preparation a glass half full n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Preparation “A Glass Half Full” PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Preparation “A Glass Half Full”

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 54

Preparation “A Glass Half Full” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Preparation “A Glass Half Full”. Please organize yourselves into groups of 5-6. Note cards for comments will be distributed prior to the beginning of the session and are on your tables. Please select a different recorder for each group activity. A Glass Half Full: CETP Core Evaluation.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Preparation “A Glass Half Full”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Preparation“A Glass Half Full” • Please organize yourselves into groups of 5-6. • Note cards for comments will be distributed prior to the beginning of the session and are on your tables. • Please select a different recorder for each group activity.

    2. A Glass Half Full: CETP Core Evaluation Frances Lawrenz Karen Appeldoorn University of Minnesota

    3. What are the various sources of Core data and what are their strengths and weaknesses? • Briefly discuss the above question. • Record your responses on note cards. • We will pick them up from each group.

    4. Data Sources Used by the Core • Higher Education: PIs or Evaluators, Deans or Department Chairs, STEM and STEM Education Faculty, Students, NSF Student Scholars • K-12: Principals, CETP and NonCETP Teachers, CETP and NonCETP Students, NSF Graduated Scholars • Both: Classroom Observers, Classroom Activities, Student Assessments

    5. Make and record predictions about the following – we will return to these at the end of the presentation: • How often did HE faculty think students worked on real-world issues? • How helpful did HE students find doing data collection and analysis? • How often did K-12 teachers believe students had enough time to learn what was required? • How helpful did K-12 students find completing portfolios? • What % of Deans do you think said their faculty had formalized interaction with K-12? • What did PIs say was the most important outcome?

    6. What is your definition of standards-based reform? • Determine a definition in your group. • Write your definition on a note card. • We will collect the cards and ask for a show of hands on selected items.

    7. What is standards-based reform? • Standards-based reform: identifying challenging academic standards for what all students should know and be able to do and aligning other aspects of the system, such as testing, accountability, teacher certification, and professional development, with the new standards

    8. National Teaching Standards • Science and Mathematics • SCIENCE AND MATH STANDARDS: Inquiry-based program: Select content to meet interests, knowledge, understanding, abilities and experience of students • Student-centered rather than teacher-centered teaching strategies are implicit in the National Teaching Standards

    9. National Teaching Standards • SCIENCE AND MATH STANDARDS: Engage in ongoing assessment of teaching and of student learning: Use multiple methods and systematically gather data about student understanding and ability

    10. Improving Teaching • 86% Education faculty said they observed colleagues teaching • 67% STEM faculty reported observing colleagues teaching • Most often, observations were done because of interest in improving one’s own teaching • 49% say their courses influenced changes in other courses • About 50% of the faculty felt that half of their colleagues were engaged in reform

    11. Comments about Instruction • “I believe my dept has crossed an important threshold thanks in part to CETP. Reformed instruction is now the norm and we have reached a critical number of faculty who use reformed instruction. We hire new faculty based in part on their understanding of reforms and their willingness to teach science in a reformed manner.” Dean/Dept Chair • “There is more disposition on the part of the faculty to use constructivist approaches in their teaching, as well as to integrate information technologies in their courses.” Dean/Dept Chair

    12. HE Teaching Activities • Most activities were used between Seldom and Occasionally • Most common activities were real world problems, writing descriptions of reasoning, making models and using technology to communicate • Students thought most helpful activities were students working on real-world problems, students using or making models, and using technology to understand concepts taught in class.

