NAME,  DEPARTMENT:Diane Ronis, Education

 
BOOKS PUBLISHED:

Ronis, D. (2002, secondedition 2007). Clustering standards in integrated units. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

 

Ronis, D. (2002). Critical thinking in math. Glenview, IL: Pearson Skylight Publishing. 

 

Ronis, D. (2001, secondedition 2007). Problem-based learning for math & science. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

 

Ronis, D. (2000, second edition 2007).  Brain-compatible assessments. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

 

Ronis, D. (1999, second edition 2007). Brain-compatiblemathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

 CHAPTERS/SECTIONSPUBLISHED IN BOOKS:

Ronis, D. (2004). “Assessment”. Learning and theBrain: An Encyclopedia (GR3265).Feinstein, S. ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.   

 

Ronis, D. (2002). “Planning problem-based learning forthe classroom”. The Best of SkyLight: Essential Teaching Tools. Bellanca, J. ed. Glenview, IL: Pearson Skylight Publishing.

  PAPERS PUBLISHED IN PROCEEDINGS:

 
 

JOURNAL ARTICLES PUBLISHED:

Ronis, D. Technology: The ‘Glue’ of Inquiry Learning. [Online]

            http://www.skylightedu.com/neighbor/articles/article020.htmlFebruary 2001.

 

Ronis, D. InquiryAssessment for Inquiry Science. [Online]

http://www.skylightedu.com/neighbor/articles/article019.html,January 2001.

 

Ronis, D. (Spring 2000). “Middle level learning andassessment: Rubrics to make assessment more brain compatible.” 

TheJOURNAL of the New England League of Middle Schools. XII,2. Spring 2000, p 16-21.

 

 

Ronis, D. (November 2000). “Performance-basedlearning and the NCTM recommendations.” Resources in Education. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, &Environmental Education. ACCNO: ED431635, CHNO:SEO62705,PDATE: 1999-03-00, ISSUE: RIENOV1999, LEVEL:1, PAGE:10, DEMAJ: AcademicStandards. DEMAJ: Competency Based Education, DEMAJ: Mathematics Instruction,DEMAJ: Elementary-Secondary Education, DEMAJ: Mathematics Curriculum, DEMAJ:Teaching Methods, IDMAJ: NCTM, IDMAJ: TIMSS.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS:

 Ronis, D. (2004). Brain-compatiblemathematics: Multimedia professional development modules. Glenview, IL: Pearson Professional Development.

 

Ronis, D. (1999). Brain-compatible mathematics: A one-on-oneinterview with Diane Ronis. Glenview,IL: Pearson Skylight Publishing.

 

 
EXHIBITS/SHOWS/PERFORMANCES OF CREATIVEWORKS:

(art/sculpture/music/film)

(Include place, institution, date)

 
BOOK REVIEWS: 

(List citations to reviews, includingtitles, authors, & full citations to wherethey appeared):

 
 

CONFERENCE PAPERS ORALLYDELIVERED:

• The Teacher’s Workshop: TheAssessment Institute. Boston, MA, August 8, 2006.  Presentation: Differentiating Assessments

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with strategies for tailoring assessments to students needs,abilities and learning styles

• The Teacher’s Workshop: Differentiation and the Brain Friendly Classroom, San Diego, CA, July 19, 2006. Presentation: DifferentiatingAssessments

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with strategies for tailoring assessments to students needs,abilities and learning styles. 

• UnionInstitute and University, Brattleboro, VT August 16, 2003.  Presentation: Neuroscientificresearch and the implications for instruction and assessment

            äPresentation outcome: provide participants with an understand of (1) whatneuroscientific and cognitive research implications mean for education, (2) thecollaborative functioning of learning and assessment

 

• NationalStaff Development Council Annual Conference 2002,Boston, Massachusetts       December 9-11, 2002                  Presentation: Brain-Compatible Assessment: Instruction &Assessment for the way the Brain Learns Best

äPresentation outcome: provide participants with an understand of (1) whatneuroscientific and cognitive research implications mean for education, (2) howbrain compatible learning and assessment function collaboratively, (3) strategiesfor the creation of QUANTITATIVE evaluation rubrics; and (4) methods forthe implementation of such quality evaluation rubrics

 

• UnionInstitute and University, Brattleboro, VT   December 6, 2002 Presentation: Educational Implications of Brain Research

            äPresentation outcome: provide participants with an understand of (1) whatneuroscientific and cognitive research implications mean for education, (2) thecollaborative functioning of learning and assessment

 

• Guilford Public SchoolsK-8 Math Institute, August 19, 2002

Keynote Speaker: ‘Problem Solving/InquiryLearning or Making Math Meaningful’

ä Keynote outcome: provide participantswith background to recent neuroscientific and cognitive research and the impactit is having on mathematics instructional methodologies.

