Pinhole Camera Design Challenge Instructor Notes. Jill Marshall ...

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 1
Design Challenge Instructor Notes
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
Pinhole
Camera
Design
Challenge
Instructor
Notes.
Jill
Marshall,
Gretchen
Edelmon,
Adaptation
suggested
by
Carter
Tiernan
Note:
Please
send
suggested
corrections/revisions
to
marshall@mail.utexas.edu­
especially
if
you
have
used
or
will
use
the
activity
in
class.)
Summary:
The
pinhole
camera
design
challenge
is
designed
to
be
carried
out
during
1‐2
class
periods
in
Classroom
Interactions
with
the
goals
of:
• Demonstrating
an
interdisciplinary
STEM
learning
opportunity
• Developing
student
awareness
of
design
process
(engineering
practice)
• Encouraging
consideration
of
lesson
planning
as
a
design
activity
• Creating
a
finished
product
with
authentic
use
to
teachers
• Engaging
students
Students
are
expected
to
work
in
groups
of
2‐3
based
on
expected
teaching
content
areas,
i.e.,
future
math
teachers
together,
future
biology
teachers
together,
etc..
The
goal
is
for
each
team
to
design
a
pinhole
camera
for
use
in
their
own
future
classrooms
from
affordable
materials.
Students
are
expecting
to
(1)
describe
a
lesson
in
which
the
camera
will
be
used,
(2)
document
needs
and
specifications,
(3)
create
a
plan
including
a
scale
drawing
and
materials
list,
(4)
build
and
document
a
prototype,
(5)
test
the
prototype
on
randomly
selected
classmates,
documenting
the
results
of
the
test,
(6)
document
a
plan
for
revisions
and
(7)
submit
the
documentation
of
the
entire
project
for
review.

The
class
will
reflect
on
the
design
process,
propose
steps
for
the
design
procedure,
and
compare
the
steps
with
the
UTeachEngineering
design
process.
Suggested
Materials
(per
team)
‐ 1
roll
black
electrical
tape,
1
roll
transparent
tape
‐ Black
construction
paper
‐ White
construction
paper
or
card
stock
‐ Pair
of
scissors
‐ I
paper
towel
roll
‐ 2
sheets
of
velum
paper
‐ Poster
sticky
adhesive
‐ meter
stick
and
small
ruler
‐ gridded
paper/engineering
pad
‐ calculators
‐ various
boxes/containers
(e.g.,
shoe
boxes,
oatmeal
canisters,
cereal
boxes,
soft
drink
cartons,
standard
cardboard
shipping
boxes,
etc.)
Teacher
will
also
need
needles,
hole
punch,
compasses
etc.,
to
make
pinholes,
for
the
entire
class,
as
well
as
images
to
project
if
there
is
no
access
to
windows.
Suggested
schedule
for
implementation
in
Classroom
Interactions
Divide
into
teaching
area
groups.
Preview
day
5
min:
Think/pair/share
or
quick
write:
What
is
the
difference
between
science
and
engineering?
OR
How
is
what
engineers
do
different
from
what
scientists
do?
OR
What
does
it
mean
to
do
engineering?
1

