Attachments 1 Through 12

 

Attachment 1

Items from the NVC and Dr. Prival that were specifically addressed, along with the approaches taken were:

           

Inter-Campus interactions:

The expansion of this project to involve a number of new faculty and additional branch campuses does represent an unexpected, yet beneficial and solvable problem. From the in-service student standpoint, these expansions can only be viewed as opportunities for easier and better pursuance of their college degrees.

 

However, coupled with the addition of “new” faculty to the project there is an additional need for some specific training. Both the Tennessee State Mathematics and Science Standards are in the final stages of revision. These revised standards are closely aligned with NAEP materials and will benefit the whole state.  In view of this, the February Workshop included a session introducing original and new participants to the new standards and their format.

 

Additionally, all participants will also receive an introduction to the various state performance indicators. Finally, all participants will receive the new CD Tennessee’s Next Generation Tools for Teaching Standards-Based Mathematics and Science. This item has been upgraded to the new standards, and Dr. Richard Audet, the co-author of this exceptional tool has moved to Tennessee and will be doing a special workshop for the TBR-TP project in early August 2008.

 

It is good to note that all current participating schools and original participating faculty have made certain that their new faculty are following the plans developed for the original courses. On the other hand, this also requires the use of materials developed and required by the original plans. With respect to this, it should be noted that schools have done a great job of either buying the appropriate items for the branch campuses (Motlow State and Walters State), or developing a “share” plan for use across campuses (Roane State).

 

Finally as will be discussed in more detail, participants will be visiting each other to more closely observe and discuss what different schools have developed. A matrix indicating these visitations is found as Attachment 1.

 

Evaluation:

After some email discussions, Co-PI Hector met with Gary Skolits and two of his associates at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville on November 6 to facilitate the evaluation process.  They reviewed a list of information that the NVC suggested be obtained from each campus and discussed setting up campus visits was reviewed.  Co-PI Hector then communicated with the campus coordinators from each school.  Dr. Skolits’ plan was to contact each campus coordinator to set up dates to visit as many project schools as possible after Thanksgiving, but before faculty left for the holidays. 

 

Dr. Skolits suggested that each campus decide on what personnel should be interviewed during the visit besides grant faculty.  The list might include the Dean of Mathematics and/or Science, the Academic Vice-President, etc.  This information was also part of the campus coordinators’ emailing, thus giving a heads-up on when the visits were to occur and what sort of information was to be collected.  Each campus was asked to prepare a written report on the first two years of the grant in lieu of two separate annual reports. (Written annual reports had not previously been requested.)  Campuses were alerted that they will also be asked to prepare an annual report for the third year of the grant in the summer of 2008. 

 

Syllabi for the education course (Teaching and Technology) and the mathematics and science courses developed or enhanced with grant funding are to be made available for Dr. Skolits visit and also sent by Thanksgiving in electronic form to PI Kelley, to be placed on the grant web site.  In this way, all grant participants can refer to syllabi from other campuses.  To provide a model of how quantitative data might be reported, Co-PI Hector prepared an enrollment report detailing course enrollment at WSCC in the education/math/science grant courses and where the courses were taught. Enrollment increases were specifically noted.  A second report summarized number of graduates in elementary education at WSCC for the year before the grant and the two years of the grant.  Again increases in the number of students graduating since the grant began were noted.  Demographic information was summarized for these graduates.  These reports were shared with campus coordinators to help them prepare their own reports.

 

Communication among the leadership team and within the project:

While listening to the various presentations and comments from faculty from the participating schools, it sounded as if there is a level of disconnect in communication among the project participants, particularly for the science faculty. As the NVC noted in the above paragraph, mathematics faculties at the project schools are involved in several different types of activities where they can share information related to project related courses.

 

In subsequent live and email conversations, it was noted that there are some significant factors contributing to the absence of discourse among the various science groups. The number one constraint noted by all science participant faculty was time. While they were involved in development of their respective courses at the project schools, they did converse with each other, but they did not find time to easily communicate with their peers at other project institutions.

 

The second problem was that there was typically only one science faculty member working in a particular field at a given campus. This was explained in terms of a comparison of project and math and science faculty, again noting the NVC observation above. If a math faculty member needed to take a day or two and attend a meeting related to, for example Math 1410/1420, it was possible for faculty to find another math faculty member, even someone not in the project, who could substitute; math = math. On the other hand, if someone is the only project earth science person, or physical science person on a given campus, they did not feel that they could afford to miss class. This was compounded by the fact that participating schools have typically scheduled the science classes in two and three hour blocks to allow for the meshing of lab and lecture information.

 

As ways were considered to enhance faculty interaction, an examination of the skills of the campus coordinators at the project campuses was studied. At the community colleges, where the aforementioned “time problem” is most acute, there are four campus coordinators from math, two from education, and only one from science. Some additional mechanism to improve sharing of ideas outside of the workshop settings was necessary.

 

Consequently, it has been decided that in essence, focus groups from the areas of biology, physical science, earth science and the teaching and technology courses will be established; each group will have two leaders. Although math has clearly been doing an excellent job of sharing information, they will have a focus group also. As has been occurring, the PI/Co-PI team receive a variety of information related to ideas and opportunities in math and science. When these seem applicable, they are passed on to the whole project via email. In the new format, these items will be channeled to the focus group, with the leaders being asked to solicit input from their respective group, and reply to the PI/Co-PI’s. Phelps and Kelley will work with the science groups and Hector and Godbole with math.