 

• Learning& the Brain: Applying Brain Research to Student Behavior and Learningco-sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Kosik Laboratoryof Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School and the Public Information Resources,Inc. (PIRI). Washington, D.C. May 3-4, 2001. Presentation: Brain-CompatibleLearning & Assessment: The Instruction & Evaluation of Knowledge,Comprehension & Knowledge Application

            ä Presentation outcome: provide participantswith methods and ideas for understanding and applying implications from recentneuroscientific research to the assessment of knowledge and its applications.

 

•  2001 ASCD (Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development) Annual Conference & Exhibit, Boston MA,

March 17-19, 2001. Presentation: The AssessmentProfile: Paths to Valid Evaluation

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with 1) a rationale as to why testing must only be one aspect ofthe assessment profile as well as 2) solutions for dealing with this newassessment paradigm.

 

•  Third Annual Research and ScholarshipDay, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT October 10, 2000.

Presentation: TheMind/Body/Emotion Connection to Brain-CompatibleLearning and Assessment

ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with a rationale as to why traditional pedagogical methodologiesmust make way for different approaches based on findings from neuroscientificand cognitive research

 

•  PIMMS/BEST (Projectto Increase Mastery of Mathematics and Science / Beginning EducatorSupport & Training) Program for Exemplary Mathematics & ScienceTeachers. Wesleyan University, Middletown CT. July 18, 2000.

            Presentation:Applying Brain Research to Mathematics/Science Instruction &Assessment(all levels).

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with methods and ideas to improve teaching & learning throughthe integration of mathematics and science.

 

• Learning& the Brain: Applying Brain Research to Student Behavior and Learningpresented by Public Information Resources, Inc. (PIRI). Boston, MA.   April 30 – May 2, 2000

Presentation: Problem-Based & InquiryLearning: Brain-Compatible Approaches to Mathematics & Science.

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with methods and ideas to understand and apply implications fromrecent neuroscientific research to math & science education.

 

•ASCD (Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development) 55thAnnual Conference & Exhibit, New Orleans, LA

            March25-27, 2000

Presentation: Standardsand Brain-Compatible Learning: Paths to Understanding

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with methods and ideas for applying national association standardsframeworks to inquiry learning. 

 

•6th International Teaching for Intelligence Conference: NationalUrban Alliance/ Teachers College, Columbia University, SkyLight ProfessionalDevelopment. Orlando, Florida, March 11-15, 2000.

 

Presentation #1: Brain-CompatibleAssessments: Instruction & Assessment for ways the Brain Learns Best

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with ways in which to use the educational implications from recentneuroscientific research to improve assessment.

 

 

Presentation #2: Problem-Based,Inquiry Learning: A Brain-Compatible Approach to Mathematics

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with ways in which to use the educational implications from recentneuroscientific research to improve mathematics instruction.

 

•  NMSA (National Middle SchoolAssociation) 26th Annual Conference & Exhibit. Orlando, FL.October 27-31, 1999. Presentation: Making Middle School Assessment MoreBrain-Compatible.

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with ways in which to use the educational implications from recentneuroscientific research to improve middle level assessment.

 

• 6th AnnualConnecticut State University Research Foundation Conference, EasternConnecticut State University

October 16, 1999

Presentation: BrainCompatible Mathematics: Performance-Based Learning in Action.          

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with a rationale for and enhanced understanding of innovativeinstructional approaches for the mathematics classroom.

 

•  NCTM (National Council of Teachers ofMathematics) 77th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA  April 22-24, 1999. 

Presentation: Performance-Based Learning for the Mathematics Classroom. 

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with enhanced understanding of Performance-based Learning.

 

•  5thInternational Teaching for Intelligence Conference: National UrbanAlliance/Teachers College, Columbia University, SkyLight ProfessionalDevelopment San Francisco, CA, April 17-22, 1999.

Presentation: Brain-Compatible Mathematics.

            ä Presentation outcome: increaseparticipant understanding of a rationale for and use of innovativeinstructional approaches to mathematics through specific classroom examples,templates & outlines.

 

•  ATOMIC(Association of Mathematics Teachers in Connecticut) Conference, Cromwell CT,March 22, 1999.

Presentation: Brain Compatible Mathematics:Performance-Based Learning in Action.

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with enhanced understanding of performance-based instructionalapproaches in the mathematics classroom.

 

•  ASCD(Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) 54th AnnualConference, San Francisco, California, March 6-8, 1999. Presentation: Performance-BasedLearning and the NCTM Recommendations.

            ä Presentation outcome: increaseparticipant comprehension of how the NCTM Standards framework supportsPerformance-based Learning.

