Teacher Education Annotated Report Excerpts

Excerpt 1 [Los Angeles Collaborative]

Provides an overview of project purpose and organization

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded the Los Angeles Collaborative for Teacher Excellence (LACTE) to address the issue of strengthening science and math education. LACTE brings together five four-year institutions and five community colleges in a consortium to address the shortage of both qualified math and science teachers and the quality of instruction in elementary, middle, and senior high schools. Each of the four-year institutions is partnered with a community college.

Provides an overview of the evaluation purpose, scope, and data collection methods

The Evaluation and Training Institute (ETI) is conducting an independent, third-party evaluation of the Los Angeles Collaborative for Teacher Excellence. This report examines the progress made by LACTE in Year One and provides major qualitative and quantitative findings. Evaluation activities in Year One include focus groups, interviews, site visits, written surveys, and document review.

Formal program elements examined by ETI staff include: development of the collaborative; faculty recruitment and development; curriculum development; and student recruitment.

Development of the Collaborative

Summarizes formative findings about project implementation

In Year One, LACTE put considerable effort into forming a collaborative that involves the ten LACTE campuses. Forming a collaborative in the Los Angeles area across ten campuses proved to be a complex undertaking. A number of LACTE programs throughout the year involved faculty from all LACTE institutions. Campuses began to form relationships with their partnered institutions, however the strength of these relationships was not universal across the institutions.

College of Education faculty and elementary and secondary teachers have generally not been brought into the collaborative. LACTE campuses are at different stages of implementing LACTE reforms and campuses are implementing the reforms in unique ways. Faculty expressed a need to have more information on how LACTE is being implemented on other campuses and in the collaborative as a whole.

Faculty Development and Recruitment

Faculty development is one of the strongest aspects of LACTE in Year One. Almost 80 percent of faculty surveyed indicated that faculty workshops met or exceeded their expectations. In addition, over 85 percent of faculty surveyed indicated that they were "likely" or "definitely likely" to use the techniques acquired in the workshops in their classrooms in the future. While a group of four-year institutions and community colleges are consistently well-represented at the workshops and other LACTE programs, other campuses do not have a strong presence. Faculty at four-year institutions without a strong presence suggested the need for more discipline-specific experts at LACTE programs. In addition, junior faculty expressed some concern about the effect of joining LACTE on tenure efforts.

Curriculum Development

In Year One, LACTE established course/module development guidelines and procedures. A few LACTE campuses had new courses that were approved or were in the process of approval. Some LACTE campuses have made considerable progress in curriculum development while other campuses are at the beginning stages. At the same time, surveyed faculty indicated that they were being successfully trained in new teaching techniques, including new classroom assessment techniques, and were using the new techniques in their classrooms. Faculty would like more discussion on the use of technology in reformed courses. The review of elementary and secondary programs was not a focus in Year One.

Student Recruitment

In Year One, different campuses devoted varying levels of energy to student recruitment. At some campuses, administrators and faculty expressed the need to establish LACTE in Year One before focusing on student recruitment. A sub-committee on student recruitment met regularly in Year One and began to develop a formal strategic plan for LACTE student recruitment, including minority student recruitment. Campuses are at different stages in developing their own recruitment plans that respond to their particular student bodies. On campuses with strong student involvement, faculty have implemented a variety of interesting and unique programs for students. Students involved in LACTE reported positive experiences. Students would like more opportunities for internships, including teaching assistantships at local schools.

Recommendations

Summarizes recommendations

ETI believes that there are specific recommendations that, when implemented, will enhance the various program dimensions of LACTE and strengthen LACTE overall in Years Two through Five.

Among ETl's recommendations are that LACTE:

• Include K-12 teachers as participants in future workshops and other LACTE activities.
• Provide more discipline-specific experts presenting information at LACTE faculty development programs.
• Encourage all LACTE campuses in the revision of their curriculum.
• Include student and classroom assessment in the guidelines for the revision of courses.
• Promote interaction between College of Education and math/science faculty.
• Emphasize dissemination efforts at LACTE meetings. In addition, LACTE coordinators should develop an institutionalization plan that includes a time line and the assignment of specific responsibilities.
• Further develop the LACTE Web site and use it as a tool for internal and external dissemination of information.
• Continue development of a LACTE-wide student recruitment plan as well as individual campus recruitment plans.
• Vigorously market reformed courses to targeted students.
• Expand internships and other experiential learning experiences to more students.
• Provide an opportunity for individual campuses' students and faculty to share information on student activities on their campus.

