2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Recommendations

Info

Observations: Horizon’s Classroom Observation Protocol A standard Horizon’s Classroom Observation Protocol was used by trained observers to evaluate the quality of the transferability of the content and strategies learned by the NWO participants into the classroom. To rate each lesson, observers used a narrative summary approach with overall numeric ratings for the following categories: Design (what the teacher intended for the lesson), Implementation (what actually happened in the classroom), Content (appropriateness of material covered), Classroom Culture (student participation and climate), and Overall Capsule (overall assessment of the quality and likely impact of the lesson). Possible ratings ranged from 1 (not at all reflective of best practice) to 5 (extremely reflective of best practice) for Design, Implementation and Content. Classroom Culture ratings ranged from 1 (interfered with student learning) to 5 (facilitated the learning of all students). Overall Capsule descriptions of the quality of the lesson rating options are listed in Table 4. Table 4. Description of Possible Overall Capsule Ratings Possible Ratings Description Ineffective Instruction: Little or no evidence of student thinking or engagement. Instruction is highly unlikely to enhance students’ understanding of the discipline of to develop their capacity to successfully “do” mathematics/science. Characterized by either of the following: Passive Learning—Instruction uninspiring where students are 1 passive recipients of information from the teacher or textbook. Activity for Activity’s Sake—Students are involved in hands-on activities, but it appears to be activity for activity’s sake. Lesson lacks clear sense of purpose and/or a clear link to conceptual development. Elements of Effective Instruction: Serious problems in the design, implementation, content, and/or appropriateness for many students in the class. 2 Overall, the lesson is very limited in its likelihood to enhance students’ understanding of the discipline or to develop their capacity to successfully “do” mathematics/science. Beginning Stages of Effective Instruction: Some elements of effective practice but there are weaknesses ranging from substantial to fairly minor, in design, implementation, or content of instruction. The teacher may short-circuit a planned 3 exploration by telling students what they “should have found”; instruction may not (Low, Solid, or High) adequately address the needs of a number of students; or the classroom culture may limit the accessibility or effectiveness of the lesson. Overall, the instruction is somewhat limited in its likelihood to enhance students’ understanding of the discipline of to develop their capacity to successfully “do” mathematics/science. Accomplished, Effective Instruction: Instruction is purposeful and engaging for most students. Students actively participate in meaningful work. The lesson is welldesigned and the teacher implements it well, but adaptation of content or 4 pedagogy in response to student needs and interests is limited. Instruction is quite likely to enhance most students’ understanding of the discipline and to develop their capacity to successfully “do” mathematics/science. Exemplary Instruction: Instruction is purposeful and all students are highly engages most or all of the time in meaningful work. The lesson is well-designed and artfully implemented, with flexibility and responsiveness to students’ needs 5 and interests. Instruction is highly likely to enhance most students’ understanding of the discipline and to develop their capacity to successfully “do” mathematics/science. Back to top
Surveys: Teacher Beliefs Inventory Data Collection Strategies and Procedures The TBI was administered to most of the NWO participants by the NWO staff at two points in time during the academic year (AY) – in the fall of 2006 (this excludes TEAMS) and in the spring of 2007 (this includes all the participants). The fall administration of the TBI was in the paperand-pencil format and was carried out during the Blast-off NWO Center event in September. The spring administration of the TBI was done on-line after the Summit NWO Center event in April. A total of 69 responses were received in the fall (this excludes TEAMS) and 80 were received in the spring (43 TEAMS, 8 TeachOhio and 29 other NWO/COSMOS participants – a 57% response rate). In addition to these data collection events, the TeachOhio participants were surveyed twice in the summer of 2006 using the paper-and-pencil format - in June (pre) and in August (post) after the methods class. All the TeachOhio participants completed the pre- and post-surveys in summer. However, slightly more than 50% of the TeachOhio participants completed the TBI survey on-line in April 2007. The TEAMS participants were also surveyed twice in summer of 2006 using the paper-and-pencil format. There were 62 usable TEAMS responses from the pre-survey (84% response rate) and 59 from the post-survey (80% response rate). Interviews: NWO Teacher Interview The teacher interview data were collected and transcribed by the NWO staff throughout the academic year. The data came from a sample of the NWO participants who were also observed in their classrooms. A total of 39 interviews were conducted: 10 for TEAMS, 20 for TeachOhio (10 pre and 10 post), 