 

•ATOMIC (Association of Mathematics Teachers in Connecticut) Conference,Cromwell CT, March 21, 1998.

Presentation: Performance-Based Learning andAssessment in the Mathematics Classroom.

ä Presentation outcome: participants gaina greater understanding of performance-based approaches to instruction as wellas assessment for mathematics.

 

• National School Conference Institute (NSCI): Conference for Assessment& Instruction—Infusing Brain Research, Multiple Intelligences,Learning Styles and Mind Styles. Phoenix AZ, February 27,1999.

Presentation:Brain-Based Mathematics: Infusing Brain Research, Multiple Intelligencesand Learning Styles.

            ä Presentation outcome: provideparticipants with ways to apply implications from recent neuroscientificresearch to the various disciplines.


WORKSHOP LEADERSHIP:

 • SouthernConnecticut State University Schoolof Education Showcase presentation to the National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE] Board of Examiners (Accreditationvisit). February 22, 2004

Topic: Demonstration of excellence inscholarship

 

•National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE] Workshop, Education Department.December 4, 2001

Topic: NCATE Syllabus Development

ä Workshop outcome: Implementation ofuniform department syllabi for NCATE evaluation

 

• WestonOpen Learning Program: How Children Learn. October 25, 2001

Topic: Research Findingsfrom Revolutionary New Brain Imaging Techniques

ä Workshop outcome: provide rationale for innovativeinstructional approaches and strategies

 

• NCATE (National Council for the Accreditation ofTeacher Education) Assessment Workshop. Southern Connecticut State University,October 19, 2001 Topic: Outcomes-Based Assessment through Rubric Design andImplementation.

ä Workshop outcome: increase participantunderstanding of   rubricassessment and implementation.

 

• Developer and Presenter of Problem Based Learningfor Math & Science: Integrating Inquiry and the Internet, a seminardeveloped for SkyLight Professional Development and offered at Saint XavierUniversity, Chicago, IL, 8/13-17/01.

ä Seminar outcome: provide participants with knowledgeof integration of mathematics, science, and technology using the PBL philosophy              

 

• Key presenter anddeveloper of collaborative seminar designed for CEMA [ConnecticutEducational Media Association] and developed by SCSU’s Schools ofEducation and Library Science & Instructional Technology. August 6-10,2001.

ä Seminar outcome: train participants[library media specialists and teachers] as mentoring teams to guide studentsand colleagues in their production of collaborative inquiry-based units andlessons.

 

• Problem-Based & Inquiry Learning: Brain Compatible Approaches ToInstruction & Assessment. North Branford Public Schools, NorthBranford CT. November 7, 2000.

ä Workshop outcome: provide participants withmethodologies designed to draw upon learner resources for the promotion ofinquiry, discovery, and reflection (instructional and evaluative proceduresthat effectively implement new understandings about learning based on recentneuroscientific and cognitive research).

 

• Energizing Mathematics throughBrain-Compatible Learning. Cooperative Educational Services Agency (CESA) #3,

            FennimoreWI. June 19-20, 2000.

            ä Workshop outcome: participants gaininnovative instructional approaches for the mathematics classroom through groupwork using sample units, templates, outlines, and assessment methodologies.

 

• IntegratingStandards-Based Instruction & Assessment with Brain-Compatible Learning.Dorchester School District 2, Summerville, SC. June 8, 2000.

            ä Workshop outcome: provide methodologiesand techniques for the integration of national association standards frameworkswith performance-based, constructivist instruction & assessmentmethodologies.

 

• Brain-CompatibleInstruction & Assessment: Helping our Students Achieve Excellence. HamdenPublic Schools.

Aug 25,1999

            ä Workshop outcome: provide rationale forinnovative instructional approaches and strategies for their implementationthrough group work using sample units, templates, outlines, and assessmentmethodologies.

 

• The Reading/MathConnection. New Haven Public Schools, April 27, May 5, 12, 19, 26, 1998

            ä Workshop outcome: participants learninnovative instructional approaches and methodologies for the integration ofreading and writing within the mathematics classroom.


 

RECENT GRANTS RECEIVED:

 (Do not include dollar amounts)
 

RESEARCH INTERESTS IN GENERAL:

(Use keywords)

 

CURRENT/FUTURE SPECIFIC RESEARCHPROJECTS:

 
 

STUDENT INVOLVEMENT/COLLABORATION IN MYRESEARCH:

 
 

MASTER'S THESES ADVISEMENT:

 

 
DISSERTATION TITLE:

  Performance-Based Instruction and Assessment: AMiddle Level Teachers’ Guide for Mathematics


INSTITUTION GRANTING Ph.D.:

The UnionInstitute