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 1
Design Challenge Instructor Notes
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
5
min:
Introduction
of
the
challenge:
Teachers
often
need
specialized
equipment
and
rarely
have
much
funding
to
acquire
it.
One
thing
that
I
(JM)
have
needed
is
a
pinhole
camera
for
use
in
my
physics
class.
Past
CI
students
have
needed
them
for
geometry
lessons.
[If
possible,
demo
examples]
10
min:
Pair
share:
If
you
were
using
a
pinhole
camera
in
class,
would
it
be
better
to
purchase/build
high
quality
cameras
or
allow
students
to
build
simpler,
less
well
constructed
ones?
Would
you
have
students
build
a
really
nice
set
to
leave
in
the
classroom
(each
student
signing
her
work)
or
should
students
build
their
own
and
take
it
with
them?
How
would
you
decide?
What
‘big
idea’
in
your
content
area
can
be
illustrated
using
a
pinhole
camera?
Jigsaw
homework
assignment
(each
group
divides
the
tasks
and
leaves
class
with
an
agreement):
Research
pinhole
cameras
on
the
Internet
and
post
the
URL
of
one
reference
site
on
the
class
web
site.
Post
a
paragraph
description
of
a
lesson
in
which
you
would
use
a
pinhole
camera
in
your
content
area.
Post
a
paragraph
or
sketch
illustrating
how
a
pinhole
camera
works.
Class
day:
5
min:
Presentation
of
available
materials,
design
constraints,
testing
conditions,
documentation
requirements.
[Note:
If
students
develop
their
own
needs/specification
documentation,
more
time
will
be
required.]
10
min:
Students
review
available
materials
and
create
a
scale
drawing
of
their
proposed
prototype
with
dimensions.
Upon
presentation
of
the
drawing
to
instructors,
a
random
team
member
is
selected
to
explain
the
drawing.
Upon
successful
explanation,
the
team
receives
its
materials.
20
min:
Build
prototype,
test,
revise
(documenting
process),
retest,
revise
as
needed.
(Groups
who
finish
early
can
devise
a
second
model.)
10
min:
Whole
class
camera
test.
A
randomly
selected
member
of
each
team
will
be
selected
to
test
each
camera
on
a
previously
unseen
image.
If
a
different
image
is
available
for
each
team,
the
image
can
be
read/described
aloud.
If
there
is
only
one
image,
the
viewer
sketches
the
image
on
a
card
and
then
cards
are
read/displayed
on
a
document
camera.
5
min:
think/pair/share:
What
steps
were
necessary
to
design
the
camera?
To
design
anything?
5
min
(or
for
homework):
Compare
each
group’s
design
steps
with
those
in
the
UTeachEngineering
design
process.
Describe
possible
improvements
to
camera
design
and
revisions
to
classroom
activity.
Describe
the
difference
between
a
5E
lesson
and
a
design
lesson,
reflecting
on
original
description
of
differences
between
scientists
and
engineers.
Homework
Assignment:
Turn
in
revised
and
annotated
documentation
of
the
process
(one
per
student
or
jigsaw
sections).
Possible
reading
assignment:
Barnett
(2005).
Teacher
Notes:
1.
Suggested
uses
for
the
pinhole
camera
in
high
school
classes:
2

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 1
Design Challenge Instructor Notes
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
‐ Geometry:
demonstrating
applications
of
similar
triangles,
trig
functions,
ratios
‐ Physics:
basic
optics
lessons
on
properties
of
light
and
image
formation
‐ Chemistry
(version
with
film
paper):
optical
excitation
of
molecules
‐ Biology:
operation
of
human
physiological
systems
(w
added
lens
as
a
model
of
the
eye),
demonstration
of
variation
within
species
(viewing
range
to
face
size
ratios)
2.
This
activity
can
be
linked
to
the
UTeachEngineering
high
school
curriculum
module
tied
to
the
historical
development
of
imagers
and
culminating
in
the
development
of
an
aerial
camera.
3.
Depending
on
the
audience,
you
might
want
to
have
sample
models
available
for
the
students
to
view
as
scaffolding.
4.
Students
can
either
design
their
own
performance
requirements
or
you
can
determine
them,
depending
on
the
time
available.
For
an
indoor
environment,
the
target
‘object’
can
be
an
image
projected
on
an
overhead
screen.
Should
be
0.5‐1m
in
height
when
projected.
Viewing
distance
can
be
set
at
a
convenient
number
of
meters
away.