 

As suggested in the NVC report, the administrative team for this project has divided up several of the components of the project. Co-PI Hector will work directly with Dr. Skolits for the procurement and assessment of evaluation materials. Co-PI Phelps will work with the project budget. Even since the NVC’s visit, it is evident that the TBR transition between its current SIS budget system and the new Banner system continues to have problems. The understanding of grant funding processing at a four-year school may be helpful to some of the community colleges. Co-PI Godbole took the lead in planning for the February and May workshops. Because the grant secretary is located on the Pellissippi State Campus and virtually all of the information related to the project is stored there, PI Kelley will be in charge of information collection from the partner schools.

 

Individual course assessment:         

The training of the project participants in processes related to authentic assessment would add an excellent skill both for them and for their in-service teacher clientele. Co-PI Phelps has done extensive work in this area through work with student teachers over approximately the past twenty-five years. The introduction of Rubric construction and use will be the first step in this process and was carried out at the February workshop by Dr. Phelps.

 

The grant as an influence on state-wide policy:

In this area there have been three significant developments. First, Dr. Kay Clark, TBR Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs will be convening a group to discuss a plan for K-6 math and science teacher education professional development for the non-TBR-TP grant portion of the TBR system. Anticipated participants in this discussion:

 

Ms. Charle Coffey, Campus Coordinator, MSCC, TBR-TP Project

Mr. Chuck English, Professional Development Consultant, SouthEast Educational Inc.

Dr. Jerry Faulkner, Campus Coordinator, CSTCC, TBR-TP Project

Dr. Tim Forde, Assistant Director Education Programs, Oak Ridge Associated Universities

Dr. Judy Hector, Co-PI, TBR-TP Project

Dr. Meg Moss, Campus Coordinator, PSTCC, TBR-TP Project

Dr. Mary Lou Witherspoon, Professor of Mathematics, Austin Peay State University

Dr. Jim Kelley, PI, TBR-TP Project

 

Second, the East Tennessee Economic Council commissioned Oak Ridge Associated Universities to bring together and initiate a discussion among approximately thirty different education related entities. This was done to develop a planning base for possible ideas related to the America Competes legislation. Dr. Tim Forde, Associate Director of Science Education Programs, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, was placed in charge of this meeting and process. PI Kelley was invited to this discussion.

 

In a subsequent meeting at Pellissippi State, Drs. Forde and Kelley discussed the TBR-TP Project and its relationship to possible professional development activities for K-6 (8) math and science teachers (pre-service, in-service and community college) via the ORAU research experience, and the pedagogical enrichment plan used in TBR-TP Project. ORAU is interested in implementing such a plan, and thus Dr. Forde will be a part of Dr. Clark’s TBR discussion.

 


 

Attachment 2

AGENDA

Teacher Preparation Grant Workshop

February 15, 2008 – 8:30 to 5:30

February 16, 2008 – 8:30 to 2:30

 

Friday 2/15/08

 

 

Participating Schools

Chattanooga State, ETSU, MSCC, NSTCC, PSTCC, RSCC, TNTECH & WSCC

 

 

 

 

Time

Item

Location

8:30-8:45

Registration

Goins Rotunda

8:45-9:30

Getting organized – Introduction of participants – We will have some new folks with us; housekeeping items

Goins Auditorium

9:30-10:45

 

School presentations by campus coordinators: ETSU, TTU and MSCC

Goins Auditorium

10:45-11:00

 

Break

 

11:00-12:15

School Presentations by campus coordinators: NSTCC, RSCC and WSCC

Goins Auditorium

12:15-12:30

Initiate participant inter-campus visit plan and TBR-TP Project presentation plan

Goins Auditorium

12:30-1:15

 

Lunch Break

Cafeteria

1:15-2:05

School presentations by campus coordinators: PSTCC and Chattanooga State

Goins Auditorium

2:05-2:30

 

Develop inter-campus visitation plan

Goins Auditorium

2:30-3:30

 

Evaluator’s report: Dr. Skolits and Dr. Boser

Goins Auditorium

3:30-3:45

 

Break 

 

3:45-5:15

Use of NAEP Math items – Holly Anthony; CBL and Probe-ware use for Science rooms

Math –AL118

ScienceAL250

5:15-5:30

 

Wrap up and head out for dinner

 

5:30-6:00

Light hors d’oeuvers at Comfort Inn

Meeting Area/Lounge

AGENDA

Teacher Preparation Grant Workshop

February 15, 2008 – 8:30 to 5:30

February 16, 2008 – 8:30 to 2:30

 

Saturday 2/16/08

 

 

Participating Schools

Chattanooga State, ETSU, MSCC, NSTCC, PSTCC, RSCC, TNTECH & WSCC

 

 

 

 

Time

Item

Location

8:30-9:00

Overview of the day

Lamar Alexander Building – AL118

9:00-10:30

Math: New Standards

Science: New Standards

Math – AL150

Science – AL118

10:30-10:45

 

Break

 

10:45-11:30

Math Standards continued and Math Focus Group discussion

Science Focus Group discussion

Math – AL150

Science – AL118

11:30-12:00

 

TBR-TP Project presentation plans

AL118

12:00-12:45

 

Lunch Break

Cafeteria Annex

12:45-1:30

 

Development of Rubrics for Course Evaluation

AL118

1:30-2:00

 