Excerpt 2 [Arizona Collaborative]

Provides evaluation overview

The Modeling Instruction project is now in its second year of implementation at participating high schools. Formative evaluation of the project is conducted at two levels: (1) externally, by <name of person> of the University of Minnesota, and (2) internally, by <name of person>, in collaboration with the project staff, and with the assistance of<name of person> and <name of person>. <name of person> has visited the two workshop sites this summer, and prepared an independent external evaluation report based on her observations. This document constitutes the internal evaluation report of the project.

Describes data collection methods

Describes instruments used

During the 1995-96 academic year, data were collected from participating teachers and their students for internal formative evaluation. Teacher data consist of participant responses on two surveys given during the 1996 summer workshop. Student data consist of responses on two instruments, the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and the Views About Sciences Survey (VASS), given as pretest and posttest during the 1995-96 academic year. These data are summarized and analyzed in this report.

They indicate that the Modeling Instruction project is already having a positive impact on physics education at participating schools.

Excerpt 3 [Rocky Mountain Collaborative]

Provides an overview of the project goals

Describes rationale of design

The evaluation activities during the past year correspond to the five goals of the strategic plan, Collaboration, Integration, Diversity, Research, and Evaluation and Dissemination and the objectives within each goal (Appendix A). All evaluation activities fit the criteria established by the National Science Foundation, which categorizes evaluation activities into formative implementation evaluation, formative progress evaluation, and summative evaluation. The internal evaluation was carried out by the RMTEC Evaluation Team composed of members from Colorado State University, Metropolitan State College of Denver, and the University of Northern Colorado.

Describes data collection methods

The evaluation team followed through on their plans by delivering formative implementation through the collection of CETP data within the collaborative for all institutions, collection of NSF requested demographics within the collaborative, and analysis of the student course checklist which is tied to the goals and objectives of the strategic plan. Formative progress evaluation was delivered by, in addition to those activities mentioned under formative implementation evaluation, evaluating course changes using a faculty "value added" survey, performing a survey with students who have received diversity scholarships to assess progress among these students and their perception of the RMTEC courses/program, interviewing induction year teachers, interviewing principal investigators on efforts of institutionalization, interviewing Teachers-in-Residence, conducting focus groups on selected courses, evaluating faculty development workshops, and evaluating student achievement. Summative evaluation was delivered with an emphasis on CETP data, NSF requested demographics, student course checklist, and student achievement.

Highlights of the RMTEC program as determined by the Evaluation Team during the past year are as follows:

Summarizes findings

• Student and faculty participation. Over 1,000 students participated in RMTEC courses. Twenty-seven RMTEC courses were offered; 14 new. Thirty one different faculty offered new or revised RMTEC courses across the collaborative.

Presents project strengths and weaknesses

• Student reports. Substantial evidence is present in students' responses to indicate successful instruction on the part of RMTEC instructors. Students tended to report that RMTEC courses were being taught in a manner consistent with project activities. Students tended to perceive that cooperative learning groups and opportunities to discuss course concepts with other students occurred and benefited their learning. Instructors made efforts to take into account students' prior understandings and to help students critically analyze course concepts and connect them with other scientific and mathematical concepts. On the other hand, students did not consistently perceive the presence of collaboration with experienced public school teachers, and instructors may wish to consider ways in which they highlight the relevance of course concepts for students' everyday lives and professional aspirations.

Describes how effectiveness was judged

• Student achievement. Five different studies conducted with the support of RMTEC classes and instructors provide evidence that students taking RMTEC classes are, for the most part, performing better than students in traditional sections of similar classes or sections. These studies using experimental, quasi-experimental and cohort designs were performed in chemistry and mathematics courses at CSU, MSCD, and UNC.

Present project strengths

• Student scholars. All of the scholarship recipients felt that the scholarship had been helpful and meaningful. The student felt that the scholarship allowed them to work closely with RMTEC faculty, learn more about interactive learning, address diversity in the classroom, be in contact with students who have many of the same goals, and spend more time studying. Most remarked that the scholarship reduced financial stress, allowing them to concentrate on their studies, rather than having to work at other jobs to meet financial obligations.

• Institutionalization. RMTEC is perceived positively by those who have seen its implementation and those who are in line to implement its innovations in the out-years of the project. RMTEC curricular and instructional innovations appear to have "spread" in most departments where they have been implemented, and to a lesser extent into some departments where little or no funding has been provided. Long-term commitment in all areas has not been assured as yet.