Viewing
of
more
distant
objects
(scenes)
can
be
done
through
a
window
or
outside
the
classroom
(looking
outward
from
a
shaded
area
onto
a
lit
area.)
5.
Students
can
make
a
reflection
(shoe
box)
camera
or
a
transmission
(oatmeal
canister)
camera.
In
the
reflection
model,
the
pinhole
and
the
viewing
aperture
are
on
the
same
side
of
the
camera
box.
The
viewer
is
facing
directly
away
from
the
target
object
looking
into
the
camera
box
through
the
viewing
aperture.
It
is
important
that
the
pinhole
be
far
enough
away
from
the
viewing
aperture
not
to
be
blocked
by
the
viewer’s
head,
but
close
enough
to
the
viewing
aperture
that
the
image
on
the
opposite
(inner)
wall
of
the
camera
box
is
within
the
viewer’s
field
of
view.
In
the
transmission
camera,
the
opaque
(velum/wax
paper/clear
plastic
like
oat
meal
canister
lid))
viewing
screen
is
between
the
eye
and
the
pinhole,
which
is
pointed
directly
at
the
target
object.
6.
It
will
be
necessary
to
block
light
from
entering
the
camera
other
than
through
the
pinhole.
It
will
be
helpful
to
have
a
white
surface
inside
the
box
where
the
image
will
form.
7.
This
activity
can
be
reworked
as
a
5E
lesson
asking
students
how
their
eyes
work
or
what
an
image
will
look
like
through
a
pinhole,
guiding
students
to
build
the
system
and
explore,
and
then
build
a
physical
model
to
share
with
classmates
showing
how
the
image
is
formed.
8.
Accommodations
for
students
with
visual
impairment
might
include
building
(or
having
your
students
build)
a
physical
model
using
string
or
dowels
to
represent
rays
of
light.
9.
Additional
reflections
might
include
comparing
the
design
of
a
physical
object
with
the
design
of
a
process,
or
the
design
of
a
lesson.
10.
Alternate
version:
On
the
preview
day
have
students
think/pair/share
on
differences
between
science
and
engineering,
and
debate
the
value
of
design
in
learning
science
and
mathematics.
As
homework,
students
read
Barnett
(2005)
and
respond
to
focus
questions.
3

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 1
Design Challenge Instructor Notes
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
At
the
beginning
of
the
main
activity
day,
present
the
challenge:
A
physics
teacher
needs
pinhole
cameras
for
her
class
to
use
later
that
same
day.
She
needs
at
least
four,
and
has
only
cereal
boxes,
soda
can
boxes,
and
oatmeal
canisters
from
which
to
make
them,
along
with
electrical
tape,
black
construction
paper
and
some
tracing
paper.
A
random
student
must
be
able
to
‘read’
a
target
image
projected
using
PowerPoint.
Briefly
demonstrate
the
principles
by
which
the
pinhole
camera
works‐
basically
just
showing
that
light
travels
in
a
straight
line
until
it
hits
something.
The
light
and
color
unit
from
Physics
by
Inquiry
volume
I
(McDermott
&
the
UW
PEG,
1996)
is
an
excellent
resource,
but
the
essence
can
be
conveyed
by
a
diagram
or
a
physical
model
using
yarn
or
dowels
to
represent
light
rays.
Show
examples,
including
one
transmission
and
one
reflection
design.
Students
have
25
minutes
to
construct
and
test
their
designs.
For
the
final
test
randomly
selected
students
read
three
random
letters
from
a
PowerPoint
image
using
each
of
the
cameras.
Students
brainstorm
elements
necessary
for
the
design
process
and
compare
with
the
UTeachEngineering
model.
For
homework,
students
reflect
on
the
process
and
develop
their
own
specifications
for
a
camera
to
be
used
in
their
prospective
classrooms.
Supplementary
Resources:
Online
resources
for
theory
and
background
are:
http://photo.net/learn/pinhole/pinhole
http://theartofphotography1.blogspot.com/2009/07/camera‐obscura‐pre‐history‐of.html
http://www.pinhole.cz/en/pinholecameras/whatis.html
http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/stilphotography.htm
http://www.pinholeday.org/
These
two
links
are
good
for
opening
discussions
because
they
show
the
camera
obscura
on
a
HUGE
scale.
• This
article
from
National
Geographic, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/cameraobscura/oneill‐text
,
includes
a many
examples
of
full
room
camera
obscura
images
and
a short
video
showing
how
a
group
of
people
transformed
an
office
into
a
camera
obscura.
• A
giant
camera
obscura
was
created
as
part
of
the
Legacy
Photo
Project
and
is
described
in
the
following
two
links.
http://www.legacyphotoproject.com/
video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=‐8711483461517692046#
Peer
reviewed:
4