Pre-Service Teaching Disposition discussion

AL118

2:00-2:30

 

Wrap up 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

AGENDA

Teacher Preparation Grant Workshop

May 5 - 8, 2008 – 8:00 to 6:00

Monday 5/5/08

Participating Schools

CSTCC, ETSU, MSCC, NSTCC, PSTCC, RSCC, TNTECH & WSCC

Time

Item

Location

8:00-8:30

Registration

Continental breakfast for morning attendees

Goins Rotunda/Auditorium

8:30-8:45

 

Introductions and general comments concerning the program

Goins Auditorium

8:45-10:20

 

Origin of the project; where we have come from and what has been developed

Goins Auditorium

10:20-10:35

 

Break

 

10:35-12:00

 

Break out by school – each breakout has a facilitator; discuss what was reviewed today, and what each school still needs to do in the next 3 months.

NSTCC – with Judy Hector – Room AL-223

ETSU – with Kathy Rust – Room AL-225

WSCC – with Anant Godbole – Room AL-151

RSCC – with Maggie Phelps – Room AL-118

TTU – with Charle Coffey – Room AL-124

MSCC – with Ellen Keene – Room AL-128

CSTCC – with Holly Anthony – Room AL-126

PSTCC – with Kim Bolton– Room AL-150

Various classrooms

 

12:00-1:00

 

Lunch Break

Cafeteria

1:00-2:45

Technology activities: Breaks when they are convenient

Audrey Williams: use of podcasts, RSS feeds, U-tube videos,

I-tunes, use of video clips, use of technology in the classroom and choosing and using cameras.

Goins Auditorium

2:45-3:00

 

Break 

 

3:00-4:30

Reconvene

Goins Auditorium

4:30-5:30

 

Teaching and Technology Course discussion:

What are the topics covered? Is there any time left for additional items to be covered in the course? If there is, would other topics be appropriate; like what?

AL-118

5:30

Supper on your own

 

 

AGENDA

Teacher Preparation Grant Workshop

May 5-8, 2008 – 8:00 to 6:00

 

Tuesday 5/6/08

 

 

Participating Schools

CSTCC, ETSU, MSCC, NSTCC, PSTCC, RSCC, TTU & WSCC

 

Time

Item

Location

8:15-5:00

Specific course day for all areas

*        Time to share individual approaches

*        Best practices by topic area, assessment methods

*        Content people in specific courses share syllabi, activities, labs, assessment processes

 

 


 

Take breaks at your leisure

Various classrooms (see listing below and to the left)

12:00-12:45

 

Lunch Break

Cafeteria

 

 

Each group has a facilitator

*        Earth Science – with Don Byerly – Room AL-150

*        Physical Science – with Diane Vaughn – Room AL-225

*        Biology – with Ellen Keene – Room AL-118

Teaching and Technology faculty choose any session

*        Math sessions – see pages 5 & 6 – Room AL-223

 

Various classrooms

 

5:00-6:00

 

2 + 2 and AST discussions

*        NSTCC, ETSU & WSCC – with Judy Hector, Anant Godbole and Amiee Govett – Room AL-223

*        RSCC, TNTECH, MSCC, CSTCC & PSTCC – with Maggie Phelps and Jim Kelley – Room AL-118

Various classrooms

 

6:00

 

 

Supper on your own

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGENDA

Teacher Preparation Grant Workshop

May 5-8, 2008 – 8:00 to 6:00

 

Wednesday 5/7/08

 

 

Participating Schools

CSTCC, ETSU, MSCC, NSTCC, PSTCC, RSCC, TTU & WSCC

 

Time

Item

Location

8:00-6:00

Science Field Trips

*        Biology – led by Joel Zachry – meet in room AL-150

*        Geology – led by Dr. Don Byerly – meet in room AL-151

 

*        Math sessions – see pages 5 & 6 – Room AL-223

 

*        Today, Wednesday (5/7/08) Physical Science meets in Al-118 with Chuck English

*        On Thursday (5/8/08) Physical Science ORNL trip – led by Dave Braski – meet in room AL-118 at 8:15

Teaching and Technology faculty choose any session

 

 


 

Take breaks at your leisure 

Various classrooms (see body of agenda)

12:15-1:15

Lunch Break

Cafeteria

5:30-6:00

 

Conclude sessions and field trips

 

6:00

 

 

Supper on your own  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGENDA

Teacher Preparation Grant Workshop

May 5-8, 2008 – 8:00 to 6:00

 

Thursday 5/8/08

Participating Schools

Chattanooga State, ETSU, MSCC, NSTCC, PSTCC, RSCC, TNTECH & WSCC

 

Time

Item

Location

8:30-12:15

Topics for the day (draft- these will be divided up among the listed group)

*        Classroom management when using inquiry-based learning, how to deal effectively with students who resist a non-traditional teaching approach and how to keep students focused on the task at hand

*        Teacher preparation and teaching pre-service teachers

*        Successful teaching styles and things that work to electrify and excite

*        Particular activities that would best exemplify each standard and easily adaptable activities (for any grade level)

*        What is covered on Praxis I and Praxis II exams (are there sample exams?). What standards are addressed on these Praxis exams? Who passes and who doesn’t?

Presenters – Dr. Terry Lashley and Chuck English

 

*        Physical Science ORNL trip – led by Dave Braski – meet in room AL-118—8:15 leave for ORNL

Due to ORNL scheduling, the Physical Science group will review the Thursday topics on Wednesday (probably in the A.M.)

