Call For Speaker Proposals
On September 10-11, 2010, we will be hosting a conference at CSU Bakersfield. Our
goal is for the conference to not only be a collection of powerful presentations, but for it
to be a collection of powerful presentations with a common focus. The common focus
will be to help teachers combat the often perceived pressure to reduce teaching solely to
memorization and drill. The sessions will provide teachers with ways to deal with the
teach-for-the-test environment that exists in today’s high-stakes-testing culture and be
able to teach in ways that will increase student learning. Research such as that from the
QUASAR project, Norman L. Webb’s work, and/or Bloom’s taxonomy supports this
conference’s approach.
After collecting data in urban middle school mathematics classes and analyzing that data,
researchers in the QUASAR Project found that “the highest learning gains on a
mathematics-performance assessment were related to the extent to which tasks were set
up and implemented in ways that engaged students in high levels of cognitive thinking
and reasoning” (Smith & Stein, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, Feb 1998,
p. 344). Although memorization certainly plays a role in the process of learning
mathematics, currently it is often over-used. Every teacher wants his/her students to be
able to think mathematically, and accomplishing that goal is done by getting students to
engage in high-cognitive-level tasks. Yes, simply stated, it is “Problem Solving.” This
conference will provide teachers at every grade level with pragmatic ways to do that.
There will also be an administrators’ strand to help teachers and administrators have
common goals that will better facilitate increased student learning.
Most of the sessions are to be course specific with the participants being active learners
during the sessions by experiencing the activities in ways similar to what their students
will experience. Including discussions with the participants regarding what would be
taught prior to and after the lesson/activity and how using the lesson is not in conflict
with students being prepared for “the test” is highly desired.
As a small (and inadequate) token of appreciation for facilitating a session as described
above, we will waive the conference registration fee and provide you with an honorarium
of $100. We have no further reimbursement for expenses.
Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to receiving your proposal
by March 31, 2010. The following pages contain the proposal form and more detailed
information regarding the conference. Thanks for being willing to consider being part of
this unique activity.
Mike Lutz
[email protected]
(661) 654-2028
1
Mathematics Education: Connecting Research to Practice Conference
at CSU Bakersfield
SPEAKER PROPOSAL
T
3
REGIONAL CONFERENCE
Bakersfield, California
September 10-11, 2010
Attach additional pages if necessary
Name
Mailing Address
School
Home Phone (
)
School Phone (
E-mail Address
FAX (
)
)
Title of Proposed Session
Description Attach two descriptions of your session, one a brief description that can be included in
the program and the second a more complete version. In both, describe how your session will
demonstrate how teachers can use high cognitive level tasks and resist a teach-to-the-test, rote
approach.
Co-Presenter(s)
Session Type
90-minute
75-minute
Check one box that is the most applicable:
Elementary Math Middle Grades Math Algebra 1 Algebra 2 Geometry Advanced
Algebra Pre-Calculus Calculus Statistics College Developmental Algebra AVID
Math & Science ELL at grade(s)____ Bus./Finance Preservice Teachers Assessment
 Special Education Agriculture Other______________
Technology Focus (if applicable)
TI-NspireTM TI-NspireTM CAS TI-Navigator TI-83/84 Plus TI-89 TI-92 Plus TI-10
VoyageTM 200 TI-73 ExplorerTM CBR CBL2 

use)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Participant Level (if applicable)
Beginner Intermediate Advanced
Equipment Requirements
Please return to: Mike Lutz, CSUB Math Dept, 9001 Stockdale Hwy, Bakersfield, CA 93311-1022
Phone (661) 654-2028
FAX (661) 654-2028
[email protected]
2
DEADLINE FOR SPEAKER PROPOSALS IS MARCH 31st , 2010.
Connecting Research to Practice: A Conference for YOU
Mark your calendar now for September 10-11, 2010. You will want to be on the campus of
CSUB Bakersfield for a unique conference. It is for K-6 teachers, middle school mathematics
teachers, high school mathematics teachers, special education teachers, community college
faculty, university faculty, teachers of English learners, and school administrators.
What and How
Research informs us regarding what we could do to increase students’ mathematical achievement:
engage students in high-cognitive-level tasks. Yet, how can teachers do that when they often feel
pressured to restrict instruction to low-level memorization that results in many students not
learning why algorithms work? This conference will help participants know how to address the
perceived tension between test-preparation and student-reasoning.
Many, but not all, of the sessions will utilize handheld and computer-based technology since the
appropriate use of technology has been shown to facilitate the active engagement of students in
high-cognitive-level tasks. The strands within the conference will be course-specific to ease the
transition of the activities into the classroom. The sessions will include excellent presenters from
across the United States and locally, including a keynote address by Carl Lager. Dr. Lager is a
former middle and high school mathematics teacher who is now an assistant professor of
mathematics education at UC Santa Barbara. This conference will address the perceived tension
between test-preparation and student-reasoning by helping participants:
1. Identify and modify the cognitive level of the student tasks they use, and
2. Acquire implementation strategies for engaging students in high-cognitive-level tasks.
The Research Base
After collecting data in urban middle school mathematics classes and analyzing that data,
researchers in the QUASAR Project found that “the highest learning gains on a mathematicsperformance assessment were related to the extent to which tasks were set up and implemented in
ways that engaged students in high levels of cognitive thinking and reasoning” (Smith & Stein,
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, Feb 1998, p. 344).
