inquiry and students’ interest in science. This was consistent for all six countries. With increasing focus on effective, evidence-informed practice in teacher education, our obligation is to prepare teachers based on the strongest research available regarding the efficacy of various pedagogical approaches in science. At a minimum, the findings reported in this analysis demand examination and discussion of how “inquiry” might be best conceived and applied in helping students to learn and like science.

Inquiry-based, Teacher directed and adaptive instruction in secondary science: A cross-national analysis of associations with science literary and interest using PISA 2015

Maths by Email is a free email-based newsletter, directed at school students and others in Australia, sponsored by Australia's premier scientific research organization to increase the attractiveness of mathematics to young people. The presentation will showcase newsletter content and provide early research evidence of its effectiveness.

http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL24/S96A/paper.pdf

Maths by email: An Australian initiative to improve students' engagement in mathematics

Oregon forestry education program

/pdf/third-party-evaluation-of-the-effectiveness-of-the-structure-3ftgbki378.pdf

Andrew McConney

Papers

Mapping educational inequalities by school socioeconomic composition in Australia

Inquiry-based, Teacher directed and adaptive instruction in secondary science: A cross-national analysis of associations with science literary and interest using PISA 2015

Maths by email: An Australian initiative to improve students' engagement in mathematics

Oregon forestry education program

Third Party Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Structure of Intellect Model Schools Pilot Program. Year 2 Report.