Goins Auditorium

10:20-10:40

Break  

 

10:40-12:15

Reconvene

Goins Auditorium

12:15-1:15

 

Lunch Break

Cafeteria

1:15-3:15

 

Reconvene Review Summer ’08 Plans

AL-118

3:15-3:30

 

Break 

 

3:30-5:30

 

Reconvene

The wrap up discussion

AL-118

5:30

 

Supper on your own – (we should be done long before this)

 

 

                                                                                                                        Page 5

Mathematics Group Activities

Information:

1.  TMTA is looking for speakers for their Conference September 19-20, 2008. For information, see: http://www.tmta.info/conference.php

They are hoping to receive speaker proposal forms by ASAP.

 

2.  The "Math for Elementary School Teachers (1410-1420)" Conference at Chattanooga State is May 12th.  For an agenda and directions, contact Angela.Everett@Chattanoogastate.edu

As part of the program, we are going to have an open discussion about the Praxis and about textbooks for this course.  We are asking each of you to bring a copy of your syllabus and the textbook that you use.  Also if you know of specific Praxis issues that need to be addressed, please jot those down and bring those along.

 

3.  Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators

http://www.amte.net/conf_index_2009.shtml

Conference in Orlando, FL February 5-7. 2009

Proposals to speak at the 2009 AMTE Annual Conference in Orlando, FL are due soon!  You have just one more week to submit your proposal—the deadline is Friday, May 9.

 

4.  We can burn electronic copies of your favorite activities/handouts/URL’s of resources to a CD if you e-mail them to judy.hector@ws.edu by __________

 

Math Sharing Agenda--Times approximate

 

Tuesday--Mc 143 

8:45-9:45--Joye Gowan--Quilts and Tesselations

Projects, activities, slides of student projects

 

10:00-12:00--Holly Anthony--Using Geometric Sketchpad with Pre-service Teachers

 

12:00-1:00--Lunch

 

1:00-2:00--Crystal Rice--Metric Models Worksheet, books:  The Greedy Triangle by Marilyn Burns and The Doorbell Rang by Pat Hutchins).  Resources: 5 handouts on CD, Pattern Blocks, Geoboards

 

2:15-4:00--Judy Hector--Middle School Diagnostic Mathematics Tests

Choose and take one from:

1.  Number/Computation

2.  Geometry/Measurement

3.  Probability/Statistics

4. Algebraic Ideas

Each assessment is composed of 20 items—10 multiple-choice and 10 open-response.

Discussion of content and possibility of doing pre- and post- assessment in grant classes.

 

 

                                                                                                            Page 6

 

4:15-4:45--Nellie Gobble and Malissa Trent--Some resources for projects and the new Education Crossroads document free from www.educationcrossroads.com  

 

 

Wednesday--MC 143

8:30-9:30--George Poole--Using videos to stimulate student thinking about teaching and learning

 

9:45-10:45--Meg Moss--Virtual Manipulatives and the Smartboard

 

11:00-12:00--Lee Dell’Isola--Spatial Visualization with Virtual Manipulatives

 

12:15-1:15--Lunch

 

1:15-2:15--Julianna Gregory and Marilyn Bowers--Hundreds quilt, book: Apple Fractions by Jerry Pallotta, First Grade Day

 

2:30-3:30--Kay Moneyhun--Family Math Nights, Middle School Math Contest

 

3:45-4:30--Al 228 Judy Hector--Meshing Teaching and Learning Styles--Take one or two learning styles inventories on the computer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4

Associate of Science in Teaching Degree

Division of Mathematics, Science, and Education

Curriculum Based on Tennessee Board of Regents Universities

Elementary Education, K-6 Emphasis

General Education Component                                                                      Hours

 

Communication                         ENGL 1010, 1020, Basic Speech                                9

 

Humanities                                One Literature Course from Approved List              3

                                                Art Appreciation or Music Appreciation                    3

                                                One Additional Humanities Course from                   3

                                                    Approved List

 

History                                      HIST 2010, 2020, or 2030                                       6

 

Social/Behavioral Science          World Regional Geography                                     3

                                                American Government (Political Science)                3

 

Natural/Physical Sciences          Biological/Life Science                                            4

                                                Physical Science                                                    4

 

Mathematics                             Math Course from Approved List                            3

 

                                                                                                                           41

 

Remaining Nineteen Hours

 

Introduction to Education                                                                                        3

 

Introduction to Special Education or Development of the Exceptional Child               3                                      

Developmental Psychology, Educational Psychology, Life Span Development,

  or Human Growth and Development                                                                       3

 

MATH 1410 and 1420                                                                                             6

 

Additional Science (Earth Science, Geology, or Astronomy)                                       4

   

 

                                                                                                                           19 Additional Degree Requirements

 

Attainment of 2.75 cumulative grade point average

 

Successful completion of Praxis I

 

Satisfactory rating on an index of suitability for the teaching profession (procedure will be developed through collaboration between university and community college representative.

 

 

Attachment 5

 

VISITOR

 

 

NSTCC

 

WSCC

PSTCC

RSCC

MSCC

CSTCC

ETSU

TNTECH

NSTCC

 

XX

XXX

 

 

 

X

XXXX

 

WSCC HOST

Text Box:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

PSTCC

X

 

X

 

X

X

X

X

X

RSCC

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

MSCC

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X0

CSTCC

 

 

 

XX0

X0

XX0

X0

 

XX0

XX

 

ETSU

 

XX0

XXX0

 

 

 

XX0

 

 

TNTECH

 

X0

 

X

X

XXX

 

XXXXXX

XXX

 

X’s indicate number of visits which have already occurred in 2007-2008;

X0’s indicate visits which will occur by August 31, 2008.