7 for Other NWO participants (PRISM, MAT, and In-Service), and 2 from control group teachers (as part of TEAMS evaluation). Interviews: Higher Education Faculty E-Mail Interview The faculty interviews were conducted by MetriKs in May - June of 2007 using an e-mail interview method (vs. telephone interviews that were done previously). As previously mentioned, this was preferred over telephone interview for the following reasons: no costs associated with transcription, opportunity for the respondents to revisit their responses and check them for accuracy; a more naturalistic interview process that leads to increased richness of narratives; and greater ownership of the narratives by the respondents. These characteristics of email interviews along with probing enhance credibility (reliability) and establish authenticity (validity) of the evaluation (James & Busher, 2006). A total of 20 (compared to 6 last year) faculty responded (69% response rate). Session Evaluations: NWO Participant Session Evaluation Session evaluations data were collected, entered and summarized by the NWO staff after each session using the NWO Participant Session Evaluation Protocol. Observations: Horizon’s Professional Development Protocol A total of nine AY sessions were observed by five trained observers in 2006-2007 across all NWO projects.
Page 1 and 2:
NORTHWEST OHIO CENTER OF EXCELLENCE
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents 2 NWO Mission 2 N
Page 5 and 6:
NWO 2007 Annual Report ~ An Introdu
Page 7 and 8:
We are equally committed to identif
Page 9 and 10:
NWO Activities and Accomplishments
Page 11 and 12:
mathematics and a new interdiscipli
Page 13 and 14:
Research Learning Community In the
Page 15 and 16:
Research in Science and Mathematics
Page 17 and 18:
Learning Sciences PhD Program BGSU
Page 19 and 20:
NWO Faculty and Staff Scholarship N
Page 21 and 22:
evaluation reports are available up
Page 23 and 24:
In order to determine progress towa
Page 25 and 26:
In sum, we are both proud of our FY
Page 27 and 28:
The tables below show amounts spent
Page 29 and 30:
COSMOS Collaborative Council (CCC)
Page 31 and 32:
NWO Projected Goals and Activities
Page 33 and 34:
Goal 3: Conduct and communicate col
Page 35 and 36:
NWO Resource Development and Sustai
Page 37 and 38:
2007 Yr. Avg. 2006 Yr. Avg. 2005 Yr
Page 39 and 40:
Issues, Problems, and Anticipated S
Page 41 and 42:
Appendices 2 0 0 7 N W O Ce n t e r
Page 43 and 44:
Appendix A: Regional Grants to Part
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Appendix B: 2006 Northwest Ohio Sym
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Appendix D: Larabee Mini-Grant: The
Page 65 and 66:
Appendix E: Redesigned/Developed Co
Page 67 and 68:
Appendix F: NWO Faculty and Staff S
Page 69 and 70:
Appendix F: NWO Faculty and Staff S
Page 71 and 72:
Appendix G: COSMOS Publication: Mor
Page 73 and 74: Appendix G: COSMOS Publication: Mor
Page 75 and 76: Appendix H: COSMOS Publication: Van
Page 77 and 78: Appendix I: COSMOS Publication: Van
Page 83 and 84: Appendix K: COSMOS Publicity: RIPE
Page 85 and 86: Appendix L: COSMOS Publicity: REAL
Page 87 and 88: Appendix N: 2006-07 REAL Recruiting
Page 89 and 90: Appendix P: NWO TEAMS Recruiting Br
Page 91 and 92: Appendix Q: TeachOhio Recruiting Br
Page 93 and 94: Appendix R: Executive Board Minutes
Page 95 and 96: Appendix R: Executive Board Minutes
Page 97 and 98: Appendix S: NWO Executive Board Byl
Page 99 and 100: Appendix S: NWO Executive Board Byl
Page 101 and 102: Appendix T: COSMOS Collaborative Co
Page 109 and 110: Appendix U: NWO Evaluation Report M
Page 111 and 112: Evaluation Question 5: In what ways
Page 113 and 114: References 71 Appendix 72
Page 115 and 116: Back to top Original NWO Goals The
Page 117: Part II. Evaluation Goals, Question
Page 120 and 121: Table 1. Alignment of NWO Center Go
Page 122 and 123: depth information from the particip
Page 126 and 127: Observations: Horizon’s Classroom
Page 128 and 129: and capsule). Supporting qualitativ
Page 130 and 131: negative direction. However, these
Page 132 and 133: Table 7. Summary of the TBI Survey
Page 134 and 135: NWO Symposium: The overall rating f
Page 136 and 137: Detailed Results for NWO PD Session
Page 138 and 139: elieved that doing such experiments
Page 140 and 141: last year. Half of the 2007 partici
Page 142 and 143: Table 11. Average and Range of TEAM
Page 144 and 145: elements of science abstraction (1)
Page 146 and 147: teacher appeared confident in abili
Page 148 and 149: Table 13. Average TeachOhio Science
Page 150 and 151: Recommendations at the post-observa
Page 152 and 153: Recommendations included: Increase
Page 154 and 155: knowledge (1); incorporate tasks th
Page 156 and 157: Content 3.75 3 3.4 3.5 3.75 3.5 5 C
Page 158 and 159: tests attended PRAXIS II tutoring s
Page 160 and 161: Ohio Junior Science and Humanities
Page 162 and 163: Back to top Goal 3 - Evaluation Que
Page 164 and 165: I’ve been “forced” to read li
Page 166 and 167: The concepts and ideas that were di
Page 168 and 169: The progress of the NWO Center towa
Page 170 and 171: students. The also loved foldables.
Page 172 and 173: (TEAMS, TeachOhio and Other NWO): m
Page 174 and 175:
In their open-ended evaluations and
Page 176 and 177:
• more intellectual engagement of
Page 178 and 179:
Appendix A Higher Education Faculty
show all

2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?