2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Recommendations

Info

Table 11. Average and Range of TEAMS Science Ratings Science TEAMS Comparison* Mean High Low Mean High Low Score Score Score Score Design 3.5 5 2 3 3 3 Implementation 3.75 5 Low 3 3 3 3 Content 3.75 5 Low 3 3 3 3 Classroom Culture 3.75 5 High 3 3 3 3 Overall 3.6 5 2 3 3 3 NOTE. * denotes only one classroom observation for the category at this time. Table 12. Average and Range of TEAMS Mathematics Ratings Mathematics TEAMS Comparison* Mean High Low Mean High Low Score Score Score Score Design 3.5 4 Low 3 3 3 3 Implementation 3.5 4 3 4 4 4 Content 3.0 High 3 Low 3 3 3 3 Classroom Culture 3.5 4 Low 3 3 3 3 Overall 3.5 4 Low 3 3 3 3 NOTE. * denotes only one classroom observation for the category at this time. Back to top Detailed Results for TEAMS Participant Science Classroom Observations Design (TEAMS Teachers): An average rating of 3.5 was given for TEAMS science teachers’ observed lesson design. Strengths included: incorporating tasks, roles, interactions consistent with investigative science (8); careful planning and/or organization (7); highly collaborative/groups nature of investigation (3); resources/materials contributing to accomplishing purpose of instruction (4); attention to students’ prior experience (4); adequate time for sense-making and wrap-up (3); instructional strategies and activities reflecting attention to issues of access, equity, and diversity for students (2); design of the lesson encouraging a collaborative approach to learning (1); and the instructional strategies and activities reflecting attention to students’ experience and learning styles (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: the need for better organization (1); more time for sense making and wrap-up (5); more encouragement of collaborative learning (1); more tasks consistent with investigative science (1); the need to adjust size of student groupings (1); the suggestion to report to a smaller group (1) and changing roles within the groups (1); and more use of graphing (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Design (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the Comparison science teacher’s observed lesson design.
Strengths included: consistency of tasks with investigative science; encouraged collaborative approach to learning; attention to students’ prior experiences; and adequate time and structure provided for sense-making and wrap-up. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations included: the need for better organization; changing classroom environment (moving furniture) for better instruction; and paying attention to students who are too far away from part of central lesson. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Implementation (TEAMS Teachers): An average rating of 3.75 was given for TEAMS science teachers’ observed lesson implementation. Strengths included: consistency of instructional strategies with investigative science (6); good use of probes and/or wait time to get at student’s understanding (4); teacher confidence and/or flexibility in teaching science (7); teacher classroom management style enhanced quality of lesson (4); appropriate use of scientific terminology (1); adjusted instruction for students’ needs when appropriate (1); teacher’s questioning strategies were likely to enhance the development of student conceptual understanding (2); and pace of the lesson was appropriate for the developmental levels of the students and the purpose of the lesson (2). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: the need for more review from previous learning of content (1); leaving enough time for all students to share (1); and using higher level questioning (2); and the need for the teacher to appear more confident (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Implementation (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the Comparison science teacher’s observed lesson implementation. Strengths included: consistency of instructional strategies with investigative science; instructor confidence in delivery of material; and appropriate pace. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations included: using terminology at the students’ level of understanding; the terminology used too difficult for the students. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Science Content (TEAMS Teachers): An average rating of 3.75 was given for TEAMS science teachers’ observed lesson content. Strengths included: teacher displaying understanding of science content (7); teacher drawing real world applications (4); covering significant and worthwhile content (8); presentation of science as a dynamic body of knowledge enriched by conjecture and proof (3); and teaching the content appropriate for the developmental levels of students in class (8); and students as intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of this lesson (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: paying greater attention to student understanding of the material and considering re-teaching it if needed (1); making more real world connections (2); including
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 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
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 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 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?