 

Attachment 6

Time Table for 2007-2008

 

Fall

Spring

Summer

Year 1

2005–2006

1)PI/Co-Pi meetings; 2) Establish Curriculum Improvement Committees (CIC) for each area and establish roles; 3)Establish teacher education program publicity plans for each campus; 4) Plan professional development(PD) opportunities for math, biology, and Introduction to Education faculty;5)Set Spring workshop days.

1)  Teacher education program publicity on each campus; 2)Establish Student Tennessee Education Association(STEA) organizations for each campus; 3) STEA plans Future Teachers Conference(FTC) for Spring; 4) Math, Biology and Introduction to Education CIC’s meet for two day curriculum development (CD)workshop; 5) Research and purchase manipulatives, technology tools, and other resources; 6) Monthly TWAV meetings by areas; 7)List serves established; 8) Faculty can do PD travel.

1) Evaluate previous year’s experiences;

 2)  All area CIC’s meet for four day CD workshop, review course materials for possible purchase; 3)  Develop project Web site; 4) Investigate additional activities to integrate technology and hands on inquiry for math and science courses.

Year 2

2006 – 2007

1) Math, Biology and Introduction to Education pilot their new courses, monthly reviews by Two-Way Audio Video (TWAV);   2) Two day CD/PD workshops all areas; 3)research and purchase additional resources; 4) Create state-wide web presence; 5)  Hold an Education Professions Day on each campus.

1) All schools pilot Concepts of Chemistry, Concepts of Physics and Earth Science courses; 2) TWAV meetings by area; 3) Visit area high schools, hold MASTER Hub Open Houses at each school; 4)Faculty may choose to attend professional development meetings in their area; 5) As part of Student Support, Praxis I workshops offered on each campus;

6) Local and Regional FTC’s held.

 

1) Evaluate previous year’s experiences;

 2) Three day CD/PD meetings by area; 3)Research and purchase additional resources; 4)Examine activities to integrate math, science and technology with hands on inquiry into the curriculum.; 5)  Two day CD workshops for all areas;  6)TWAV meetings by area; 7) Faculty can do PD travel.

Year 3

2007 – 2008

1)  All schools teaching all Concepts courses ; 2)TWAV meetings by area; 3)Offer Praxis I Preparation workshop; 4)Hold an Education Professions Day; 5) Faculty can do PD travel; 6) Two day CD workshops for all areas. 

1)All schools teaching all Concepts courses; 2)Two day CD workshops for all areas; 3)  Visit area high schools; 4)Local and Regional FTC’s held; 5) TWAV meeting by area; 6) Faculty can do PD travel.

 

1)  Evaluate previous year’s experiences; 2)  four day CD/PD meetings by area; 3) Examine activities to integrate math, science and technology; 4) File Final Project Report.


 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7

East Tennessee TBR-TP  Project

Template for TBR-TP School dialogue  Name of school______________________________________

 

East Tennessee TBR-TP  Project

Math Template for TBR-TP School dialogue

 

 Math

Courses

 

Brief Description of Course

Goals of the Course

Person(s) directing  the course

Math (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Math (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Math (3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

East Tennessee TBR-TP  Project

Teaching and Technology course Template for TBR-TP School dialogue

 

 T and T

Course

Brief Description of Course

Goals of the Course

Person(s) directing  the course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

East Tennessee TBR-TP  Project

Science Template for TBR-TP School dialogue

 Science

Courses

Brief Description of Course

Goals of the Course

Person(s) directing the course

Life Science / Biology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth Science

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Physics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Physical Sciences

Chemistry

 

 

 

 


 

Attachment 8

East TN TBR-TP Project

5-06-08

Breakout by Discipline:  Biology

School:  RSCC

Instructor:  Carolyn Roberson

Course:   BIOL 1310

Structure/Content:

§        Learning activities part of lab period and lecture period

Student Feedback:

 

School:  WSCC

Instructor:  Kim Bolton

Course:   BIOL 1310

Structure/Content:

§        Learning activities part of lab period and lecture period.

§        Use a lecture room and a lab room

§        Comparable scores

 

Student Feedback:

 

School:  MSCC

Instructors:  Linda Young, Cheri Gregory, Elizabeth Fitch, David Palmer

Course:   BIOL 1030

Structure/Content:

§        Integrate Standards and/or directly address Standards

§        Activities and assignments sometimes based on percentage of non-education majors present.

§        Service learning part of curriculum

Student Feedback:

School:  Northeast

Instructors:  David Wollert

Course:   BIOL 1030

Structure/Content:

Student Feedback:

 

School:  RSTCC

Instructor:  Carolyn Dodson

Course:   BIOL 1310

Structure/Content:

§        Lab and lecture integrated.