Excerpt 4 [Oklahoma Collaborative]

Describes project goals and components

This report describes the activities and findings of the evaluation team for the Oklahoma Teacher Education Collaborative (O-TEC). We report preliminary findings concerning the four components of the O-TEC collaborative:

Creation of In-service and Pre-service Summer Academies: designed to increase pre-service and in-service teachers' willingness and ability to use hands-on inquiry-based teaching methods and to improve state-wide efforts to recruit a highly qualified and diverse array of individuals to careers in math and science education.

Creation of the Master-Teacher-in-Residence Position (MTIR): to have an individual to coordinate the reform and collaboration efforts of each institution.

Revision of Math and Science Teacher Education Curricula: to emphasize hands-on and inquiry-based education methods.

Facilitation of Collaboration: by individuals and groups within the same institution and by different educational institutions that contribute to teacher preparation in Oklahoma.

Summarizes findings and presents conclusions

General Findings and Recommendations

• Summer Academies
  
  
  • As a result of their experiences in the summer academies, participants reported higher levels of confidence in their abilities to use reform techniques such as hands-on, guided inquiry, and cooperative learning, in the classroom.
    
    
  • Participants reported lower levels of anxiety concerning math and science.
    
    
  • Participants reported higher levels of interest in pursuing a career in math and science education. These findings were particularly strong for high school students as compared with pre-service college students and in-service teachers.
    
    
  • Nearly all participants were quite satisfied with the summer program and enjoyed participating in the academies.

Presents recommendations

• Master-Teacher-in-Residence Position
  
  
  • As a vehicle for fostering collaboration and coordinating educational reform efforts, the MTIR position appears to be a successful innovation.
    
    
  • Collectively, the MTIRs are highly motivated, talented individuals who appear to have both the material resources and the personal enthusiasm to perform their jobs effectively.
    
    
  • Substantial variation was noted between sites concerning MTIR course loads -- this raised equity-related concerns with respect to MTIR job responsibilities and compensation. The MTIR is the driving force behind the O-TEC reforms at each site. This person's job responsibilities should reflect the need for this person to be committed to educational reform.
    
    
  • We recommend developing an MTIR succession plan to ensure that smooth transitions occur between each year of the grant. More continuity needs to be developed across different years of the grant with respect to staffing the MTIR position. Increased continuity will improve collaboration efforts and increase the likelihood that O-TEC reforms will be institutionalized.
    
    
  • MTIRs may benefit from further efforts to improve communication between the principal investigators and the MTIRs.

• Curriculum Reform
  
  
  • Curriculum reform efforts are under way at each institution. These efforts appear to be consistent with O-TEC goals and with the state-mandated 4 X 12 initiative.

Describes project strengths and weaknesses

• Collaboration
  
  
  • O-TEC initiatives have resulted in increased contacts between different higher education institutions, between different departments within institutions, and between school systems and higher education institutions.
    
    
  • Relationships between education and math and science departments ranged from instances of relatively little formal dialogue between departments to cases where the MTIR was located in the science department while maintaining strong ties with education faculty.
    
    
  • Substantial differences were noted concerning whether sites had any strategic plan in place to change the current levels of collaboration.
    
    
  • Challenges to collaboration include: institutional norms against cooperation among departments; lack of incentives for current non-participants to become involved; difficulties coordinating the actions of diverse institutions.
    
    
  • Further efforts are needed to coordinate the reform efforts of participating institutions. Reform seems to be taking place at all institutions, although through different mechanisms and at a different pace at each site. This suggests limited collaboration between institutions.

Summarizes formative results about project implementation

O-TEC has established a firm foundation in each of the institutions. The MTIRs have been effective in developing the summer academies, fostering collaboration and driving the curriculum reform. As a result of their efforts and the efforts of other participants, the first year of summer academies was a success. Further, all institutions have made progress toward curriculum reform and all have made progress toward fostering collaboration.

Presents conclusions and poses challenges

In our view, O-TEC has been successful at gaining participation from institutional stakeholders with a substantial prima facie interest in education reform. Thus, individuals and groups with substantial incentives to participate are on-board with the grant. The central challenge for the future will be to move beyond "preaching to the choir" and to gain the interest and participation of those parties at each institution who perceive little direct or tangible incentive for reform.

Presents conclusion and makes recommendation

O-TEC has successfully developed and implemented a coherent and broad-based strategy for teacher recruitment, educational reform, and fostering of collaboration within and among higher education institutions. We believe that a general next step would be to articulate and implement specific strategies for each phase of the grant. This activity will greatly enhance the likelihood that lasting reform will take place.