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 1
Design Challenge Instructor Notes
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
Alley
Jr.,
R.E.
(1980).
The
camera
obscura
in
science
and
art.
The
Physics
Teacher,
18,
632‐638.
Barnett,
M.
(2005).
Engaging
Inner
City
Students
in
Learning
Through
Designing
Remote
Operated
Vehicles.
Journal
of
Science
Education
and
Technology,
14(1),
87‐100.
Greenslade,
T.B
(2011).
The
opaque
projector:
The
opposite
of
the
camera
obscura.
The
Physics
Teacher,
49(4)
241.
Oliver,
D.L.,
&
Kane,
J.
(2011).
Engineering
design
modules
as
physics
teaching
tools.
The
Physics
Teacher,
49(4)
242‐245.
Wosilait,
K.,
Heron,
P.R.L.,
Shaffer,
P.S.
&
McDermott,
L.C.
(1998).
Development
and
assessment
of
a
research‐based
tutorial
on
light
and
shadow,
American
Journal
of
Physics,
66
(10),
906‐913.
McDermott,
L.C.
and
the
Physics
Education
Group
at
the
University
of
Washington
(1996).
Physics
by
Inquiry
Volume
I,
(Light
and
Color,
Section
3,
p.239)
New
York:
John
Wiley
and
Sons.
5

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 2
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Design Challenge Syllabus
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
EDC 365D: Classroom Interactions, Fall 2011 (Unique # )
Instructor: Jill Marshall, marshall@mail.utexas.edu, SZB 462E, 232-9685 (office) 476-1576 (home,
emergencies only), Office Hours: TTH 11-12 or call/email me and set up a time.
Master Teacher: Kelli Allen
TA: Adam Castillo
Course web site: Blackboard (courses.utexas.edu)
Course packet: Available at Speedway Copying in Dobie Mall (lowest floor, east side of the building).
The price is $???. Many of the journal articles are also available online from the UT Library; others will
be posted in the readings folder on Blackboard.
SAFETY TRAINING: All students planning to teach in science classrooms (or math classrooms where
chemicals might be used) must complete two safety courses (OH 101, Hazard Communication, and OH
201, Laboratory Safety) before teaching a lesson plan involving chemicals of any kind. To register for the
courses go to: http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/train/courses.html#oh101
ACCOMMODATIONS: The University of Texas at Austin provides upon request appropriate academic
accommodations for qualified students with disabilities. Division of Diversity and Community
Engagement, Services for Students with Disabilities. For more information, call 471-6259 or 471-4641
TTY. Your instructors consider providing accommodations to be more than a legal responsibility; meeting
students’ needs is the heart of good teaching. We are willing to find alternative ways for you to meet any
of the course requirements. If you have any special needs, let us know.
PREREQUISITES: Knowing and Learning is a prerequisite for this course. This course builds on
experiences from that course. In particular, you should have conducted and analyzed a number of clinical
interviews in science and mathematics and be familiar with major viewpoints on what it means to know
science or mathematics and how people learn mathematics and science. If you have not completed Knowing
and Learning, you should talk with one of the instructors.
COURSE GOALS
• To make prospective teachers aware of multiple models of teaching (including direct instruction, inquiry
teaching and design challenges); affordances and limitations of each; what each requires of teachers.
• To deepen students’ understanding of mathematics, science, and engineering.
• To allow prospective teachers to explore ways of probing student understanding through authentic
assessment and student artifacts and enhancing student understanding through lesson plans built around
models of how people learn.
• To make prospective teachers aware of equity and diversity issues in classroom teaching and ways of
ensuring that all students have an opportunity to learn.
• To make students aware of the proficiencies for certification recognized by UTeach and SBEC and
facilitate students’ demonstration and documentation of these through their development of a professional
portfolio (https://uteach.utexas.edu/go/uteachweb/Information/Current-Undergraduate-UTeach-
Students/Portfolio), including familiarity with the Texas Teacher Code of Ethics.
• To develop students’ capacity to identify and evaluate best teaching practices as presented in research
literature.
COURSE OBJECTIVES – Students will:
EDC 365D Classroom Interactions, Spring 2010 Page 1
1

