Reading the River Evaluation Summary 2002-2003

1
Reading the River Evaluation Summary2002-2003

• Jeffrey Smith
• Department of Psychology
• Northern Kentucky University

2
Participant Demographics

• N 20 (12 Female 8 males)
• Teaching level (2 primary, 1 intermediate, 6
  middle school, 10 high school, 1 missing)
• Subject area taught (2 self-contained, 16
  science, 1 math science, 1other)
• Influenced to participant by (15 own initiative,
  1school staff agreed program was need, 1 other,
  3 missing)

3
Pre-test, Post-test, Long-term Post-test
Comparisons

• Pre-test measures were taken on the first day of
  the program.
• Post-test measures were taken on the last day of
  the program.
• Long-term post measures were take eight months
  after end of the program.

4
Participants Confidence1Low5High

• Confidence in the use of teaching technology
• Confidence in the use of instructional strategies
• Confidence in use of community resources
• Confidence in use of field based investigations
• Confidence in the teaching of program topics

5
Items 1-7 Rate your confidence in the use of
the following program technologies (1Low5High)

• Water quality kits
• Labware, probes, CBLs, and graphing Calculators
• Internet websites
• Microscopes
• Videoscopes
• Presentation technologies
• Digital cameras

6
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence
Rating for Items 1-7.
7
Items 8-12 Confidence in the use of
Instructional Strategies (1Low5High)

• Hands-on instruction
• Inquiry-based teaching
• Gender minority equity
• Integrating the sciences
• Integrating science with other subjects

8
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence
Rating in the use of Instructional Strategies.
9
Items 13-15 Confidence in the Ability to use
Community Resources(1Low5High)

• Guest speakers
• Natural environment field sites
• Field trips to watershed community resources

10
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence
Ratings in the Ability to use Community Resources
11
Items 18-21 Confidence in the use of Field Based
Investigations (1Low5High)

• Water chemistry
• Macroinvertebrate study
• Fish study
• Geology study with Topo maps

12
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence
Ratings for the use of Field Based Investigations.
13
Items 23-26 Confidence in the Ability to Teach
Program Topics (1Low5High)

• Watersheds
• Connections between science and real life
• Connections between science and societal issues
• Connections between science and science-related
  careers

14
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence
Ratings in the Ability to Teach Program Topics
15
Items 27-30 Rate the General enthusiasm of the
following for Science (1Low5High).

• All students in my classes
• Male students
• Female students
• Minority students

16
Average Pre and Long-term Post Ratings of Student
Enthusiasm for Science (1 Low5High)
17
Item 31 Percentage of Curriculum aligned with
the Core Content for Assessment
18
Items 1-7 Participants Reported Use of Program
Technologies a Year (1Never, 2 1-2, 33-4,
45-6, 5Over 6 times)

• Water quality kits
• Labware, probes, CBLs, and graphing Calculators
• Internet websites
• Microscopes
• Videoscopes
• Presentation technologies
• Digital cameras

19
Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of
Program Technologies
20
Items 8-12 Participants Reported Use of
Instructional Strategies (1Never, 2 1-2,
33-4, 45-6, 5Over 6 times)

• Hands-on instruction
• Inquiry-based teaching
• Gender minority equity
• Integrating the sciences
• Integrating science with other subjects

21
Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of
Instructional Strategies
22
Items 13-15 Participants Reported Use of
Community Resources (1Never, 2 1-2, 33-4,
45-6, 5Over 6 times)

• Guest speakers
• Natural environment field sites
• Field trips to watershed community resources

23
Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Reported
Use of Community Resources
24
Items 18-21 Participants Reported Use of Field
Based Investigations(1Never, 2 1-2, 33-4,
45-6, 5Over 6 times)

• Water chemistry
• Macroinvertebrate study
• Fish study
• Geology study with Topo maps

25
Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Field Based
Investigations
26
Items 23-26 Participants Reported Teaching of
Program Related Topics (1Never, 2 1-2, 33-4,
45-6, 5Over 6 times)

• Watersheds
• Connections between science and real life
• Connections between science and societal issues
• Connections between science and science-related
  careers

27
Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Teaching
of Program Topics
28
Item F8, Long-term Follow-up Quality of the
Program(1 Strong agree ----5 Strongly disagree)

• The professional development addressed my most
  pressing professional needs M2.53
• The instructional techniques used during the
  professional development were appropriate for
  reaching the intended objectives. M2.16
• The professional development provided ample time
  to achieve stated objectives M2.37
• The professional development provided adequate
  follow-up M2.21
• The professional development provided useful
  methods for transferring new knowledge and skills
  to the classroom. M2.26

