Integrating Mathematics and Science in Undergraduate Teacher
Education Programs: Faculty Voices from the Maryland Collaborative
for Teacher Preparation
[Return to MCTP Research Page]
Draft: Please do not cite without the authors' permission.
Tad Watanabe, Towson State University
J. Randy McGinnis, University of Maryland at College Park
Mary Ann Huntley, University of Maryland at College Park
The preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by a grant from
the National Science Foundation (Cooperative Agreement No. DUE 9255745).
... [T]he scientifically literate person is one who is aware that science,
mathematics, and technology are interdependent human enterprises with strengths
and limitations... . (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990, p. ix)
The above quotation from Science for All Americans as well as recent
recommendations of the NCTM Standards documents (NCTM, 1989, 1991)
emphasize the importance of making connections between mathematics and science
in the teaching and learning of these subject matters. Such connections
are important because they make mathematics and science more relevant and
interesting to children. They are also important because it helps teachers
answer the age old question, "Why do we have to study this?" in
mathematics and science classes. These connections are important because
we want our students to develop relational understanding (Skemp, 1978).
Relational understanding requires connections among various disciplines,
including connections between mathematics and science. Furthermore, as Shulman
(1987) argued, these connections are especially important for teachers because
they "should understand how a given idea relates to other ideas within
the same subject area and to ideas in other subjects as well" (p.14).
As classroom teachers are increasingly expected to teach with an emphasis
on connections between subject matters, in particular between mathematics
and science, we must ask, "How does a teacher develop such an ability?"
More specifically, for those of us who are involved in undergraduate teacher
education, the question is "What kinds of undergraduate experiences
will foster the ability to emphasize connections between mathematics and
science?" It appears reasonable to conclude that preservice teachers'
undergraduate programs should provide a wide range of opportunities to understand
how mathematics and science relate to each other.
The Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation (MCTP) is an NSF funded
project attempting to create teacher education programs to prepare special
mathematics and science teachers in the middle grades. The teachers who
complete these programs will be able to teach mathematics and/or science
at grades 4 through 8, emphasizing connections between these disciplines.
One of the primary components of these special teacher education programs
is undergraduate mathematics and science courses that will emphasize connections
between mathematics and science. This paper will report findings from an
investigation that is studying MCTP college instructors' perceptions about
mathematics and science, how these disciplines relate to each other, and
their efforts to teach mathematics or science with an emphasis on connections
between these disciplines.
This paper consists of three sections. In the first section, we will briefly
describe the MCTP project as a background for our research. In the second
section, we will discuss an overview of MCTP research efforts. Finally,
we will share our findings from the first two years of an on-going longitudinal
The MCTP Project
It has been said by many that teachers teach the way they were taught. For
example, Lortie(1975) called the experience teachers had as a student an
"apprenticeship of observation" (p.61). If that is the case, we
must reformulate college level mathematics and science courses prospective
teachers take as a part of their college programs. Those courses must also
emphasize the connections between mathematics and science, and they must
be taught in a manner that is appropriate for them to use in their own classrooms.
These are two of the bases for the MCTP programs. In addition, constructivism
and the notion of "less is more" are also central to the philosophy
of the project. The project aims to design and implement such special teacher
education programs at a number of state supported institutions of higher
education in Maryland. The program is unique in that it involves not only
mathematics and science educators but also a significant number of mathematicians
and scientists who teach undergraduate mathematics and science courses.
Specifically, the MCTP program consists of the following:
* specially designed courses in science and mathematics, taught by instructors
committed to an inquiry based, interdisciplinary approach
* internship experiences with research opportunities in business, industrial
and scientific settings, and with teaching activities in science centers,
zoos, and other informal settings
* field experiences and student teaching situations with mentors devoted
to the interdisciplinary approach to mathematics and science teaching
* modern technologies as standard tools for planning and assessment, classroom
and laboratory work, problem-solving and research
* placement assistance and sustained support during the induction year in
the teaching profession
The project began in the summer of 1993 with a summer meeting which brought
together more than 60 university/college faculty members as well as 12 elementary
and middle school teachers throughout Maryland. Many of the university/college
content specialists were never involved in teacher preparation processes
before - they might have had some prospective teachers in their classes,
but preservice teacher education was not their primary concern. They stated
that they taught mostly through lecturing, and few were aware of alternative
pedagogical strategies or assessment techniques. Thus, for them, the first
summer was an introduction to such ideas as cooperative learning, journaling,
and alternative assessment. One of the final products of the first summer
was a number of content modules crafted by the participants that attempted
to emphasize mathematics-science connections. During the 1993-94 school
year, many of the modules were field tested in university/college mathematics
and science courses.
