2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Recommendations

Info

elements of science abstraction (1); allowing more time for wrap-up (1); correcting student misconceptions (1); and anticipating student responses for better comfort and preparation (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Science Content (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the Comparison science teacher’s observed lesson content. Strengths included: covering significant and worthwhile content; and the accurate discussion of the content and use of scientific terms. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations included making sure that all students are intellectually engaged with content at all times. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Classroom Culture (TEAMS Teachers): An average rating of 3.75 was given for TEAMS science teachers’ observed lesson classroom culture. Strengths included: high engagement of students (4); encouragement of active participation by all students (7); student discussions/collaborations with one another (7); collaborative relationship between teacher and students (7); challenging of ideas (4); having a climate that encourages students to generate ideas and propositions for experimentation (4); and a climate of respect (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: calling not only on students who volunteered, but on others as well (1); increasing female whole group participation (1); encouraging students to generate questions, conjectures, propositions (1); paying attention to the student speaking (1); and improvement of classroom management. Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Classroom Culture (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the Comparison science teacher’s observed lesson classroom culture. Strengths included: active participation and encouragement of all students; giving compliments to student ideas; intellectual rigor and challenging of ideas; and collaborative working relationship between students and teacher. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations included: encouraging collegial working relationships among students (interactions did not reflect collegial working relationships among students) and making sure that students understand what was being asked of them and/or ask the teacher to clarify. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Overall Capsule (TEAMS Teachers): An average rating of 3.6 was given for TEAMS science teachers’ observed lesson overall capsule. Rationale included: lesson being limited in its likelihood to enhance students’ understanding of science (1); extent to which students’ understanding of science as a dynamic body of knowledge was enriched by this investigation (5); extent to which lesson appeared to increase students’
interest in science (5); and extent to which instruction was quite/highly likely to enhance student understanding and successfully “do” science (5); and need for more ‘sense-making’ (2). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Overall Capsule (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the Comparison science teacher’s observed lesson overall capsule. Rationale included: students having some ability to carry out own inquiry; some instruction being above level of students; the extent to which student understanding of science as a dynamic body of knowledge was enriched; low student self-confidence in science; and some weaknesses in implementation and design of the lesson. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Back to top Detailed Results for TEAMS Participant Math Classroom Observations Design (TEAMS Teachers): A rating of 3.6 was given for the TEAMS mathematics teacher’s observed lesson design. Strengths included: careful planning and organization (2); incorporating tasks, roles and interactions consistent with investigative mathematics (2); using multiple hands-on activities to investigate (1); the instructional strategies and activities reflected attention to issues of access, equity and diversity (1); and the design of the lesson encouraged a collaborative approach to learning (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: considering a possibility of assessing each student’s understanding (1); ensuring that all students participate through individual or small group activity prior to whole group activity (1); and allowing more time for sense-making and wrap-up (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 math teacher’s observed lesson design. Strengths included: consistency with investigative mathematics by generating ideas for the next lesson; careful organization, connection-building from prior experiences and knowledge; and the opportunity to participate at various ability levels. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations included: Need for more investigative strategies (less sitting time) and more sense-making. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Implementation (TEAMS Teachers): A rating of 3.6 was given for the TEAMS mathematics teacher’s observed lesson implementation. Strengths included: incorporating classroom discussion (1); teaching at an appropriate pace (1); using investigative mathematics strategies (2); implementing hands-on and minds-on activities (1); teacher’s classroom management strategies enhanced the quality of the lesson (1); 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 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 142 and 143: Table 11. Average and Range of TEAM
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?