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
1. Observe, analyze, and discuss how students' knowledge and skills can be built using a variety of
instructional strategies (including direct instruction, inquiry teaching, and use of small groups),
understand what each model requires of teachers.
2. Solve problems in science and mathematics and justify their solutions, reflecting on their own
learning and the learning of others and relating results to learning science, demonstrating awareness
of alternative conceptions and their possible origins.
3. Students will participate in and analyze a design challenge.
4. Create and evaluate tasks to build students' content knowledge and assess students' content
knowledge based on evidence including video and written artifacts.
5. Observe and analyze classroom instruction and data on student participation and performance with
regard to equitable and diverse participation (whether all students have an opportunity to learn).
6. Plan and teach, with a small group of peers, multi-day high school mathematics/science lessons on
an assigned topic in a manner that is entirely consistent with the Code of Ethics and Standard
Practices for Texas Educators.
7. Submit digital videotapes of multi-day lessons for community review by peers and instructor.
8. Employ relevant technologies in teaching (e.g., presentation, computer simulation, and graphical
analysis & representation software); analyze how technology can affect classroom interactions.
9. Read and analyze research results and theoretical literature in science education and cite these
results in analyses of their own teaching and reports to their peers.
10. Create a significant portion of their preliminary portfolios and demonstrate beginning competency
as measured by applicable teacher certification standards, including the Code of Ethics and
Standard Practices for Texas Educators.
CLASS REQUIREMENTS
Handout - 2
Design Challenge Syllabus
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
Code of Ethics. During this semester you will be acting as the instructor of a high school class (or classes). As
such you will be required to follow the Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators. Violation
of any portion of this code may result in penalties, including possible grade reduction and loss of course credit
(See http://www.tcta.org/capital/sbec/codeapproved.htm.)
Class meetings. The class will typically meet twice per week. Class participation is required and will
determine a portion of your grade for the course. Students who are unable to attend class should review
Blackboard and contact the TA or the instructor to find out what they missed and negotiate the possibility of
making up the work. Makeup work should be submitted within 1 week of the missed class unless otherwise
negotiated.
Work outside of class. Students are expected to devote 7 hours per week outside of class to: 1) watching,
processing, and analyzing videos of classroom interactions (including your own teaching), 2) reading and
analyzing books and articles, and preparing written analyses of your teaching and other issues and 3)
preparing to teach in local schools, including observing in the classrooms where you will teach. We have
arranged an additional hour per week of scheduled class time to give you an opportunity to work with your
teaching teams and master teachers.
Field Experience. A major portion of this course is the field experience. You will interview and observe
classroom teachers and teach twice in high school classrooms. The teacher interview will be Feb. 3 at 4:30 at
Crockett High School. At that time you will schedule your observations. The first teaching experience will be
during the week of ????. The second will be a two-day teach (MW or TTh) during the week of ????. We will
make every effort to schedule you to teach at times that do not conflict with your other courses or obligations,
but it may not be possible to do this in all cases. Since this is official university business, it will count as an
excused absence, but you will be required to make up any work that you miss. I will supply your instructors or
EDC 365D Classroom Interactions, Spring 2010 Page 2
2

