2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Recommendations

Info

and capsule). Supporting qualitative comments from the raters, regarding strengths and recommendations for each rating category, are summarized in each category Classroom Observations The ratings of TEAMS classroom observations were calculated by taking the average rating across all 10 participants for each category (design, implementation, content, culture, and capsule) and comparing those ratings to the ratings of the control teachers where possible. Supporting qualitative comments from the raters, regarding strengths and recommendations for each rating category, are summarized in each category. The pre-post ratings of TeachOhio classroom observations were calculated by taking the average rating across all 10 participants for each category (design, implementation, content, culture, and capsule) and comparing those ratings from pre to post. Supporting qualitative comments from the raters, regarding strengths and recommendations for each rating category, are summarized in each category. The ratings of Other NWO participants’ classroom observations were calculated by taking the average rating across all 10 participants for each category (design, implementation, content, culture, and capsule). Supporting qualitative comments from the raters, regarding strengths and recommendations for each rating category, are summarized in each category. Back to top Limitations of the Data The generalizability of the results in this report is affected by small sample sizes (which limited the data analysis in many instances to descriptive statistics only), differences in the response rate from pre to post survey administrations (which made the change analysis sometimes impossible), volunteer sampling of classroom observations (which limited the observations data mostly to experienced teachers who were willing to let the observer into the classroom), and some inconsistencies and changes in the data collection methods (which decreased the response rate). The inconsistencies in the data collection included switching from the paperpencil to the on-line survey administration as well as collecting data from some groups of NWO participants at different points in time. The change in the data collection mode, however, was deemed necessary in order to maximize the use of classroom time for learning. This change was initiated by the NWO staff in response to many participants’ suggestions for reducing the amount of time devoted to data collection during the NWO activities. Collecting data at different points in time was also unavoidable due to the need to assess the immediate effect of some NWO projects (such as TEAMS and TeachOhio). These limitations should be kept in mind when reading and interpreting the evaluation results presented next. Back to top
Part III. Evaluation Results Effectiveness Of The NWO Center Research Based Math And Science Professional Development Programs Geared Towards Pre-Service Pre Service And In-Service In Service Teachers The progress of the NWO Center towards fulfillment of its Goal 1 was assessed by examining the effectiveness of the NWO professional development component. This was accomplished by triangulating data from six different sources - (1) examining beliefs and practices of the NWO teachers that they shared on the TBI survey, (2) thematically analyzing the emic session evaluations data (e.g., written evaluations of the professional development sessions) obtained from the participants, (3) thematically analyzing the faculty interview data, (4) thematically analyzing the teacher interview data, (5) summarizing the etic session evaluations data (e.g., professional development observations ratings provided by the external observers), and (6) studying other statistics collected by the NWO Center about different activities (e.g., course and program modification documents, PD attendance data, MAT credit hour completion data, and Symposium participant involvement data, etc.). The evaluation results below are organized by each evaluation question that was researched. Program-specific as well as overall summaries are provided as appropriate and enabled by the data. Back to top Goal 1 - Evaluation Question 1: What are the beliefs and practices of NWO participants? How do these beliefs compare for TEAMS, TeachOhio and Other NWO participants? TEAMS: The means, F values, and effect sizes of 29 TEAMS teacher responses to the TBI items are presented in Table 5. Significant changes across time are shaded in grey whereas medium to small effect sizes are bolded in red. Not all of the significant results were due to a consistent increase across time. Rather, some of the subscales showed an increase from pre-SI to post-SI, but then a drop down to baseline levels at the AY posttest. Thus, effect sizes are important to examine in addition to the statistical significance. Table 5 shows that moderate to large changes in the positive direction were found pre to post SI for the total STEBI scores, the total Classroom Learning Environment scores, and three of its four subscales: Classroom Environment (CE), Teaching Activities & Assessment (TA), and Instructional Goals (IG). For the total Instructional Practices Inventory scores and one of its two subscales: Reform Strategies (RS), the moderate effect sizes were found pre to post SI in the
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 126 and 127: Observations: Horizon’s Classroom
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?