29
Item F9, Long-term Follow-up Quality of the
Program(1 Strong agree ----5 Strongly disagree)

• I learned new concepts, facts definitions
  M2.26
• I learned new instructional approaches. M2.31
• I learned about new forms of assessment. M 2.68
• I participated in hand-on activities that I now
  use in my own classroom. M2.32

30
Item F10, Long-term Follow-up Impact of the
Program (Yes, No, or na).

• I maintained contact with participants. yes18,
  no1
• Developed a professional network yes18, no1
• Joined an organization yes10, no8, na1
• I attended professional conference yes13, no5,
  na1
• I have or would recommend this program to other
  teachers yes19, no1
• I shared what I learning with colleagues through
  informal interactions yes19, no0
• I shared what I learned with colleagues through
  formally interactions. yes11, no8

31
Item F11, Long-term Follow-up Impact of the
Program on Students (1 Strongly agree ----5
Strongly disagree)

• My students are more attentive and involved in
  classroom activities. M2.32
• The quality of student work is noticeably
  improved. M2.42
• Student scores of statewide student assessments
  have improved M2.8

32
Item F12, Pre and Long-term Follow-up
Professional Impact (1 Strong agree ----5
Strongly disagree)

• I have a good understanding of fundamental core
  content in my discipline.
• Pre M2.63 Lt. Post M2.16
• I believe I am an effective teacher.
• Pre M2.53 Lt. Post M2.16
• I am excited about teaching my subject area.
• Pre M2.32 Lt. Post M2.05

33
Item F13, Pre and Long-term Follow-up Approaches
in Classroom Teaching

• Pair A Lecture vs. Interaction
• Pre M3.95 Post M3.88
• Pair B Group work vs. Independent
• Pre M2.79 Post M2.5
• Pair C Central ideas vs. Broad coverage
• Pre M2.74 Post M3.0
• Pair D Repetitive vs. Manipulate ideas
• Pre M3.58 Post M3.44
• Pair E Hand-on vs. Lectures/demos
• Pre M2.74 Post M2.75
• Pair F Successful vs. Unsuccessful encouragement
  
• Pre M2.37 Post M2.63
• Pair G Conventional vs.Alternative Assessment
• Pre M3.2 Post M3.4

34
Reading the River Session Evaluations

• Scaling
• Strongly agree 1
• Agree 2
• Undecided 3
• Disagree 4
• Strongly Disagree 5

35
Reading the River Session Evaluations

• Sunday AM Curriculum Guidelines
• Session was beneficial M 1.84
• Sunday Afternoon Stations
• Experience was beneficial M 1.56
• Sunday PM Watershed Watch Riparin Zones
• Experience was beneficial M 2.0

36
Reading the River Session Evaluations

• Monday AM Headwaters
• Experience was beneficial M 1.10
• Monday PM Stream Monitoring
• Experience was beneficial M 1.58
• Monday PM Historical Society
• Experience was beneficial M 1.40

37
Reading the River Session Evaluations

• Tuesday AM Cave Run Lake
• Session was beneficial M 1.59
• Tuesday AM Fish Identification
• Session was beneficial M 1.74
• Tuesday Afternoon Pontoon Study
• Session was beneficial M 1.12
• Tuesday PM Recreation
• Experience was beneficial M 1.60

38
Reading the River Session Evaluations

• Wednesday AM Mussel Study
• Session was beneficial M 1.11
• Wednesday Afternoon Canoe Trip
• Session was beneficial M 1.21
• Wednesday PM Recreation
• Experience Was Beneficial M 1.56

39
Reading the River Session Evaluations

• Thursday AM Canoeing/Monitoring
• Session was beneficial M 1.44
• Thursday Afternoon History Flooding
• Session was beneficial M 2.0
• Thursday Afternoon Cultural Resources
• Session was beneficial M 2.4
• Thursday Afternoon Farm Visit
• Session was beneficial M 1.39
• Thursday PM Campfire Program
• Session was beneficial M 1.6

40
Reading the River Session Evaluations

• Friday AM Microscopic Study
• Session was beneficial M 1.47
• Friday Mouth of Licking River
• Session was beneficial M 1.50
• Friday Sanitation District No. 1
• Session was beneficial M 1.63
• Friday Summary of Data
• Session was beneficial M 1.47

41
Pro Environmental Attitudes(New Ecological
Paradigm Scale)