Student Feedback:

School:  TN Tech

Instructor:  Ray Gordon

Course:   BIOL 1310

Structure/Content:

§        Demo some activities in lecture

§        Do activities in lab

 

Student Feedback:

 

School:  PSTCC

Instructor:  Yolanda Sankey

Course:   BIOL 1310

Structure/Content:

§        Lecture and lab integrated

Student Feedback:

 

 


 

Attachment 9

 

Report

TEACHER PREPARATION WORKSHOP
Earth Sciences Science Field Trip
Tuesday, May 6, 2008

 

Facilitator: Don Byerly

This session was attended by Robin Byrne (NSTCC), Kathleen Affholter, (PSTCC), Wayne Leimer (TTU), and Jerry Faulkner (CSTCC)

Each participant prepared a brief presentation for sharing using a guideline prepared by the facilitator (see attached). The following is a synopsis of the presentations, but by no means covers in any detail the content of the discussion that was precipitated by each presentation. In most cases participants shared similar experiences, etc. related to the topic of the presentation.

I believe the consensus of the participants was that the session was valuable and that everyone seemed to leave the session with something new to try or reinforcement for their own approaches to projects, etc. Additionally, there was discussion about the merits of attending the Tennessee Science Teachers Association's (TSTA) Annual meetings, and especially participating in the workshops and special sessions presented by Tennessee Earth Science Teachers (TEST). Also, membership in TEST was encouraged.

Robin Byrne:

"Mineral Scavenger Hunt" - planning to pilot the Lab/homework project Fall '08. Students look-up mineral uses, then search for examples on campus.

Wayne Leimer uses similar types of activities and contributed significant information on how this can be used to learn about the mineral/rock resources of Tennessee as well as other states.

"Differentiation" - a lab. - to illustrate the need for molten medium for a planet (Earth) to separate into layers. Two 500 mL soda bottles; Five plastic 100 mL beakers (two with Styrofoam or vermiculite, two with water, and two with sand). Weigh each and rank by density. In one bottle place sand and Styrofoam and sand, and in the other place sand, Styrofoam and water. Shake both and observe. Student learn about the role of liquid in the differentiation. Some problems with dry material - would experiment with different materials

Faulkner cited an example using bottles of water of different temperatures (density) as a similar density example. Also, the use of thermometers that can be affixed to the bottles.

"Seasons" - a lab. Modeling activity using balloon and peppercorn - activity to dispel student's misconceptions about cause of seasons being due to distance from the sun.. Problem is that even after demonstrating that the distances between the sun and the Earth are basically the same in January and July, some students still believe distance is the cause for temperature differences she opined that there needs to be a way to force students to confront their ideas (biases).

Faulkner added comments about a similar activity using a Styrofoam ball on a skewer (axis) that could be tilted and rotated (and also be pointing to the North)

Affholter also suggested an adaptation using a flashlight

"Weather" - a paper and pencil assignment - the use of "concept sketching" --given a weather map with high and low pressure areas labeled, students are asked to create a concept sketch illustrating: temperature, direction of air flow, where cloud formation will occur, and where precipitation will occur. Concept sketching has strict rules, i.e., the use of arrows to illustrate energy flow, etc. Intended to be tried in Fall '08.

Everyone was interested in this approach and much discussion followed. Time was spent to search the web for examples of concept sketching (not the same thing as concept mapping).

Kathleen Affholter:

"Geology of Tennessee" - sharing data with other community colleges using "Mash-up" and Wiki - a work in progress. Used the computer to demonstrate the capabilities of the project.

Overall interest in the project was positive.

"Relative locations on the Earth " - a laboratory activity to learn about longitude and latitude using GPS

"Teaching Method/Assessment" - Assign topics to a group of students who then prepare a presentation to teach the subject to the other students. The students also prepared a 5 question quiz based on their presentation. Students giving the presentation are given the average grade of the rest of the class on the five-question quiz. The negative to this is that ultimately the students started directing their talks "to the test".

"Clouds" - lab/lecture - used the web and also used guest meteorologist. The speaker reinforced the work they had done with the NASA school exercises.

"Live geology" - using "web cams" - i.e., show streaming videos of Yellowstone geysers, volcanoes, and the Great Smoky Mountains. - good for a variety (short interjection into a lecture). A problem is that sometimes it doesn't come up on a computer, i.e., "Mozilla" v. "Internet Explorer".

Time was spent exploring potential web cam sites. Faulkner showed the use of earthquake information that is streamed from the University of Memphis.

Wayne Leimer:

"Using the 50 States" - a number of activities that are based upon using the symbols of the 50 states such as a state's: capitol, rock, fossil, gemstone, seal, etc. A successful approach.

"Man-made v. natural" - being able to differentiate between what is a mineral and what isn't; "if teachers cannot do it , how can they be expected to teach 2nd graders how to do it?" Very successful method.

"Visualizing igneous rock textures" - a 12-piece puzzle put together with the backs of the pieces colored with different colors to represent different minerals in the rock. Students asked to group the pieces, then asked how they grouped them - same size, same color, etc. Also, used glass jars filled with minerals separated into groups. Again, how? Identification of minerals is based upon physical properties - comparing textures is used for rocks. A successful method.

A discussion followed about having students discovering scientific absurdities in the media movies, news articles, and descriptions of various products (food, pharmaceuticals, etc.)

Jerry Faulkner:

"Weather" - a hands-on activity - "Atmospheric pressure and condensation" - place 0.5 in. hot water in bottom of 2 liter bottle, strike a match an drop into bottle - cap the bottle and squeeze, then release quickly to cause condensation. Clearly illustrates the relationships among temperature, pressure and particles (smoke from match).

