Barb’s approach to this project was quite innovative. She used “think-alouds” to record (audio and video) her students working on fractional problems. By forcing them to be explicit about their processes, Barb was able to identify and catalog many common errors. And, by getting student to explain what they were doing as they did it, Barb’s students learned fractions as if they were teaching it. This becomes a nice example of situated learning: Barb’s students were learning in an identical situation that in which they would have to apply their knowledge. Moreover, listening to and watching the tapes will provide a useful source of data for Barb to use in examining her teaching; it is safe to say that she will never teach this course quite the same way as a result of this experience.

One of the things I particularly like about this chapter is the wide range of evidence Mark uses. Like the historian he is, Mark eaves together different bits of data – his own observation, student surveys, written comments on course evaluations, quantitative data – to tell a compelling story of student learning. Mark has written a paper on student learning that will inform teachers of history, teachers of other subjects, and higher education administrators. He sketches out a model not just for teaching history, but for designing meaningful learning across the university curriculum. All that – and it also looks like a really fun time for the students!

Jenny’s problem is exacerbated here since the group assignments in question arise in a Small Group Communication class, where the class spends time studying how groups succeed and fail. Jenny chose to use individual-only grades in her class, reflecting the concern about potentially downgrading students due to factors outside their control (such as the work of their classmates). But, rather than just making this decision, Jenny has engaged in rigorous analysis of this decision, and then uses a wide variety of evidence (including journals and videotapes of group meetings) to assess the quality of the group work she saw. I particularly like the conclusion of the chapter, in which Jenny attempts to “complete the circle” as she discusses how what she has learned from this investigation will change the way she teachers the course in the future.

What stands out in this chapter is the discussion Sarah engaged in with her students about reflection. As future teachers, Sarah's students no doubt benefited from her example of how teachers need to pay attention to what is happening in their classes, making mid-course corrections as needed. In actively reflecting on issues of big picture versus little picture learning with her students, Sarah brought students into the teaching and learning conversation.

As one who concentrates somewhat on information literacy in my classes, I find this work to be particularly valuable. It is thoughtful work on a critical topic. More than this, Storm and Eidietis' discussion of issues of professionalism is quite persuasive. The biggest fear this work raises is that our preservice teachers may not be acting in a professional way when they choose the easy way to do Internet searches rather than doing better searches in a more time-consuming manner. One hopes that students begin to view themselves as professional educators more as they proceed in their teacher education program.

What Pam has done here is to provide a valuable service for people working out the kinks in a new course and trying to prefect it. She walks the reader through her thought process in exploring these teaching innovations, and also skillfully uses data to assess how well each innovation worked (from her own perspective and from the perspective of her students). It serves as a useful reminder to all of us that pedagogical innovations work best when they are frequently assessed; it also demonstrates, yet again, the potentially powerful role the student voice has in informing our teaching practices.

As the core of this project, of course, is listening to students. Myung-sook Koh's work reminds us that if our ultimate goal is to affect student learning and help students grow, the best approach is to listen to the students tell us what they have learned, and how they have grown. This paper does an especially strong job in expressing student learning in the student's voice.

Mary's big goal has become to help students learn to think like "experts." She wants her students to excel at using information they have previously learned in solving complex problems. This investigation speaks to how Mathlab can help students learn to do this; ultimately, the goal is to help student feel (deservedly) more self-confident in their ability to do the math necessary for an engineering technology program. From a practical standpoint, this study suggests that Mathlab would be most valuable to students if it were introduced early in the program. Mary also suggests it might prove more valuable when not crammed into an already full class such as hers.

This piece compares student work with that of professionals in the field, demonstrating similarities and differences in how each address "real world" speech-language pathology problems. Liz makes a compelling case for providing multiple ways for students to learn course material; since everyone learns differently, the road to professional competence should have many lanes. This piece should be of great interest to anyone who seeks to help their students think more like "professionals in the field," whatever the field may be.

By examining the way students learn, Larry is able to attempt some (preliminary) statements about the types of learners who find these animations helpful and the types of users who do not. It is too simple to say that a method "works" or "does not work" when realistically, most methods work well for some students and less well for others. By means of administering a simple, short survey to students, Larry has opened wide a door that promises to bear fruit in the study of student learning in his class.