Excerpt 5 [Montana Collaborative]

Describes project features

The Systematic Teacher Excellence Preparation (STEP) Project uses a team approach to redesign mathematics and science content courses, and methods courses for pre-service teachers. Teams, which include faculty, graduate teaching assistants and K-12 teachers, have met regularly since 1993 to redesign or create undergraduate courses at five Montana University System campuses.

Course reforms are designed to align with research supporting "best practices."

A total of fifty-two courses were revised or created between 1993 and 1996. Descriptions of individual course initiatives, arranged by campus, are found in a Course Revision Catalogue available from the STEP project. Evaluation has included routine faculty team self-reports on progress and accomplishments. In addition, classroom observations, faculty interviews, and student interviews provided important course data.

Summarizes evaluation goals

During year four, as in the original proposal, evaluation activity was characterized by an expanded evaluation of the entire teacher preparation process and increased efforts for publication. These initiatives were selected as appropriate by the national advising committee. The purposes of the evaluation of the STEP project continue to be (1) documentation of the processes used by the project, (2) formative feedback to help the project accomplish its objectives, and (3) support for long-term institutionalization of project initiatives.

Summarizes data collection procedures

This year, as part of our plan, fieldwork included visits to each of the five Montana university system campuses and the seven partnership K-12 school sites. The evaluator attended most statewide project meetings, conferences, workshops and institutes, including one national collaborative meeting during year three. Reports and/or individual site visit notes were provided to project directors after each event.

Overviews project features

As planned, year four evaluation efforts have been expanded for teacher preparation. The four main activities involved in the teacher preparation component are (a) mathematics, science and education course revision at five Montana university system campuses, (b) student teacher training at seven K-12 partnership school field sites, (c) mentor support for rural early career teachers across Montana, and (d) recruitment and retention of teachers. The evaluation for each of these areas is outlined below:

Identifies evaluation instruments and summarizes data collection procedures

(a) University Course Revision
University course reform evaluation includes: (1) visits to all five Montana University System campuses; (2) class observations; (3) faculty interviews; (4) student interviews; (5) a STEP Revised Course catalogue; (6) faculty team surveys; and (7) demographics. In addition, a student survey was administered to all student enrolled in 31 STEP revised course Spring semester 1996.

Overviews findings

The result of this evaluation effort is a well-documented account of the course reform process and accomplishments. The project has evidence of the effects of course reform from faculty interviews and survey self-report; student interviews and survey; and class observations. The Spring 1996 Student Survey Report is found in the university course revision section of this report.

Describes stakeholder involvement with evaluation

One significant development is increased university faculty and K-12 teacher participation in course reform evaluation. For example, as evidenced in their campus narrative, Western Montana College faculty have begun to visit each others’ reform classes as peer observers. The observations were made within and between the mathematics and science departments. Also, Western Montana college and the University of Montana have arranged for area K-12 teachers to observe revised classes and share their findings with university course reform faculty teams. In addition, campus coordinators from three university sites are visiting revised classes at their home campuses and/or at other Montana campuses.

Describes formative purposes of evaluation that benefit stakeholders

Expanded class observations at all sites are designed to (1) involve more faculty and administrators in documentation of reforms; (2) increase dissemination of reform initiatives; (3) create an information base to educate peers about reforms; (4) support faculty interactions between campuses (especially for teams working on similar class revisions); and (5) recruit additional faculty at each site. This initiative will produce important evaluation data, while expanding faculty involvement, interaction and collaboration across the state. The project steering committee, with representatives present from each of the university campuses, endorsed this initiative at their February, October, and November meetings.

Describes data collection procedures

(b) K-12 Model School Sites
Model site evaluation occurred at each of the seven partnership school sites; the Diversity II Conference, April 1996); and the Statewide Partnership Conference, February 1997. The evaluator surveyed student teachers and cooperating mentor teachers, collected 1996 Partnership Narratives, and recorded demographics for student teachers, K-12 teachers and administrators. In addition, numerous informal meetings occurred with partnership site teachers and administrators via phone calls and METNET communication.

Describes stakeholder use of evaluation results

Evaluation information was used in the decision to generate the new model partnership plan for the K-12 schools and university campuses. A statewide meeting, March 18, 1996, introduced the partnership concept.

