Teaching with CHRONOS Data and Tools Iowa State University June 13-15, 2006

Criteria for Reviewing Activities (After the 2005 Workshop: Developing Quantitative Activities for Upper Division Geoscience Students, http://serc.carleton.edu/8245)

1) Are the quantitative and geoscience goals central and important? This question addresses whether the skills and/or geoscience concept being taught in an activity is, in fact, one that is important for the student to master for a particular discipline. Strong activities promote practice in key skills in the context of important geoscience concepts. 2) Does the activity lead to better problem solving? Key features of activities that promote problem solving are that they a) help students identify the knowledge that they bring to a problem that is likely to be useful; b) promote mastery of skills or strategies that are central to solving geoscience problems typical of those in the discipline being studied; c) assist students in recognizing when the skill or strategy is likely to be applicable to a problem; d) draw attention to the types of strategies that are being used to check for progress toward the solution both in the specific (answer verification) and in the abstract (evaluation of need to switch to a different approach to the problem) and e) instill students with the confidence needed to approach and solve a quantitative problem. (Schoenfeld, 1992, Polya, 1945) 3) Does the methodology promote learning? This question looks at whether the activity incorporates effective strategies based on learning theory and research. For example, Does the activity motivate and engage students? Does it build on what they know and address their initial beliefs? Does it use multiple representations of quantitative and mathematical concepts and data? Does it include opportunities for reflection, discussion, and synthesis? Does it provide opportunities for students/faculty to assess learning and confirm that they are on the right track? Are there opportunities for students to iterate and improve their understanding incrementally? (NRC, 2000; Edelson, 2001) 4) Are the materials provided complete and helpful? This questions addresses nuts and bolts issues about whether the materials provided to students, either written, oral, or otherwise, are successful in providing the context, motivations and goals of the activity, and that instructions and questions are clear.

Criteria for Reviewing Associated Activity Page

 Could you quickly make a decision about whether you would like to look further at this activity?  Are the supporting materials sufficient for you to use the activity effectively? What other supporting materials do you need? What other supporting materials would you like to see?  Are the materials presented in the template clearand complete? Edelson, 2001 . Learning-For-Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology- Supported Inquiry Activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (3), 355-385.

NRC, 2000, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, National Academy Press, Washington DC

Pólya, G. (1945; 2nd edition, 1957). How to solve it . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning (Volume 1, Induction and analogy in mathematics; Volume 2, Patterns of plausible inference ). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pólya, G. (1962,1965/1981). Mathematical Discovery (Volume 1, 1962; Volume 2, 1965). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Combined paperback edition, 1981. New York: Wiley.

Schoenfeld, A, (1992) Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving, Metacognition, and Sense-Making in Mathematics; in D. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334-370). New York: MacMilan. Available at http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/AHSchoenfeld/AHSchoenfeld.html