"Topographic Maps" - Students often learn about topographic maps from viewing previously constructed maps, but have difficulty interpreting maps because they don't know how they are constructed. Place a large rock in a bucket of water, cover bucket with sheet of rigid clear acetate

-tape transparency sheet over rigid sheet. Trace outline of water contact on the rock with a pen ; add an inch of water and repeat; repeat several times - each time adding another inch of water. The result is a contour map of the rock with one inch contour interval. Hasn't tried this yet, but intends to.

Byerly mentioned that there are some commercial models for doing this type of activity that use plastic models of landforms such as coral atolls, volcanoes, etc.

"Seasonality" - Each student receives 2" Styrofoam ball and a wooden skewer; Draw a line around circumference of ball to represent the equator. Students insert skewers through the North and South poles of their balls, then put a dot on the ball as close as possible to where they believe they are located on their globe. Arrange students in a circle around a floor lamp in the center of the room - all other lights off. Have students try different positions for the axis of their globe (straight up and down, tilted toward the lamp (the sun), tilted away from the lamp (sun), and then toward a point on the ceiling (i.e., the North Star). Some will still not grasp the concept of seasons, but about an 80% success rate was realized.

Don Byerly:

"The use of fiction and non-fiction" literature. A list of books that might be called leisure science reading was distributed as an example. Book reports, reviews (oral presentations), etc. can be used with the use of literature. Allows teaching across disciplines (can work with history or english classes) Encourages student to read.

 

 

TEACHER PREPARATION WORKSHOP
Earth Sciences Specific Course Group

 

Wednesday, 7, 2008
Field Trip Leader: Don Byerly

 

The trip was attended by: Kathleen Affholter (PSTCC), Wayne Leimer (TTU), Robin Byrne (NSTCC), Jerry Faulkner (CSTCC), and Mark Pollock (NSTCC)

The trip was entitled, "A Day In the Valley and Ridge of East Tennessee - Along with Some Exemplars of Potential Activities in the Field".

The trip departed Pellissippi State campus at 8:30 A.M. and returned at 4:30 P.M.

Prior arrangements were made to visit the Tennessee Marble operations near Friendsville, TN. Here the group saw the operations from extracting the rock from the quarry to the production of a variety of end products. The visit lasted for approximately 1.5 hours.

Five other stops were made to observe a variety of geological features and to collect fossil and mineral and rock specimens.

A copy of the guidebook is attached.

 

 

 

 

SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING BORROWED, OR SOMETHING BORROWED AND NEW TO

YOU

Sharing Experiences From Teaching Pre-Service Teachers Science
TBR Teacher Preparation Workshop
May 6, 2008

 

Name: _________________ Institution:_______________ Department: _________________

Topic: ___________________________ (i.e., assessment, laboratory exercise, problem set, etc.)

Specific subject (i.e., a specific standard, teaching how to teach plate tectonics, rocks/minerals, etc):

Approach: A technique: __________ A specific instrument: __________ Other: ______________

Thinking or rationale behind using this approach (purpose):

A brief description of method:

Effectiveness of method: Positive Comments (degree to which you accomplished your purpose):

Negative Comments (assessment of shortcomings):

% attributed to you

% attributed to method % attributed to material used If you were to do or use the method again, what would you do differently?

On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the highest) how would you rate your approach?

D.W.B. 5/6/08


 

 

A DAY IN THE VALLEY & RIDGE

OF

 

EAST TENNESSEE

Along with some
Exemplars of Potential Activities In The Field

A Field Trip for Tennessee Board of Regents Teacher Preparation Workshop May 7, 2008 Don W. Byerly Professor Emeritus Earth & Planetary Sciences University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN dbyerly@utk.edu

This trip will feature several of the rock units shown in generalized stratigraphic column of Fig 2. Note that the oldest rock unit in the section below is the Upper Cambrian-Lower Ordovician Knox Group. It is unconformably (the wavy line) overlain (a paleokarst surface) by rock units of the Chickamauga Group. As can be seen in the section below the Chickamauga units change from northwest to southeast. These changes are called facies and are caused by the lateral changes in depositional environments..

From northwest to southeast in Figure VII-1 the depositional environments have been interpreted to go from a relatively shallow intertidal marine environment, to a hinge-like area that separated the shallow environment to the northwest from a deeply subsiding basin to the southeast. The hinge area is manifested by the Holston Formation (the black area) which has been interpreted as a carbonate reef (Tennessee "marble"). The deep basin to the southeast is represented today by shale; however, tongue-like units of sandstone reflect the erosion of mountains that were rising to the southeast as terranes (plates) collided with Laurentia. Volcanic activity accompanied the tectonic activity along the eastern margin of Laurentia (proto-North America) spreading ash across the deep basin, the hinge area and the shallow intertidal basin.

Figure VII-1. A stratigraphic cross-section of the Ordovician rock units of East Tennessee from northwest to southeast. After Walker, K.R., 1980, Univ. Tenn. Dept. Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology No. 4.

The ash beds have been altered to bentonite and are represented in Figure VII-1 as numbers 1 through 5. These beds can be called chronostratigraphic units because they represent time lines that extend laterally across the different depositional environments proving different sediment accumulated in different environments contemporaneously to form different types of rock (facies).

Stop 1.

This stop is to examine the Holston Formation and observe how the rock is quarried and processed as dimension stone, statuary and other works of art. We will see state-of-the-art quarrying, fabrication, and finishing. Tennessee Marble Company is family-owned and affiliated with the over 100 year-old Gawet Marble and Granite Center, Rutland, Vermont.

