2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Table 13. Average TeachOhio Science Ratings
Teach Ohio
Pre Observation Post Observation
Mean High Low Mean High Low
Score Score
Score Score
Design 3.7 5 2 3.8 5 2
Implementation 3.5 5 2 4.1 5 3
Content 3.4 5 2 3.5 5 Low 3
Classroom Culture 3.7 5 3 4.2 5 3
Overall 3.4 High 4 2 3.9 5 Low 3
Back to top
Detailed Results for TeachOhio Participant Classroom Observations
Average Ratings per Category from Pre to Post, Averaged Across Participants
Given the restricted range of possible ratings, statistically significant changes were not expected
and were not found for any of the five rating categories. However, the ratings and the descriptive
summary that are provided below for each category and followed by participant reflections are
useful in evaluating the quality and effectiveness of teaching of TeachOhio participants.
Design (Pre Observation Rating: 3.7; Post Observation Rating: 3.8)
Strengths at the pre-observation included: careful planning and/or organization (10);
encouragement of a collaborative approach to learning (7); adequate time for sense-making (6);
adequate time for wrap-up (6); incorporating tasks, roles, interactions consistent with
investigative science (4); and using instructional strategies that reflected attention to the
students’ experience, preparedness, and learning styles (1).
Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the ten observed lessons this was applicable to.
Strengths at the post-observation included: careful planning and/or organization (10);
encouragement of a collaborative approach to learning (4); adequate time for sense-making (7);
adequate time for wrap-up (6); incorporating tasks, roles, interactions consistent with
investigative science (7); and using instructional strategies that reflected attention to the
students’ experience, preparedness, and learning styles (2).
Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the ten observed lessons this was applicable to.
Recommendations at the pre-observation included: more time for sense making and wrap-up
(4); more frequent use of instructional strategies that reflect the students’ experience,
preparedness, and learning styles (1); provision of written goals for the lesson and tasks for the
students to accomplish (1); use of formal assessments that are consistent with investigative
science (1); better visual representation of the lesson (1); a more interactive approach to notetaking
(1); greater focus on safety (1); and a more collaborative approach to learning (1).
Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the ten observed lessons this was applicable to.
Recommendations at the post-observation included: more time for sense making and wrap-up
(4); more frequent use instructional strategies that reflect the students’ experience,
preparedness, and learning styles (1); provision of written goals for the lesson and tasks for the
students to accomplish (1); the use of formal assessments that are consistent with investigative
science (1); more collaborative approach to learning (3); use of a better springboard for
discussion (1); better connection of previous and future learning (1); questioning the students