Having students enter high school “unready” for algebra is not a new or rare problem. The challenges, frankly, are vast. Students identified as “unready” are extremely varied, as are the reasons they are included in specialized classes. Some, for example, are mathematically competent, but included “for English language support.” More, of course, have some difficulty specific to mathematics. Of those, many are weak in arithmetic.

This session presents the work from three projects that are addressing the challenges of using secondary data sets in the classroom to teach ecology. Presenters from each project provide a brief overview of their development and research work followed by a question and answer period. A panel discussion with participants focuses on the following three questions: What are the challenges and benefits of bringing “real” data to the classroom? How do you make complex data accessible to middle and high school students?

This session focuses on a particular role that engineering lessons and curricula can play, placing them as tools for engagement in and expansion of mathematics and science learning in which engineering is used primarily as a means to help promote learning in these content areas. This role may not be what all engineering education specialists strive for; many of us may well value engineering education for its own sake and its role supporting technological literacy.

The goal of the session is to help attendees understand challenges of scaling up and to inform their design of scaling-up strategies for their own projects. The session has four parts: an introduction in which key challenges are identified, two parts in which Dynabook and SmartGraphs describe strategies for meeting challenges, and a part for audience to interactaction. To successfully scale up, organizations need to concisely identify the “value proposition” that appeals to users, which requires an understanding of need, approach, benefits, and competition.

This collaborative session brings together four mature projects that use different approaches to develop and validate technology-enhanced STEM assessments. Presenters share their designs, research findings, and implications for measuring STEM standards. All offer evidence addressing four questions: (1) What was the technical quality (reliability and validity) and effectiveness of the assessments for their intended purposes? (2) How feasible were the assessments to implement in classrooms? (3) How can the projects can be scaled up and sustained?

Given technology that enables teachers and learners to express mathematics and science in quite new ways—relative to textbooks and conventional classroom talk—what sorts of representations, activities, and practices provide the necessary structure to guide and develop what students can “say” and “do” so that they develop ways to express themselves more powerfully and meaningfully?

Presenters from six DR K–12 projects, each involved in mathematics or science teaching and learning, describe their approaches:

In this session, presenters from three projects seek to elaborate teaching practices in mathematics and science that support the development of central mathematical or scientific ideas and result in significant learning opportunities for students. More specifically, they seek to ground a larger conversation about equity in mathematics and science education in the sharing of specific analyses of their work. All three presentations focus on supporting teachers’ development of ambitious (rigorous and equitable) instructional practices.

The Partnership for the Assessment of College and Career Readiness (PARCC) is a consortium of 24 states that received a Race to the Top Assessment Grant from the U.S. Department of Education in the fall of 2010 to build a next-generation student assessment system. The assessments will be based on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics and target students in grades 3–11.

Synopsis
How can we sustain and improve our innovations to promote lifelong science learning? What have we learned about designing computer-based materials that transform science education? What are open questions and promising directions? How can we collaborate to stimulate change? What strategies and revenue streams will lead to sustainability of promising innovations?

For a description of the Crossroads session structure, please see the initial Crossroads session.