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
supervisors with a letter explaining the excused absence. Please notify the course staff of any conflicts as
soon as possible so that we can try to work out an arrangement.
GRADE DETERMINATION
In-class, online and other participation: 28%
Preparation and implementation of model teaching: 36% (lesson plans, observations, implementation)
Formal Analyses and Reflections: 36% (15% each for Teach 1 and Teach 2 analyses, 6% for Equity
Poster Session contribution)
Plus and Minus grades will be assigned.
I do not accept late work unless you contact me or the TA and negotiate a change in the assignment.
ACADEMIC HONESTY: Students who violate University rules on scholastic dishonesty are subject to
disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course and/or dismissal from The
University. Since such dishonesty harms the individual, all students, and the integrity of The University,
policies on scholastic dishonesty will be strictly enforced. Any material that you include that is not in your
own words must be in quotation marks, with a clear citation as to the source, including a page number if
appropriate. Likewise, you should give credit for ideas that originate from another source, by citing the
author and the year, regardless of whether the idea is presented in your own words. Using another
person’s words or ideas (including words and ideas from the Internet!) without due credit is plagiarism
and is a violation of University rules.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Revisions may be required due to schedule changes in our cooperating schools - please check
Blackboard regularly for updates and changes!
Date Topic/Activities Activities/Readings for Today Due Today
Wed.
• Introductions
• Syllabus
• Subtraction task
• Pick up Course Packet at Speedway
Copying in Dobie Mall or download
readings.
•
Mon.
Wed.
Mon.
Wed.
Wed. 4:30
PM
Mon.
• Knowledge
Packages; Knowing
& Teaching STEM
• Model Design
Challenge
• Lesson planning
models
• Managing instruction
• Meet in the library
at Crockett HS
4:30-6:00 PM
• Questioning and
Assessment
Handout - 2
Design Challenge Syllabus
• Ma (1999)
• Barnett (2005)
• Lawson (2002)
• UTeach field policies
• Tauber (2007) (online reading)
• Management strategies
• Interview with mentor teacher
• Manouchehri & Lapp (2003)
• Rowe (1986)
• One minute papers
• Designing questions & assessments
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
• Blackboard
posting
• 5E lesson plan
from Step 1-2
• Blackboard post
• Group Contract
• Safety training
• Bring interview
questions
• Teacher
Interview
• Objectives for
lesson
EDC 365D Classroom Interactions, Spring 2010 Page 3
3

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 2
Design Challenge Syllabus
Date Topic/Activities Activities/Readings for Today Due Today
Wed.
• Work Day (lesson
planning, Obs.1)
•
Mon. • Round Robin teach • Teach your lesson to your colleagues
Wed. • Round Robin teach • Teach your lesson to colleagues
Mon.-Thu. • TEACH 1 • NO CLASS; Teach at Crockett
Fri.
Mon.
Wed.
Mon.
Wed.
Mon.
Wed.
• Optional; video
transfer, 8:00-4:00
• Artifact Analysis
• Collaborative
learning
• Students learning in a
second language
• Accommodations for
students with special
needs
• Orchestrating
discussion
• Work Day (lesson
planning, student
interview)
• Sign up for a slot if you want help
processing your video
• You will present artifacts from the first
teach
• Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994)
• Dong (2005), Dong (2009)
• Magnet school admissions
• Misunderstood Minds
• Pierson (2009)
• One minute papers
• Transcript analysis
•
Mon. • Round Robin teach • Teach your lesson to your colleagues
• Obs 1: Class
Environment
• Draft LP1 due
Thursday 2/11
5PM
• Final LP1
• Obs 2: Lesson
structure
• Remember your
mini-DV tape
•
• Bring video and
other artifacts
• Blackboard post
• Draft of Teach 1
Analysis (opt)
• Evaluation of
collaborative
lesson
• Final Teach 1
Analysis due
3/11 by 5PM
• Accommodations
for LP
• Strategies for
ELLS
• Draft LP2 due
Friday at noon
• Obs 3: Student
Interview
Wed. • Round Robin teach • Teach your lesson to colleagues • Final LP2
Mon.- Thu. • TEACH 2 • No class: teach at Crockett
Mon.
Wed.
• Effective use of
technology
• Work Day,
Portfolio and teach
2 analysis
• Teach 2 debrief
• Simulation or Geometer’s Sketchpad
activity
•
Mon. • Dialog analysis • Teach 2 Video Presentations
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
• Remember to
bring a mini DV
tape
•
Portfolio due by
5PM
• Bring video to
class
•
EDC 365D Classroom Interactions, Spring 2010 Page 4
4