Overviews evaluation purpose and data collection procedures

Summarizes preliminary results

Assessment efforts are beginning to determine what kind of teachers are produced by this program. Fifty former STEP Student Teachers are now employed as teachers, 34 in Montana schools and 16 out-of-state. STEP Graduate Research Assistant,<name of person> has interviewed 25 principals who hired these STEP prepared teachers. Her telephone interview format consists of open-ended questions concerning (a) the principals’ reasons for hiring these teachers over other applicants and (b) the principals’ observations of these teachers’ instructional approaches, use of technology, assessment techniques, and the use of inquiry-based learning. Preliminary results are quite positive. Principals are enthusiastic about these teachers and report that their classroom practices are consistent with STEP goals for mathematics and science reform, outlined in STEP’s Table One.

Overviews evaluation components

(c) Early Career Support Mentoring Program
The Early Career Support component continued in 1996 with selection of the second cadre of mentors and early career teachers. The Mentoring evaluation included (1) a Mentor Workshop Report, June 1996; (2) a Mentor Survey, April 1996); (3) Early Career Conference Reports, April 1996 and January 1997; and (4) informal interactions with mentor and early career teachers via phone calls and METNET communication, as well as encounters at statewide conferences and meetings. <Name of person>, Montana State University Billings, was contracted for these tasks. His evaluation efforts are coordinated with the overall project evaluation.

Overviews evaluation design

(d) Recruitment and Retention
<Name of person>, STEP Graduate Research Assistant, has surveyed 1996-1997 NSF Teaching Scholars, enrolled at the five Montana university system schools and seven tribal colleges. The survey will be used to create a profile of recipients, assess their opinion on program benefits, and describe special challenges they experience. Follow-up interviews will provide clarification and details for a written evaluation report and a journal article on the NSF scholars program.

Describes roles of external evaluators

External Evaluation
CETP external evaluation activities have required project assistance. SRI International required information and assistance to (1) administer a student and faculty survey and (2) plan a Spring 1996 site visit and case study. WESTAT and Quantum Research Corporation (QRC) have developed a new demographics format. The project demographics for year four were collected with WESTAT forms and submitted to QRC on March 1, 1997. Arrangements are being made for SRI International’s April 1997 site visit.

Evaluation Questions and Evaluation Products

Describes dissemination and use of findings

A paper on telecommunications mentoring for rural teachers has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Science Teacher Education. Additional project related manuscripts are in review. A presentation on Assessing the Effects of Systemic Change at the University Level was done June 11, 1996 at the 1^th AAHE Conference on Assessment and Quality.

Evaluation questions outlined in the Evaluation and Assessment Plan continue to guide all assessment strategies, instrument design, and data collection. Current evaluation efforts are building evidence to answer each of those questions.

See Summary of Evaluation Activities for Year 4

Excerpt 6 [The Nebraska Economics Fellows Institute]

Describes project goals and activities

The Nebraska Economics Fellows Institute was conducted for 32 teachers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln from summer, 1993 through spring, 1996. This Institute was designed to improve the economic understanding of teachers and their skill in teaching economics through participation in a series of graduate-level courses. During three consecutive summer sessions, the teachers completed six economics courses, three seminars in economic education, and one statistics course. During each school year, they worked on a field studies course that involved conducting economic education projects in the schools. After completing all coursework, the teachers took comprehensive exams. All the teachers passed the exams and then were awarded master's degrees in economics.

Summarizes findings

This evaluation examined outcomes from the Institute using several external measures. First, the Fellows completed four surveys at different times during the Institute. The results from these survey evaluations revealed that the Fellows were very satisfied with their education and training at the Institute. They gave high ratings to the economics instruction they received and the contribution the Institute made to their economics teaching. The Fellows also thought that the Institute was well-organized and managed.

Specifies how effectiveness was judged using a test

Summarizes results

Second, the Fellows were tested using a nationally normed and standardized test of understanding of college economics. The results from this test revealed that there were significant gains in understanding of basic economics, especially in the final year of the program. The increase in economic knowledge occurred across all content areas (micro or macro) and across cognitive levels (low, middle, or high).

Third, the economic thinking of the Fellows changed as a result of participation in the Institute. Before the Institute, the Fellows thought more like high school economics teachers, social studies teachers, and journalists about contemporary economic issues. After the Institute, the economic thinking of the Fellows more closely matched that of economists and economic educators than it did the other groups.