During the school year 1994-95, the first group of MCTP teacher candidates
entered the programs, and approximately twenty MCTP courses were offered
at six state supported colleges/universities. These were courses that were
either developed or greatly modified by MCTP professors, and most of them
were "content" courses. The instructors included experienced mathematics
and science educators as well as university mathematicians and scientists.
Classes varied in many ways. Some courses were offered under a specific
discipline, like mathematics, biology, etc., while others were offered as
"integrated science" courses. Some courses were team taught. Many
classes were small in number - one class was team taught by two scientists
with only four college students. The number of MCTP students was still very
small; therefore, in many classes, the majority of students were not involved
in the MCTP program. Some courses were designed only for MCTP students while
others were open to non-MCTP students. A few courses satisfied the institutions'
general education requirements, so, there were even several non-education
students in those courses.
The MCTP programs continue to grow in Maryland. The number of MCTP teacher
candidates has increased significantly in the 1995-96 school year to 175.
The number of MCTP course offerings has also increased to more than 40,
and several courses are being offered at a few community colleges, which
reflects the changing demography of the four-year institutions involved.
In many institutions, several MCTP courses are being offered. Most of the
courses offered are introductory level mathematics/science content courses.
More intermediate and advance mathematics/science courses will be offered
as the programs continue to develop. The project is also working to develop
a cadre of in-service teachers who can serve as mentors for the MCTP students
once they reach their field-based experiences. In addition, the project
aims to develop a support system for MCTP teachers during their induction
MCTP Research - An Overview
The MCTP is not simply a program development effort. The project has placed
a significant emphasis on teacher education research. The research team
includes two co-directors and several research assistants/associates, as
well as institutional research representatives at all MCTP participating
institutions of higher education.
In essence, the primary purpose of research in the MCTP is directed at knowledge
growth in undergraduate mathematics and science teacher education. The unique
elements of MCTP (particularly the instruction of mathematical and scientific
concepts and reasoning methods in undergraduate content and methods courses
that model the practice of active interdisciplinary teaching) are being
longitudinally documented and interpreted from two foci: the faculty and
the teacher candidate perspectives.
The following questions have served (and continue to serve) as a priori
1 What is the nature of the faculty and teacher candidates' beliefs and
attitudes concerning the nature of mathematics and science, the interdisciplinary
teaching and learning of mathematics and science, the teaching of mathematics
and science to diverse groups (both on the higher education and upper elementary
and middle level), and the use of technology in teaching and learning of
mathematics and science?
2 How do the faculty and teacher candidates perceive the instruction in
the MCTP, especially with respect to being responsive to students' prior
knowledge, addressing conceptual change, establishing connections among
disciplines, incorporating technology, promoting reflection on changes in
thinking, stressing logic and fundamental principles as opposed to memorization
of unconnected facts, and modeling the kind of teaching/learning they would
like to see on the upper elementary, middle level?
Answers to these questions will address the following global research questions
driving teacher education research:
1 How do teacher candidates construct the various facets of their knowledge
2 What nature of teacher knowledge is requisite for effective teaching in
a variety of contexts?
3 What specific analogies, metaphors, pitfalls, examples, demonstrations,
and anecdotes should be taught by content/methods professors so that teacher
candidates will have some knowledge to associate with specific content topics?
Both numerical and qualitative data are being collected to address the MCTP
research questions. Numerical data are derived from the administration of
the "Attitudes and Beliefs About The Nature Of And The Teaching Of
Mathematics And Science" survey, developed for the MCTP. Both participating
faculty and students in MCTP classes contribute to this data (many of the
MCTP classes surveyed also included a number of non-MCTP students as well
as some non-education majors). Qualitative data are derived from semi-structured
interviews with MCTP participants (both students and instructors), MCTP
class observations, participant journals, and MCTP course materials. The
data analysis process has been informed by standard qualitative data analysis
techniques, such as constant comparison(Glaser & Strauss, 1979) and
discourse analysis (Gee, 1990; Lemke, 1990).