Registration Cost
Register by June 1 for $50, and register between June 1 and August 1 for $60. Registration after
August 1 will cost $75. For more information and to register, go to
http://www.todos-math.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=101904.
This conference is an approved T 3 Regional Conference and supported by Bakersfield
Mathematics Council (BMC), California Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators
(CAMTE), California Mathematics Project (CMP), California Mathematics Council (CMC), CSU
Bakersfield Mathematics Club, Fresno Mathletes at Fresno Pacific University, and TODOS:
Mathematics for All.
3
Here is a brief summary of the QUASAR research:
Description of Cognitive Levels
The descriptions below are taken from Smith and Stein’s article, Selecting and Creating
Mathematical Tasks: from Research to Practice, on pages 344 – 350 of the February 1998
issue of Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. Memorization and Procedures
Without Connections are considered low-level tasks while Procedures With Connections
and Doing Mathematics are considered high-level. There is now a second edition of their
popular professional development book. (Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A.,
& Silver, E.A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A
casebook for professional development (Second Edition). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.)
Memorization
 Involve either reproducing previously learned facts, rules, formulas, or definitions
or committing facts, rules, formulas or definitions to memory
 Cannot be solved using procedures because a procedure does not exist or because
the time frame in which the task is being completed is too short to use a procedure
 Are not ambiguous. Such tasks involve the exact reproduction of previously seen
material, and what is to be reproduced is clearly and directly stated.
 Have no connection to the concepts or meaning that underlie the facts, rules,
formulas, or definitions being learned or reproduced
Procedures Without Connections
 Are algorithmic. Use of the procedure either is specifically called for or is evident
from prior instruction, experience, or placement of the task.
 Require limited cognitive demand for successful completion. Little ambiguity exists
about what needs to be done and how to do it.
 Have no connection to the concepts or meaning that underlie the procedure being
used
 Are focused on producing correct answers instead of on developing mathematical
understanding
 Require no explanations or explanations that focus solely on describing the
procedure that was used
Procedures with Connections
 Focus students' attention on the use of procedures for the purpose of developing
deeper levels of understanding of mathematical concepts and ideas
 Suggest explicitly or implicitly pathways to follow that are broad general
procedures that have close connections to underlying conceptual ideas as opposed
to narrow algorithms that are opaque with respect to underlying concepts
 Usually are represented in multiple ways, such as visual diagrams, manipulatives,
symbols, and problem situations. Making connections among multiple
representations helps develop meaning.
 Require some degree of cognitive effort. Although general procedures may be
followed, they cannot be followed mindlessly. Students need to engage with
conceptual ideas that underlie the procedures to complete the task successfully and
that develop understanding.
4
Doing Mathematics
 Require complex and nonalgorithmic thinking--a predictable, well-rehearsed
approach or pathway is not explicitly suggested by the task, task instructions, or a
worked-out example.
 Require students to explore and understand the nature of mathematical concepts,
processes, or relationships
 Demand self-monitoring or self-regulation of one's own cognitive processes
 Require students to access relevant knowledge and experiences and make
appropriate use of them in working through the task
 Require students to analyze the task and actively examine task constraints that may
limit possible solution strategies and solutions
 Require considerable cognitive effort and may involve some level of anxiety for the
student because of the unpredictable nature of the solution process required.
These characteristics are derived from the work of Doyle on academic tasks (1988) and
Resnick on high-level-thinking skills (1987), the Professional Standards for Teaching
Mathematics (NCTM 1991), and the examination and categorization of hundreds of tasks
used in QUASAR classrooms (Stein, Grover, and Henningsen 1996; Stein, Lane, and
Silver 1996).
Teacher Implementation
The QUASAR research concluded that tasks go through three important phases as they
are implemented: (1) As they appear in curriculum/instructional materials, (2) As they
are set up by the teacher, and (3) As they are implemented by the students. The cognitive
level is in danger of being lowered during any of these three phases.
REFERENCES
Doyle, Walter. "Work in Mathematics Classes: The Context of Students' Thinking during
Instruction." Educational Psychologist 23 (February 1988): 167-80.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Professional Standards for
Teaching Mathematics. Reston, Va.: NCTM, 1991.
Resnick, Lauren. Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press, 1987.
Stein, Mary Kay, Barbara W. Grover, and Marjorie Henningsen. "Building Student
Capacity for Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning: An Analysis of Mathematical
Tasks Used in Reform Classrooms." American Educational Research Journal 33
(October 1996): 455-88.
Stein, Mary Kay, Suzanne Lane, and Edward Silver. "Classrooms in Which Students
Successfully Acquire Mathematical Proficiency: What Are the Critical Features of
Teachers' Instructional Practice?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, April 1996.
5