Where's the Math? Prospective Teachers Visit the Workplace

The integration of academic and vocational subject matter is offered in response to efforts to make the study of mathematics meaningful and engaging for all students,as well as aid in the preparation of a mathematically literate workforce. Yet,teachers often come to mathematics education with more ‘pure’ than ‘applied’ backgrounds making it difficult for them to draw upon their own experiences to make subject matter meaningful. This paper analyses prospective teachers' opportunities to connect subject matter with workplace contexts. It examines the degree of importance prospective teachers place on workplace connections and the ways in which they incorporate these connections in classroom lesson plans. Results suggest that given opportunities to visit workplace sites, it is not a trivial task for prospective teachers to: 1) make the mathematics in work explicit, and 2) keep the mathematics contextualized when designing activities and problems for students. These results have implications for teacher education and the support prospective teachers require in building networks connecting mathematics, pedagogy,and work. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Limited capacity information processing and pigeon matching-to-sample: Testing alternative hypotheses

The limited capacity hypothesis explains the element superiority effect observed in pigeons’ element-compound matching-to-sample performance as the result of a central information processing overload occurring at the time of sample exposure. Major alternative hypotheses offered in the literature to date argue that element superiority is due to a difference in element- and compound-sample memory codes or to a peripheral sensory limitation during sample exposure. These alternative factors weresimultaneously prevented from influencing matching performance in the present experiment, but the element superiority effect remained. A central information processing account of the element superiority effect is supported by the strong tests of alternative hypotheses provided herein. The discussion addresses remaining challenges to the hypothesis that information overload for compound samples occurs at the time of sample exposure.     

How Central Office Leaders Influence School Leaders’ Decision-Making: Unpacking Power Dynamics in Two School-Based Decision-Making Systems

ABSTRACT

While past studies on school district decentralization found that central office leaders can limit school leaders’ decision-making power, the studies did not examine how they do so. We investigated this in eight elementary schools in two large urban school systems with official policies of school site-based decision-making. We found that even though school leaders had legal authority over most instructional decisions, they overwhelmingly made decisions consistent with central office preferences. The question is why. By examining the micro process of interaction between central office and school leaders, we found that central office leaders in both districts used a range of persuasive strategies to influence school-level decisions. Specifically, they linked their suggestions to institutionalized norms, rules, and shared understandings in the district and profession. By doing so, central office leaders pushed against their decentralization policies. Differences in the combination of strategies that central office leaders used and the amount of interaction they had with school leaders led to (a) greater variability in the degree to which school leaders in one district made decisions aligned with central office preferences; and (b) greater feelings of coercion among school leaders in the second. These findings unpack the dynamics among local education leaders as they implement and sometimes alter the rules within policies through their daily practice.     

FACTORS INFLUENCING ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ DECISIONS TO CHEAT BY TYPE OF ASSESSMENT

Academic dishonesty (cheating) has been prevalent on college campuses for decades, and the percentage of students reporting cheating varies by college major. This study, based on a survey of 643 undergraduate engineering majors at 11 institutions, used two parallel hierarchical multiple regression analyses to predict the frequency of cheating on exams and the frequency of cheating on homework based on eight blocks of independent variables: demographics, pre-college cheating behavior, co-curricular participation, plus five blocks organized around Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (moral obligation not to cheat, attitudes about cheating, evaluation of the costs and benefits of cheating, perceived social pressures to cheat or not to cheat, and perceived effectiveness of academic dishonesty policies). The final models significantly predict 36% of the variance in “frequency of cheating on exams” and 14% of the variance in “frequency of cheating on homework”. Students don’t see cheating as a single construct and their decisions to cheat or not to cheat are influenced differently depending on the type of assessment. Secondary findings are that a student’s conviction that cheating is wrong no matter what the circumstances is a strong deterrent to cheating across types of assessment and that a student who agrees that he/she would cheat in order to alleviate stressful situations is more likely to cheat on both exams and homework.     

Inquiry-Based Learning and the Flipped Classroom Model

Abstract

The flipped classroom model of teaching can be an ideal venue for turning a traditional classroom into an engaging, inquiry-based learning (IBL) environment. In this paper, we discuss how two instructors at different universities made their classrooms come to life by moving the acquisition of basic course concepts outside the classroom and using class time for active problem-based learning. Results from student surveys are presented to relate student perceptions of the flipped/IBL classroom model.     

Conceptualizing Research–Practice Partnerships as Joint Work at Boundaries

This article presents a conceptual framework for analyzing how researchers and district leaders perceive and navigate differences they encounter in the context of research–practice partnerships. Our framework contrasts with images of partnership work as facilitating the translation of research into practice. Instead, we argue that partnership activity is best viewed as a form of joint work requiring mutual engagement across multiple boundaries. Drawing on a cultural–historical account of learning across boundaries (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and evidence from a study of two long-term partnerships, we highlight the value of the concepts of boundary practices in organizing joint work and boundary crossing as a way to understand how differences are recognized and navigated. The framework has implications for how partnerships can surface and make productive use of difference in organizing joint work and for how funders can better support the work of research–practice partnerships.