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Handout - 2
Design Challenge Syllabus
Date Topic/Activities Activities/Readings for Today Due Today
Wed. • Dialog analysis • Teach 2 Video Presentations
Mon.
Wed.
Mon.
Wed.
• Gender differences in
math/science
learning
• Systemic effects on
students
• Class and cultural
expectations
• Debrief/ Prepare for
poster session
• Ben Zeev et al. (2005)
• Gender differences
• Ed Trust (2008)
• School funding presentation
• Anyon (1980), Rothstein (2004)
• In class debate
• •
Final Exam • We will meet in SZB 316
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
• Bring video to
class
• Draft Teach 2
Analysis by 5PM
•
• Blackboard
posting
• Teach 2 Analysis
by 5PM 4/29
•
• Equity Poster
Session
EDC 365D Classroom Interactions, Spring 2010 Page 5
5

Jill Marshall &
Gretchen Edelmon
Reading List
Handout - 2
Design Challenge Syllabus
UTeach Institute - NMSI Annual Conference
Austin, TX / May 24 – 26, 2011
Anyon, J. (1980) Excerpt from “Social class and the hidden curriculum of work.” Downloaded from
http://cuip.uchicago.edu/~cac/nlu/fnd510fall09/anyon.htm, 12/28/09
Barnett, M. (2005). Engaging inner city students in learning through designing remote operated vehicles.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 87-100.
Ben-Zeev, T. et al. (2005). “Math is hard!” (Barbie, 1994). In A.M.Gallagher & J.C. Kaufman (Eds).
Gender differences in mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p.189-206).
Dong, Y.R. (2005). Getting at the content. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 14-19.
Dong, Y.R. (2009). Linking to prior learning. Educational Leadership, 66(7) 26-31.
Education Trust (2008). Their fare share. Downloaded 12/28/09 from
www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/TXTheirFairShare.pdf
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., and Holubec, E. (1994). Chapter 3: Essential components of cooperative
learning. In The New Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom and School (25-35).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Lawson, A.E. (2002). The learning cycle. In R.G. Fuller (Ed). A love of discovery: Science education, the
second career of Robert Karplus. New York: Kluwer Academic(p.51-62).
Ma, Liping (1999). Chapter 1: Subtraction with Regrouping. In Knowing and teaching elementary
mathematics (pp.1- 27) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Manouchehri, A., & Lapp, D. (2003). Unveiling student understanding: The role of questioning in
instruction. Mathematics Teacher, 96 (8), 562-566.
Pierson, J. (2009). Responsiveness and intellectual work: Characteristics of teachers’ discourse that
influence student learning, draft submitted to the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and the classroom. American School Board Journal, 191(10), 17-21.
Rowe, M.B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher
Education, 37(1), 43-50.
You will also read additional articles describing research on student thinking and/or teacher
strategies in the particular subject areas that you are assigned for Teach 1 and Teach 2 and on the
topic you select for the equity poster session. A list of sample articles will be posted, but you are also
welcome to identify articles on your own.
EDC 365D Classroom Interactions, Spring 2010 Page 6
6