Fourth, students of the Fellows were the direct beneficiaries of the increase in economic knowledge and improvement in teaching skills. The results of a quasi-experiment compared the economic understanding of a comparable group of Fellows' and non-Fellows' students taking economics and other courses. The posttest scores of students of Fellows were significantly higher compared to students of non-Fellows, even after controlling for other factors. economists and economic educators than it did the other groups.

The Nebraska Economics Fellows Institute clearly achieved its major objectives. The Fellows appreciated the quality of the education they received at the Institute and gave it good ratings in all areas. As a result of attending, they were well-trained in economics, thought more like economists, and became more skilled in teaching the subject. These teachers significantly improved the economic education of their students and school districts, an effect that is likely to continue in future years. The Institute should be considered a model program for advanced education of teachers.

Excerpt 7 [Hood College]

Describes project components, activities, timelines, participants, and impacts

View summary table.

Excerpt 8 [New York City Collaborative]

Describes project goal and components

The goal of the New York Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (NYCEPT) is to produce well qualified teachers of mathematics and science at all pre-college levels and to increase the number of individuals who enter and successfully complete teacher preparation requirements in science and mathematics. To this end, the Project is engaged in six interrelated clusters of activities:

1. developing new approaches to teaching and assessing science and mathematics in college courses;
2. providing new training opportunities, including the design of new courses for prospective teachers at all levels;
3. developing new training materials, with special emphasis on design of curriculum units which reflect collaboration among faculty of varied disciplines and school teachers, and reflect the urban context;
4. providing student support and career development, including follow-up of first year teachers and internships in settings such as college tutoring, school classrooms, and local science museums;
5. recruiting promising students into teaching;
6. developing exemplary field sites for student teachers.

In addition, the Collaborative will provide a model for how teacher preparation programs can support school change.

Excerpt 9 [Maryland Collaborative]

Presents diagram that summarizes project features

Excerpt 10 [New York City Collaborative]

I. The Case Study Process: Background

Presents project goals

The New York Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (NYCEPT) is a project jointly undertaken by five college campuses of the City University of New York (CUNY) and New York University (NYU). The project is funded by the National Science Foundation, with additional support from the participating institutions. Major goals of the NYCEPT include 1) fostering the development of the collaborative itself (interactions across disciplines and institutions), 2) faculty development (emphasizing curriculum and teaching standards such as those of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and National Research Council for Science), and 3) the design and development of curriculum. Although there are other major goals of the collaborative, these three are critical to the first two years of revising teacher preparation in liberal arts and sciences, and education.

Describes methodological approach (case studies and use of stakeholders as data collectors)

Each collaborating campus has identified a number of courses for revision. In order to provide a baseline for comparing existing courses with the revision of the courses, the principal investigators (PIs) for the collaborative identified one (or two) courses on each campus for detailed documentation. In addition, the PIs identified faculty on their campuses who would be willing to be "case studied" and those who would be willing to do a case study. Information for each of these individuals was distributed. This information included a detailed suggested outline for the case study. During June and July the case studies were developed through meetings with course faculty, examination of course documents, and assembling the case study itself.

Describes evaluation purposes

The documentation of individual courses through case studies was designed to serve several purposes. First, from the standpoint of evaluation, the documentation provides baseline information with which to compare 1) course syllabi, 2) instructional activities and materials, and 3) assessments, as courses are revised. That is, change in all three categories is expected to be documented after one year. The new, revised syllabi, accompanying activities, and assessments of student learning should be readily contrasted with information in the baseline case studies. They can also be examined for their fidelity to the mathematics and science standards in these areas.

Second, the process of carrying out the study was designed to support and facilitate overall collaborative goals. Specifically, faculty were identified with the goal of fostering interaction with faculty teaching similar courses at other institutions. This supports the NYCEPT goal of fostering the collaborative by interactions across departments, disciplines, and institutions. Four of the five case studies in mathematics courses for elementary education teacher preparation are interdisciplinary (mathematics and teacher education) and cross campus (Brooklyn College and City College; Hunter College and New York University). The other case studies are also cross campus--Lehman and New York University, and Lehman and College of Staten Island.

Third, the use of specific courses for the case studies meant that faculty visiting other campuses and faculty focused their interactions and discussions on particular aspects of the curricula. Informal discussions between the evaluators and faculty during the development of the case studies suggest that the process of documenting course curricula and activities met this purpose. There were discussions of teaching activities, of selection of topics, of assessments and of student attainments.

Summarizes stakeholder involvement

In summary, the use of NYCEPT faculty to conduct the case studies serves many of the goals of the collaborative and has the potential to focus the curriculum revisions more concretely across campuses.