Research on Faculty Perspectives
The remainder of this manuscript will report the findings from the data
collected during the first two years (1993 - 1995) of the project. The focus
of this manuscript is how university/college instructors who were teaching
MCTP mathematics and science courses perceived the nature of these disciplines
as well as the connections between them. The two primary sources of the
data for this analysis were the semi-structured interviews with individual
instructors conducted during the 1994 - 95 school year and two content area
debriefing meetings held during the summer of 1995.
Specifically, the following three questions will be addressed in this report:
* What are the perceptions of MCTP faculty about the "other" discipline?
* What are the perceptions of MCTP faculty about the connections between
mathematics and science?
* What are some barriers in implementing mathematics and science courses
that emphasize connections?
The instructors of MCTP courses were interviewed twice during the semester
in which they were teaching MCTP courses. In addition, instructors who were
not teaching an MCTP course during the second semester were interviewed
once during that semester. The interviews were semi-structured in that there
was a set of standard questions that were asked of all participants (see
Appendix). However, additional questions were posed reflecting the responses
of the participants. To answer the specific questions listed above, we have
focused primarily on the participants' responses to the first question in
both interview protocols. However, their responses to other questions, for
example question 13 in interview 2, also related to the research questions,
and participants' responses to other questions were also included as appropriate.
Altogether, forty interviews involving 16 mathematics and science instructors
from four institutions were conducted (see table 1 for a summary). There
were four mathematics instructors attending the mathematics debriefing meeting,
while nine science instructors attended the science debriefing meeting.
All interviews and group meetings were audio- and/or video-recorded and
transcribed for subsequent analysis.
Mathematics Instructors Science Instructors
Fall 1994: 5 10
Spring 1995 7 18
The findings are discussed in two sections. First, we will report findings
on the MCTP instructors' perceptions of mathematics/science and their connections.
In the second part, we will report some of the barriers in implementing
mathematics and science courses that emphasized the connections, as identified
by these instructors.
As we discuss the MCTP instructors' perceptions of the connections between
math and science, we will begin with how the MCTP instructors looked at
the "other" discipline. First, how do the MCTP science instructors
perceive mathematics? One of the most common perceptions was the notion
of "mathematics as a tool for science." As one science instructor
Of course, that's from the point of view, natural point of view,
that I would take as a scientist, math as a tool to be used... (September,
1994, emphasis added)
Accordingly, the examples several science instructors gave as the way they
were integrating math in their classes involved calculations - probability
in genetics, and pH in chemistry, for example. Other science instructors
have also indicated the idea of mathematics as a language of science, the
language that allowed more precise discussions of science.
Mathematicians and mathematics educators are often concerned about the "math-as-tool"
perspective when working with scientists or science educators. This was
also the case with the MCTP participants. For example, a mathematician said,
Every time we talk to the scientists, they say, "Oh, good, you're going
to have more connections." And somehow the connections to the math
kind of disappears because the essentials of organizing the mathematics
in its own right is the part that they tend to want to leave out. (June,
A few MCTP science instructors, however, perceived mathematics to be more
than just a tool for science. For example, a physical science instructor
Before MCTP, I regarded mathematics as strictly a tool... After MCTP we
have come, or at least I have come to appreciate math more in term of its
intrinsic logic, its beauty, and a challenge to teach it, and I appreciate
some interconnectedness that I did not really, you know, appreciated. (June,
Another science instructor stated:
I used never to worry about that. I used mathematics as a tool without worrying
about honoring the mathematics viewpoint, but now I do, you know,
because of this collaboration. I'm now aware that there is this other point
of view that I need to honor in an integrated course, and that is
a challenge for me. (June, 1995, emphasis added)
Thus, it appears that the "math-as-tool" perspective held by MCTP
science instructors was complemented by their awareness of mathematics
as a discipline in its own right.
How about the MCTP mathematics instructors? How do they perceive science?
The prevailing perception can be described as "science as context for
(mathematics) problem solving." This perception was realized in different
ways. First, science is a source of problems to be investigated. A mathematics
instructor commented that "science has provided a tremendous number
of problems for us." Another instructor said that "things we model
(in class) are very often from science."