    13. Time Spent and Helpfulness of Standards-Based HE Teaching Practices

    14. Most Important Outcomes (PI) • 38% said increased collaboration among higher education institutions • 31% reported improved interaction between STEM and education departments • 31% saw improved interaction between higher education and K-12 schools

    15. Faculty Reporting • 73% said more interaction with faculty from other institutions • 72% STEM faculty reported more STEM and education dept interaction • 83% Education faculty found more STEM and education dept interaction • 46% faculty said they have formalized interaction with K-12 schools • 32% reported field based experiences in K-12

    16. To what extent has CETP Improved (4=substantial): • STEM faculty interactions about instruction, mean=3.9 • STEM and Education faculty interactions, mean=3.8 • 2yr and 4 yr college interactions, mean=2.6 • Faculty and k-12 interactions, mean=3.7

    17. Comments about Interaction • “The funding has tremendously encouraged collaboration. I will never go back to working alone.” Faculty Member • “We have much greater interaction with mathematics and science faculty from other institutions. CETP is the cause of it.” Faculty Member • “We visit colleagues in similar programs at other institutions and we communicate more, in person and by email, with colleagues in other departments at my home institution. This is a direct consequence of the CETP.” Faculty Member

    18. Deans/Department Chairs • 53% reported changes in interaction with faculty in other institutions • 86% said their faculty had formalized interaction with K-12 • 77% said classes in their depts. had field based experiences • 42% said their depts. offered special programs to increase diversity

    19. Comments about Interaction • “The two year colleges were virtually unknown prior to CETP. Now they are a part of the mix when discussions, roundtables, seminars or professional development workshops are organized.” Dean/Dept Chair

    20. Value of Teaching • 84% dept chairs rated teaching as very important in hiring decisions • 89% dept chairs said promotion and tenure included work on instructional improvement • 34% 4yr STEM faculty found teaching more valued than research • 59% 4 yr Education faculty reported teaching more valued than research

    21. Comments about K-12 Interaction • “At the same time new courses were developed and implemented, teachers from the School District served as ‘critical friends’ in observing college teaching.” Dean/Dept Chair • “STEM faculty are working between disciplines to garner funds and develop innovative preservice programming. They are creating linkages with K-12 schools as never before.” Dean/Dept Chair

    22. Relationships with Higher Education • 74% of the principals said their schools have ongoing relationships with institutions of higher education • 56% found these relationships have not changed but all but one comment about them was positive • 47% of teachers reported having relationships with higher education • CETP teachers reported more relationships

    23. Teacher Preparation Programs: Principal View • 90% of principals believed teacher preparation programs make a difference • Components of high quality programs were: • standards-based practices, • strong content knowledge base, • understanding of child development and behavior

    24. Barriers to Excellence • 62% of principals reported barriers to excellence • 58% of teachers reported barriers • Lack of resources was the major barrier • CETP teachers perceived more barriers than nonCETP—perhaps they have higher expectations

    25. Principal Ratings of Importance of Teaching Strategies

    26. CETP vs. NonCETP K-12 Teachers • CETP teachers rated their preparation programs higher than nonCETP teachers • CETP teachers were more likely to say they had received instruction on standards • CETP teachers attended more professional meetings • CETP teachers were more likely to view themselves as facilitators than nonCETP

    27. K-12 Teaching Activities • Most used between seldom and occasionally • Most common were activities that include data collection and analysis and that the students have enough time • CETP teachers and students reported using the techniques more than nonCETP • NonCETP students rated techniques as more helpful than CETP students

    28. Time Spent and Helpfulness of Standards Based K-12 Teaching Practices

    29. How important would the data sources rate basing new information on what students already know about a topic?

    30. New information is based on what students already know about a topic: • The majority of Principals rated this as Very Important • The majority of K-12 Teachers said it happens Regularly • The majority of 6-12 Students said it happens Occasionally • The majority of Faculty say it happens Regularly • The majority of College Students say it happens Occasionally

    31. Multiple Assessments • Principals think the use of multiple assessments (such as portfolios and multiple choice items) is Very Important • However, in regards to portfolios: • Faculty – Seldom • College Students – Never • K-12 Teachers – Never • 6-12 Students – Never

    32. How accurate were your initial predications? • Go back to the note cards you made earlier. • How accurate were your initial predications?