2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Recommendations

Info

teacher appeared confident in ability to teach mathematics (1); and students were able to work at there own pace that was appropriate for their developmental needs (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: the need for better utilization of mathematical “terms” (properties, volume, etc.) and making better mathematical connections(1); and allowing students to return materials one at a time to better build trust (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Implementation (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 4.0 was given for the Comparison math teacher’s observed lesson design. Strengths included: teacher valued student ideas and contributions ; good use of questioning strategies; and teacher’s classroom management strategies enhanced the quality of the lesson. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations included: activity did not provide much opportunity for the teacher to ask higher-level questions. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Mathematics Content (TEAMS Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the TEAMS mathematics teacher’s observed lesson content. Strengths included: content being developmentally appropriate for the students (1); content experienced in multiple ways (1); class discussion portraying mathematics as a discipline enriched by discourse, conjecture, and justification (1); teacher displayed an understanding of mathematics concepts (1); students were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of the lesson (1); and the mathematics content was significant and worthwhile (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: increasing opportunities to introduce mathematical terms or properties (1); paying attention to mathematical inaccuracies (1); making more and better mathematical connections (1); and make connections to real-world contexts (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Mathematics Content (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the Comparison math teacher’s observed lesson content. Strengths included: connection to real world situations and to prior knowledge of other disciplines; activity was appropriate for the developmental levels of the students and provided a basis for later study. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations: need for greater degree of “sense-making”. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Classroom Culture (TEAMS Teachers): A rating of 3.6 was given for the TEAMS mathematics teacher’s observed lesson classroom culture. Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Strengths included: students working collaboratively (2); active engagement in learning mathematics (1); many different students participating in whole group discussion (1);
encouragement of students to use their own words in explanations (1); climate of respect for student contributions (1); active participation of all was encouraged and valued (1); and the climate of the lesson encouraged students to generate ideas, conjectures and questions (1). Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the five observed lessons this was applicable to. Recommendations included: none. Classroom Culture (Comparison Teachers): A rating of 3.0 was given for the Comparison math teacher’s observed lesson classroom culture. Strengths included: active participation of all students was encouraged; teacher demonstrated respect for student ideas; teacher fostered respect of students towards one another; and evidence of collegiality. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Recommendations: incorporate the students’ application of ideas, generation of questions or conjectures, and/or challenging each other’s ideas Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Overall Capsule (TEAMS Teachers): A rating of 3.6 was given for the TEAMS mathematics teacher’s observed lesson overall capsule. Rationale included: majority of lesson mathematically being accurate (1); teacher’s questioning strategy being aligned with investigative mathematics (1); students developing confidence and self-sufficiency in mathematics (1); instruction likely to enhance most students’ understanding of the discipline (2); and students’ understanding of mathematics as a dynamic body of knowledge (1). 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 math teacher’s observed lesson overall capsule. Rationale included: The lesson was consistent with investigative mathematics: students made many connections between mathematics and other disciplines; the lesson could have been more investigative; and the lesson was somewhat limited in its likelihood to enhance students’ understanding of mathematics as a discipline. Note: there are no numbers in parentheses because there was only one lesson observed. Back to top TeachOhio Participant Classroom Observations Results Due to the small sample size and restricted range of possible ratings, only descriptive comparisons of average pre and post ratings for each section of the Classroom Observation Protocol were done. These comparisons showed an increase in average ratings from pre to post observation, for all five sections of the protocol - design, implementation, content, culture, and capsule (see Table 13). Furthermore, the average post ratings were all between 3.5 and 4.2, which represents instruction that is beyond beginning effective instruction and is either close to or at accomplished, effective instruction (i.e., a rating of 4).
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 144 and 145: elements of science abstraction (1)
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?