Issues Surrounding the Evaluation of Teacher Internship Programs Donna Barrett Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics & Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia.
Download ReportTranscript Issues Surrounding the Evaluation of Teacher Internship Programs Donna Barrett Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics & Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia.
Issues Surrounding the Evaluation of Teacher Internship Programs Donna Barrett Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics & Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia …. a collaborative effort of corporations, universities and school districts designed to enhance mathematics and science experiences of Georgia teachers and their students. Since 1991, teachers have been placed in over 1100 GIFT internships throughout the state. Goals of Increasing the teacher’s personal knowledge base of science, mathematics and technology Enhancing the teacher’s enthusiasm for teaching Providing access to new techniques and procedures Encouraging partnerships with business and education The GIFT Experience - Commonalities Common application Internship in STEM-based work setting Emphasis on “Real World” problem solving and reasoning Development of Inquiry Based Unit – Action Plan The GIFT Experience - Variables Location of placement Goal of placement University Corporate Informal science/public education ”Traditional” Student research International Curriculum development Length of placement: 4-8 weeks The GIFT Experience - Variables Geography Teaching Level High school vs. middle school Teaching Field Placements across Georgia Science, math, technology, social science Type of school affluent vs. low income, stable vs. changing, minority vs. majority GIFT Evaluation Plan An Advisory Board composed of 25 members from corporations, universities, and school districts Utilizes the strategy of subcommittee phone conferences to provide guidance on program issues such as evaluation Evaluation subcommittee has provided input on program evaluation Worked with an internal evaluator to develop a GIFT Logic Model and develop assessments Assessing Impact on Teachers Participant Reactions Numbers Are participants satisfied? Teacher and Mentor Surveys Participant Learning Action Plan Analysis What have teachers learned about inquiry based learning? GIFT Logic Model adapted from Guskey’s 5 Level Model for Assessing Professional Development Assessing Impact on Teachers Participant Actions How have they applied inquiry based learning in their classroom? Surveys – Pre-Summer, Post-Summer & School Year Follow-up (Post-GIFT) Alumni Survey Classroom Observation GIFT Logic Model adapted from Guskey’s 5 Level Model for Assessing Professional Development Pre and Post Surveys Using inquiry and hand-on activities Minor 0% Minor 23% Major 34% Moderate 43% Pre-GIFT N=47 Major 79% Post-GIFT N=24 Based on surveys from: www.retnetwork.org Moderate 21% Assessing Impact on Teachers Organizational Change Change in school infrastructure Teachers as agents of change Alumni Survey Focus Group Discussions Classroom Observation GIFT Logic Model adapted from Guskey’s 5 Level Model for Assessing Professional Development GIFT Alumni Survey Searching for 668 former participants GIFT database/Districts/Websites/Searches 123 Fellows – No contact information 545 Contact Attempts: 382 E-mail & 163 mailed; 36 E-mail and/or mail returned 509 Total Sample Size 127 - Surveys returned Return Rate: 25% To what extent, if any, do you feel that you experienced each of the following types of learning as a result of your participation in GIFT? Strongly Agree or Agree I gained a greater understanding of the applications science, mathematics, and/or technology in every day life. 93.10% I gained greater understanding of fundamental concepts in science, mathematics or technology. 84.30% I increased my knowledge of current issues in scientific or mathematical research. 91.20% I increased my knowledge of careers that utilize science, mathematics, and/or technology. 95.10% I gained an appreciation of the difficulties some students encounter when learning new material. 78.50% It increased my comfort level with inquiry-based learning strategies. 76.00% It increased my ability to incorporate "real life" examples of the subjects I teach. 96.10% Leadership Roles 16% reported they became a department or grade level chair person AFTER their GIFT experience 21% reported they became a school district leader (Principal, AP or Coordinator) AFTER their GIFT experience Impact of GIFT on Involvement with Students 100% 4% 15% 80% 14% 13% 20% 50% 40% 10% 16% 6% 10% 60% 17% 11% 40% 68% 10% 13% 60% 20% 65% 30% 30% 0% Sponsored a Science Olympiad Team Long Term Science Projects No Science Projects placed at the District or State Prior Sponsored a Club related to STEM After Involved in Summer Science Programs for Students Before & After Continuing Contact with Mentor 100% 90% 80% 15% 11% 2% 4% 15% 24% 0% 3% 2% 5% 21% 12% 2% 0% 7% 18% 70% 60% 39% 50% 44% 91% 40% 70% 81% 76% 30% 20% 10% 35% 24% 0% Maintained contact follow ing GIFT experience. Not at all Maintained contact via e-mail Year Following Mentor visited classroom Students visited mentor 2-3 years following Mentor assisted w ith student projects Published a scientific paper/ presented together More than 3 years following Limitations of Data The data is self reported, although anonymous Return rate of Alumni Survey – 25% Sample sizes often vary on the pre and post surveys Focus Groups have provided more specific information Challenges in Correlating Student Achievement with Teacher Professional Development Designing a scientifically valid study with appropriate controls Appropriate measures of student achievement across grade levels, subjects Access to student achievement data Teachers changing schools, subjects and grade levels Assessing the Impact on Students Student Achievement Connecting the dots through a literature review Encouraging the use Research based best practices (Inquiry, Problem Based Learning, etc.) Impacting teacher content knowledge GIFT Logic Model adapted from Guskey’s 5 Level Model for Assessing Professional Development Future Evaluation Goals Collect student achievement data of GIFT participants – proposed study with a local school district to collect preliminary data Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) – Middle Grades End of Course Test (EOCT )– High School Biology, Physical Science, Algebra, Geometry Aggregate data from specific class and compare to state average Pre GIFT data, Post GIFT data, YR 1, YR 2 Post Evaluation Tools/Resources Columbia Program: http://scienceteacherprogram.org/ Industry Initiatives for Science and Math Education (IISME): www.iisme.org RET Network Surveys: www.retnetwork.org SWEPT study: www.sweptstudy.org TRE Conference on Research Experiences. http://omp.gso.uri.edu/CTRE/ Visiting a High School Inquiry Classroom: How to Prepare and Observe: http://cse.edc.org/pdfs/products/observerguide.pdf For more information: Donna Barrett Program Director [email protected] (404) 894.7530 www.ceismc.gatech.edu/gift