Another important factor of science as a context to do problem solving was
the issue of motivating students. One mathematics instructor stated,
So, science really plays a very, very important part with us as teachers
because we need sometimes to attract or introduce the non-believer or the
person who has a very poor image of (himself/herself)... But if you do it
for something that's in the sciences, they might get interested. (June,
Thus, science can not only provide motivation for the development of mathematics
as a discipline through problems they pose, but it can also motivate individual
students in their learning of mathematics.
Other mathematics instructors felt that science helped students understand
mathematics. One instructor noted that connections with science "help
the visualization." Another instructor noted that science is helpful
in giving meaning to mathematics:
... most of the research I did was in pure math that is probably never going
to be useful... if mathematics keeps going as sort (of) an intellectual
activity devoid of reality and devoid of science, it has no meaning ...
Thus, science, as the MCTP mathematics instructors perceived, has provided
problems to be solved, can be a useful tool to motivate students, and helps
students understand mathematics more meaningfully.
How do the MCTP instructors perceive the connections between mathematics
and science, and how did they attempt to emphasize those connections in
their classrooms? The major themes that emerged in the ways MCTP instructors
perceived the connections between mathematics and science were: tools,
problem solving, inquiries, and objects of study.
Some instructors noted that both mathematics and science used common tools.
For example, a science instructor stated:
... we take the students to the computer lab one day a week, and we ask
them to work up the data they've been collecting and prepare spread sheets,
you know, use the same software, help one another learn how to use that,
that kind of thing. (October, 1994)
Other common tools included other actual instruments such as scales, rulers,
etc., as well as data sets to be analyzed. Another common "tool"
that was mentioned was graphs. Some of the science courses utilized the
Microcomputer Based Laboratory software, which produce graphs using data
collected by the attached probes.
At a deeper level, MCTP instructors saw connections between mathematics
and science in the process of problem solving. A science instructor noted
that "we had problem solving in the physical sciences in the areas
of physics and chemistry. ... that's where the math connection is in the
physics and chemistry." A mathematics instructor said, "I've tried
to have scientific questions be part of the ... environment in which we
do the mathematics." Thus, many of the MCTP instructors emphasized
the central role problem solving plays in both mathematics and science,
which guided their efforts to highlight connections. This emphasis on problem
solving in teaching of mathematics and science is consistent with recent
recommendations in both mathematics and science education (e.g., Rutherford
& Ahlgren, 1990; NCTM, 1989, 1991).
Another related theme that emerged was the idea of inquiry as a central
activity of both mathematics and science. As a mathematics instructor put
I think science is an organized structure, it's the same as mathematics.
It has its language. It has its syntax. It has its structure. People have
an opportunity to explore new ideas and to kind of verify or refute or support
conjectures and so forth. So, if you look at us in a parallel sense, I think
we have many similarities with it. (June, 1995)
Another mathematics instructor phrased his ideas this way:
I think it's probably in the method, the Scientific Method, the method of
inquiry, you'd probably get the same thing, I think of it as modeling approach,
that we would apply and try to work from principles as well and to find
out what the principles are. (June, 1995)
It appears that these MCTP instructors were saying that central activities
in both mathematics and science are the activities of observing, conjecturing,
and verifying or refuting conjectures. In other words, both mathematics
and science are the activities of inquiry. MCTP instructors, both mathematicians
and scientists, appear to perceive this notion of inquiry as another central
commonality between their disciplines.
Another point often raised by the MCTP instructors was that both mathematics
and science studied the same object, the "real world". For example,
a mathematics instructor said,
But in a sense the mathematical system is the theoretical realization of
it, and in the sense of a logical model you have an interpretation in the
real world. And we hope that they're copies of the same thing, or shadows
of the same reality. (June, 1995)
Another mathematics instructor added,
Science deals more with tangible phenomena that you can touch, and feel,
and see, whereas mathematics deals with phenomena that are more abstract
and mental. ... I described the mathematical model as a mental representation
of some phenomenon. It stops becoming real in a certain sense. I mean, it's
real to us, I guess, but in a sort of ... In the common usage of the word,
it's more abstract. (June, 1995)
This perspective was also shared by a science instructor:
They (students) have to spend time describing in words the physical motions
to complement what's visible in the graph and what is then associated with
the mathematical description of the very same thing. So, it's a very rich
array of physical behaviors represented by the transformation into the graph
... which is REAL STUFF! Real distances, real velocities, real accelerations
that they can make reference back to their own personal decisions in the
case of their personal motion, or describe the behavior of the fan cart.
