2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Recommendations

Info

Observations: Horizon’s Classroom Observation Protocol A total of 39 classroom observations were conducted across all NWO projects –20 TeachOhio, 10 TEAMS, 7 Other, and 4 from control group teachers (as part of TEAMS evaluation). TEAMS Classroom Observations: TEAMS and comparison group teachers were recruited to participate in classroom observations. TEAMS teachers selected for the observation identified a non-TEAMS teacher from their home school. The inclusion criteria included teaching the same grade level and teaching a similar content. Of the 10 TEAMS classroom observations, eight were in science classrooms and two were in math classrooms. The science observations included four 5 th grade science, three 4 th grade science, and one 3 rd grade science classroom. The math observations included one 5 th grade math and one 6 th grade math classroom. The two comparison observations were conducted for one 5 th grade science classroom and one 3 rd grade math classroom. TeachOhio Classroom Observations: Two observations were made for each of the 10 TeachOhio participants who were observed teaching science, with the first occurring in the late Fall of 2006 and early winter of <strong>2007</strong> (pre-observation) and the second occurring in the Spring of <strong>2007</strong> (post-observation). Of the ten teachers who were observed, one taught 8 th grade, four taught 9 th grade, 2 taught tenth grade, one taught 11 th grade, and two others were identified as teaching multiple levels, i.e., one teacher taught grades 10-12 and another taught grades 11 – 12. Other NWO: Of the 7 classroom observations that were completed of the Other NWO participants, 3 were for PRISM, 2 for MAT, and 2 for INSERVICE. The three PRISM observations included: one 4 th grade science class, one 6 th grade science class, and one 6 th grade math class. The MAT observations included two science classrooms, with one in 10 th grade and one in 12 th grade. The INSERVICE observations included one 5 th grade science class and one 7 th grade math class. Surveys: TBI Back to top Data Analysis Methods The Teacher Beliefs Inventory (TBI) analysis of change in participants’ beliefs was conducted differently for different groups of NWO participants. For TEAMS participants, The Teacher Beliefs Inventory (TBI) analysis of change in participants’ beliefs was conducted for each of the three sections of the survey, in addition to the following subscales: Outcome Expectancy (OE), Self Efficacy (SE), Classroom Environment (CE), Teaching Activities & Assessment (TA), Teacher’s Role (TR), Instructional Goals (IG), Traditional Strategies (TS), and Reform Strategies (RS). Appropriate items were reversed before computing subscale and section totals. A repeated-measures analysis was then used to assess change across the three time periods based on a sample of n=29 cases. As mentioned earlier, there were 62 usable TEAMS responses from the first day of the Summer Insititute (pre- SI survey), 59 from the post-SI survey and 43 from the post AY on-line survey. However, only 29 cases matched across three points in time because some of the participants did not include
an ID and others wrote only a partial ID. Cohen’s d was then calculated to estimate the effect size for the difference between pre-SI and post-SI scores, as well as between post-SI and AY scores. For TeachOhio participants, The Teacher Beliefs Inventory (TBI) analysis of change in participants’ beliefs was also conducted for each of the three sections of the survey, in addition to the following subscales: Outcome Expectancy (OE), Self Efficacy (SE), Classroom Environment (CE), Teaching Activities & Assessment (TA), Teacher’s Role (TR), Instructional Goals (IG), Traditional Strategies (TS), and Reform Strategies (RS). Appropriate items were reversed before computing subscale and section totals. A dependent t-test was then used to assess change from pre-SI to post-SI. The post AY survey data were not used due to a very low response rate. Cohen’s d was then calculated to estimate the effect size for the difference between pre and post-SI scores, as well as post-SI and AY scores. For all other NWO participants, The Teacher Beliefs Inventory (TBI) analysis of change in beliefs was conducted for the first two sections of the TBI, in addition to their following subscales: Outcome Expectancy (OE), Self Efficacy (SE), Classroom Environment (CE), Teaching Activities & Assessment (TA), Teacher’s Role (TR), and Instructional Goals (IG). Appropriate items were reversed before computing subscale and section totals. A dependent ttest was then used to assess difference between the retro ratings (i.e., what the participants believed at the beginning of the year) and the TODAY ratings (i.e., what the participants believed on the day of taking the survey). Cohen’s d was then calculated to estimate the effect size. Due to the nature of the questions asked, data for the third section of the TBI, i.e., the Instructional Practices Inventory, were collected for only one scale: the Post Today scale/period. Thus, only the Post Today data were reported for this section, as well as its subscales: Traditional Strategies (TS), and Reform Strategies (RS). Conducting separate TBI analyses for three groups (TEAMS, TeachOhio and Other NWO participants) was chosen for two major reasons – loss and comparability of the data. More specifically, the TeachOhio data were available for pre-SI and post-SI, with very few cases from the post-AY administration. Hence to avoid loss of data, only pre-post SI data for TeachOhio were analyzed. The TEAMS data were available and analyzed for three time periods (pre-SI, post-SI and post-AY). For all other participants, only 13 common cases were obtained when merging pre-AY and post-AY. Therefore, we used post-AY survey data for this group and analyzed their retro responses along with their TODAY responses. Interviews The interview data collected from the NWO participants (in person) and higher education faculty (by e-mail) were examined for themes and separately for each evaluation question. Session Evaluations The session evaluations data were examined for numeric ratings as well as qualitative responses and separately for each evaluation question. PD Observations The ratings of professional development session observations were calculated by taking the average rating across all sessions for each category (design, implementation, content, culture,
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 124 and 125: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?