Reading the River Evaluation Summary 2002-2003 Jeffrey Smith Department of Psychology Northern Kentucky University.

Reading the River Evaluation Summary

2002-2003

Jeffrey Smith

Department of Psychology

Northern Kentucky University

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)

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.

Participant’s Confidence1=Low……………5=High

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

Items 1-7: Rate your confidence in the use of the following program technologies (1=Low…5=High)

Water quality kits

Labware, probes, CBLs, and graphing Calculators

Internet websites

Microscopes

Videoscopes

Presentation technologies

Digital cameras

Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Rating for Items 1-7.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

WaterQuality

labware Websites Microscopes Videoscopes PresentationTech.

DigitalCamera

PrePostLt. Post

Items 8-12: Confidence in the use of Instructional Strategies (1=Low…5=High)

Hands-on instruction

Inquiry-based teaching

Gender & minority equity

Integrating the sciences

Integrating science with other subjects

Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Rating in the use of Instructional Strategies.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

Hands-onInstruction

Inquiry-base Gender&Minority

Equity

IntegrateScience

IntegrateScience &

OtherSubjects

PrePostLt. Post

Items 13-15: Confidence in the Ability to use Community Resources(1=Low…5=High)

Guest speakers

Natural environment field sites

Field trips to watershed community resources

Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings in the Ability to use Community Resources

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Guest Speakers NaturalEnvironment

Field Trips

PrePostLt. Post

Items 18-21: Confidence in the use of

Field Based Investigations (1=Low…5=High)

Water chemistry

Macroinvertebrate study

Fish study

Geology study with Topo maps

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Water Chemistry Macroinvertebrate Fish Study Geology Study

PrePostLt. Post

Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings for the use of Field Based Investigations.

Items 23-26: Confidence in the Ability to

Teach Program Topics (1=Low…5=High)

Watersheds

Connections between science and real life

Connections between science and societal issues

Connections between science and science-related careers

Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings in the Ability to Teach Program Topics

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Watershed Science & Life Science & Society Science & Careers

PrePostLt. Post

Items 27-30: Rate the General enthusiasm of the following for Science (1=Low…5=High).

All students in my classes

Male students

Female students

Minority students

Average Pre and Long-term Post Ratings of Student Enthusiasm for Science (1= Low…5=High)

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

All Students Males Females Minority

PreLt. Post

Item 31: Percentage of Curriculum aligned with the Core Content for Assessment

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

PreLt. Post

Items 1-7: Participants Reported Use of Program Technologies a Year (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)

Water quality kits

Labware, probes, CBLs, and graphing Calculators

Internet websites

Microscopes

Videoscopes

Presentation technologies

Digital cameras

Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of Program Technologies

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

WaterQuality*

Labware Websites Microscopes Videoscopes PresentationTech.

DigitalCamera

PreLt. Post

Items 8-12: Participants Reported Use of Instructional Strategies (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)

Hands-on instruction

Inquiry-based teaching

Gender & minority equity

Integrating the sciences

Integrating science with other subjects

Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of Instructional Strategies

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Hands-onInstruction

Inquiry-based Gender &Minority Equity

Integrated Science Integrate Science& Other Subjects

PreLt. Post

Items 13-15: Participants Reported Use of Community Resources (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)

Guest speakers

Natural environment field sites

Field trips to watershed community resources

Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Reported Use of Community Resources

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Guest Speakers NaturalEnvironment

Field Trips

PreLt. Post

Items 18-21: Participants Reported Use of Field Based Investigations(1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)

Water chemistry

Macroinvertebrate study

Fish study

Geology study with Topo maps

Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Field Based Investigations

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Water Chemistry MacroinvertebrateStudy

Fish Study Geology Study

PreLt. Post

Items 23-26: Participants Reported Teaching of Program Related Topics (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)

Watersheds

Connections between science and real life

Connections between science and societal issues

Connections between science and science-related careers

Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Teaching of Program Topics

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Watershed Science & Life Science &Society

Science &Careers

PreLt. Post

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 M=2.53The instructional techniques used during the professional development were appropriate for reaching the intended objectives. M=2.16The professional development provided ample time to achieve stated objectives M=2.37The professional development provided adequate follow-up M=2.21The professional development provided useful methods for transferring new knowledge and skills to the classroom. M=2.26

Item F9, Long-term Follow-up: Quality of the Program

(1 Strong agree ----5 Strongly disagree)

I learned new concepts, facts & definitions M=2.26

I learned new instructional approaches. M=2.31

I learned about new forms of assessment. M= 2.68

I participated in hand-on activities that I now use in my own classroom. M=2.32

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

I maintained contact with participants. yes=18, no=1Developed a professional network yes=18, no=1Joined an organization yes=10, no=8, na=1I attended professional conference yes=13, no=5, na=1I have or would recommend this program to other teachers yes=19, no=1I shared what I learning with colleagues through informal interactions yes=19, no=0I shared what I learned with colleagues through formally interactions. yes=11, no=8

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. M=2.32

The quality of student work is noticeably improved. M=2.42

Student scores of statewide student assessments have improved M=2.8

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 M=2.63 Lt. Post M=2.16I believe I am an effective teacher. Pre M=2.53 Lt. Post M=2.16I am excited about teaching my subject area.Pre M=2.32 Lt. Post M=2.05

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

Pair A: Lecture vs. Interaction Pre M=3.95 Post M=3.88Pair B: Group work vs. Independent Pre M=2.79 Post M=2.5Pair C: Central ideas vs. Broad coverage Pre M=2.74 Post M=3.0Pair D: Repetitive vs. Manipulate ideas Pre M=3.58 Post M=3.44Pair E: Hand-on vs. Lectures/demos Pre M=2.74 Post M=2.75Pair F: Successful vs. Unsuccessful encouragement Pre M=2.37 Post M=2.63Pair G: Conventional vs.Alternative Assessment Pre M=3.2 Post M=3.4

Reading the River Session Evaluations

Scaling

Strongly agree = 1

Agree = 2

Undecided = 3

Disagree = 4

Strongly Disagree = 5

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

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

Reading the River Session Evaluations

Tuesday AM Cave Run Lake Session was beneficial M = 1.59Tuesday AM Fish IdentificationSession was beneficial M = 1.74Tuesday Afternoon Pontoon StudySession was beneficial M = 1.12Tuesday PM RecreationExperience was beneficial M = 1.60

Reading the River Session Evaluations

Wednesday AM Mussel StudySession was beneficial M = 1.11Wednesday Afternoon Canoe TripSession was beneficial M = 1.21Wednesday PM RecreationExperience Was Beneficial M = 1.56

Reading the River Session Evaluations

Thursday AM Canoeing/MonitoringSession was beneficial M = 1.44Thursday Afternoon History & FloodingSession was beneficial M = 2.0Thursday Afternoon Cultural ResourcesSession was beneficial M = 2.4Thursday Afternoon Farm VisitSession was beneficial M = 1.39Thursday PM Campfire ProgramSession was beneficial M = 1.6

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

Pro Environmental Attitudes(New Ecological Paradigm Scale)

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

Proenvironemntal Attitudes

PrePostLong-term Post