And so this is a very very close tie between as (an MCTP math instructor)
would say describing things in words, seeing the transformation to the graph,
finding that there is indeed a mathematical way of describing it. (September,
Thus, many of the MCTP instructors perceived that both mathematics and science
study the real world, and the difference is how we approach those studies.
This perception seems to be underlying the mathematics instructors' "science-as-context-of-problem-solving"
perspective and the science instructors' "math-as-tool" perspective.
Because both mathematicians and scientists are studying the real world,
we can use mathematics in science and science in mathematics.
As the MCTP instructors tried to implement courses they designed or modified
based on their participation in the project, they perceived a number of
barriers which affected their effort to connect mathematics and science.
In the following sections we will describe some of those barriers identified
by the participants.
One barrier noted by some of the MCTP faculty was the issue of time versus
content coverage. One mathematics instructor said,
... but as far as the content of the course, there is really not much room
to give on that because to get all that content in just 6 semester hours,
it's really a challenge. (September, 1994)
This same instructor noted that his mathematics content courses were already
full of topics that were considered to be important by the NCTM Standards.
A potential solution he could envision was "if these are students that
are really suited by aptitude and inclination for mathematics and science,
they ought to be able to handle the content faster than in the other sections."
In other words, if he could move faster, and the students can keep up with
it, then he would have time. Therefore, for this instructor, the solution
did not lie with the notion of "less is more" which was often
emphasized during the project meetings.
Another factor that negatively influenced the MCTP instructors' efforts
to connect mathematics and science was, ironically, the students. Several
instructors noted that their students did not want to see connections between
mathematics and science. One science instructor reported a student "flat
out said he doesn't like math, doesn't want to do it and wants to avoid
it and please don't do any math in this course." Another science instructor
said, "It was just a lack of willingness to try to integrate the math"
that limited her attempt to emphasize connections between mathematics and
As the MCTP instructors tried to make connections between mathematics and
science, a fundamental question emerged. A science instructor asked during
the group discussion of the instructors of MCTP science classes, "Is
it our (science instructors) job to teach mathematics in an integrated math/science
course?" This question addressed two related yet distinct issues: what
counts as legitimate content of an integrated math/science course; and who
can teach those topics - the issue of competence. The issue of legitimacy
led one science instructor to comment that "it's not our job to teach
math as a discipline but rather an appreciation of math." This perspective
was consistent with the comment made by another science instructor:
It doesn't mean that we take time out of the science to separately do the
mathematics, but we do at least a metacognitive recognition when we've used
it, when they've benefited from it, and it then becomes a natural part...
because that's the way that these students benefit from their own growth
in understanding of mathematics. (June, 1995)
Thus, for some MCTP instructors, the primary role of "the other"
subject matter was to enrich learning opportunities, but not necessarily
to learn topics from that particular subject matter.
The issue of competence also lead to another important point. A science
instructor made the following statement during an interview:
I'm hitting against my, ... since I've never taught math, and it's been
so many years since I've had that taught to me, and besides it probably
wasn't taught to me correctly anyway, I just don't have a clue. (September,
The notion of "teachers teach the way they were taught" was a
basis for the project to create and implement mathematics and science content
courses for teacher candidates taught in a manner appropriate for middle
grade learners, the target population for the MCTP teacher candidates. However,
it appears that the MCTP instructors, especially the content area specialists,
were caught in this dilemma of not knowing how to teach "correctly."
They were not taught that way. A mathematics instructor commented during
the summer instructor's meeting,
But I also grew up with the lecture method, and I don't think I've ever
had a class in my life where I wasn't lectured to most of the time. So,
it's hard to change your style. It really is. (June, 1996)
The same science instructor quoted at the beginning of this paragraph later
... I feel that discipline faculty like myself will not be able to transform
either themselves or their classes overnight. We tend to be attracted to
our disciplines because we think the discipline itself (the "content")
is inherently interesting and valuable. ... So many of the things we are
being asked to do in this project do not come naturally to us. We need time
to adjust. (December, 1994)
Thus, these MCTP instructors were trying to move away from the way they
were taught. However, this issue of learning to teach remains one of the
challenges many MCTP instructors face.
One way many MCTP instructors are dealing with these issues of legitimacy
and competence is by talking with their colleagues from other departments.
The science instructor quoted in the previous paragraph reported that he
had been in frequent contact with a science educator at his institution.
Another science instructor said,
... if we're teaching something we don't know, we ought to go ask somebody
in another field and say, "I'm going in this direction. What can you
do to give me some suggestions?" (June, 1996)
Another science instructor added,
I think the key is finding somebody else to bounce your course outline off
of and say, "Is there some place particularly where I could explore
developing ____?" I like the idea of trying to see if there are new
mathematics concepts and skills that we can somehow ... find an appropriate
place in our course to see that something good could come from this rather
than just an application. (June, 1996)
Thus, the cross-discipline collaboration among MCTP instructors seems to
have become an important part of their professional lives.
It appears that the MCTP university/college faculty members have developed
a renewed sense of respect and appreciation for each other and each other's
discipline. At the same time, they are still struggling with a number of
issues. One such issue that is of particular interest to mathematics educators
is the nature of mathematics in relationship to science. On the one hand,
there is a tendency/desire on the part of mathematics instructors to treat
mathematics as a distinct and independent discipline of its own right. This
perspective reflected the concern on the part of mathematicians and mathematics
educators that science instructors would simply treat mathematics as a tool
and "the nature of what mathematics is is very often not explored in
science" (mathematics instructor, June, 1995). On the other hand, there
is also a perspective that mathematics is a science;
We've always said that mathematics was the queen of all sciences, and some
of us even say that we want to talk about the mathematical sciences. So,
I think we ourselves are part of science. (mathematics instructor, June,
In between these points of view was the concern that "math is more
than just its connections to science" (math instructor, June, 1995).
Thus, it appears that participation in the MCTP project has raised a fundamental
question among mathematicians and mathematics educators concerning their
own discipline, as well as the nature of the relationship between mathematics
and science. Most, if not all, mathematics instructors agree that mathematics-science
connections are important and useful; however, many appear to be grappling
with the nature of these connections. Is there something special about the
connections between mathematics and science that are not shared by connections
between mathematics and, for example, economics? The quote at the beginning
of this manuscript seems to imply that the answer to this question is yes.
On the other hand, the recommendations of the NCTM Standards seem
to take a broader perspective of the notion of connections. Thus, the nature
of the relationship between mathematics and science appears to be an open
question not just among the MCTP project participants. As we continue to
gather data from these participants, we hope to be able to document how
this issue is considered by these participants.
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language learning and values.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards
for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.
Rutherford, F.J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.
Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9-15.
Faculty Interview Protocols
1 To what extent is the instruction in your class planned to highlight connections
between mathematics and science?
2 To what extent will this class involve the application of technology,
such as e-mail, CDs, computers, calculators, etc.?
3 To what extent will you make significant attempts to access your students'
prior knowledge of a topic before instruction? What techniques will you
4 To what extent do the tests and exams stress reasoning, logic, and understanding
over the memorization of facts and procedures?
5 In what ways do you think your teaching models the type of teaching that
you believe should be done in grades four through nine?
6 To what extent will you explicitly encourage your students to reflect
on changes in their ideas about topics in your class?
Reflecting over this semester's MCTP class, what new thoughts do you have
on these areas (Question 1-6):
1 instruction planned to highlight connection among math and the science?
2 instruction involving the application of technologies
3 need to access students' prior knowledge of a topic before instruction
4 use of assessment techniques that stress reasoning, logic and understanding
as opposed to memorization of facts and procedures.
5 modelling the type of teaching that you believe should be done in grades
6 need to explicitly encourage your students to reflect on changes in their
ideas in the class
7 Reflecting back, have you seen what you have learned and experienced with
MCTP courses and experiences come through in any other professional areas?
8 Reflecting over your course, what are the pieces unique to MCTP that stand
out in your mind that worked well or that you might change?
9 Projecting into the future, do you have plans to teach another MCTP course?
10 How do you feel about teaching another MCTP course?
11 Has your involvement with MCTP enabled you to make connections with other
12 What kinds of things that have been part of the MCTP project have provided
support to you or have contributed to your wanting to continue in the project?
13 What constraints?