Figure VII - 2 Map adapted from C.H. Gordon. 1924, Marble Deposits of East Tennessee, Tennessee Division of Geology Bulletin 28. The Tennessee Marble company facility is located near mine markers 17 and 18 near the center of the map. The rock units are: Ol = Lenoir Limestone, Oh = Holston Formation, Ot = Tellico (Chapman Ridge ) Formation.

The Holston Formation is composed of a variety of rock types that are all composed largely of calcite with appreciable amounts of finely divided hematite (iron-oxide) which colors the rock and the derived soils various shade of pink to red. The dominant lithology of the Holston is a pink to red coarsely crystalline limestone which is marketed commercially as "marble". The limestone is usually cross-bedded suggesting shifting sands of calcite (often fossil fragments) in relatively shallow water.

Figure VII - 3 Examples of Tennessee "marble" from Gordon, C.H., 1928. A = Mottled Pink; B = Mottled Rose; C = Light Gray; D = Dark Pink; E = Cedar Red; F = Light Pink.

Figure VII - 4 A diagram postulating environments of deposition of the Holston Formation. Note the intertonguing relationship of the Holston with the underlying Lenoir Formation

-a similar relationship exists between the Holston and the overlying Chapman Ridge Formation which is interpreted as the debris slope of the Holston reef. After Walker, K.R., 1980, Univ. Tenn. Dept. Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology No. 4.

Fossils are not easily collected from the Holston due to its massiveness; however, there is a fauna (see Figure VII-4). The megafauna consists mainly of pelmatazoan debris, which in large part makes up the cross-bedded sands, and ramose bryozoans. Algae are not abundant, but are present and include, Girvanella (uncolites), Solenoptera, Contexta, and Vermaporella. Figure VII - 4 is a diagram depicting the paleoenvironment in which the Holston was deposited.

Questions to answered while at Stop 1:

How is the "marble" extracted from the quarry?

What is used to slab the "marble"? How does this relate to Mohs scale of hardness?

What are some of the properties of the Holston Formation that make it useful, e.g. for counter tops, wash basins, bathroom fixtures, etc.?

What are some famous locations where Tennessee "pink marble" has been used?

EXPLORE

 

First, spend time (about an hour) just making general observations of the entire exposure of rock (this is what is known as an outcrop - an exposure of bedrock) and taking a few notes - especially note things that you want to spend more time observing. Use your notebook, write descriptions, thoughts, make sketches of what is seen, etc.

Some hints for your observations:

1                     Why is this rock exposure here? Can you identify the location of this exposure?

2                   Are all the rocks the same? What are the differences?

3                   If there are different rocks here, why?

4                   What interests you the most about the rocks here - the most striking feature(s)?

5                   Can you describe the partings in the outcrop? How do you think they may have formed?

6                   Can you identify any of the minerals in these rocks?

7                   Did you observe any fossils in the rocks? Which ones?

8                   Do the minerals and/or the fossils give you any hints as to how these rocks formed?

 

After everyone has made their initial observations we will hunker down and share what we have seen, what we think, and what we want to look at further. This will call our attention to things that our colleagues may have seen that we didn’t. We will then spend more time on the outcrop observing things we missed and trying to confirm some of our conceptions.

REMEMBER, MAKE NOTES IN YOUR NOTEBOOK - THIS IS SCIENCE!!!

ECONOMIC MINERALS AND ROCKS

 

Materials of economic value that can be extracted from the earth for the well-being of society include: 1) metals and metallic ores, 2) mineral fuels, 3) ground water, and 4) a large group of materials, mostly nonmetallics, but more aptly called "industrial rocks and minerals". For the most part these resources are non-renewable.

Metallic mineral deposits are typically the source for one or more metals such as, zinc, gold, silver, lead, copper, mercury, iron, etc. Minerals that occur with the metallic minerals but having no economic value are called gangue minerals. The gangue most be separated from the desired commodity and the metal sold at a profit in order for a deposit to be considered as an ore. Sometimes a high grade (very pure) ore deposit may occur with small reserves (quantity) and be considered economical, and sometimes a low grade deposit with vast reserves may be economical.

Mineral fuels are major sources of energy and include the fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, as well as uranium minerals for developing nuclear energy. Clean ground water is a very precious earth resource, especially as it becomes more scarce due to pollution and over use. The category most commonly overlooked or "taken for granted" is Industrial Rocks and Minerals. It is, however, in shear volume and value the resource category that outranks all other categories.

The construction industry alone consumes the highest volume of industrial rocks and minerals which includes crushed stone, dimension stone (marble, limestone, and granite), and the raw materials for cement, brick, tile, and insulation. The chemical industry uses salt, sulfur, and limestone; agriculture relies on phosphate, nitrate, and potash; metallurgy requires graphite, fluorspar, magnesite, molding sand, and fire clay; the ceramics industry utilizes clay and feldspar; and a host of other materials are used for abrasives, well-drilling mud, filtration media, fillers or additives, and lubricants.

Many mineral and rock deposits exist with potential to be of economic value, but many factors must be considered before a deposit can be considered as an ore or otherwise economically feasible to mine. Among the typical factors to be considered are: 1) accessibility of the deposit; 2) hauling distances; 3) proximity to water source for mining purposes, or in some cases, cost of water removal; 4) market value of commodity and distance to the market; 5) cost of beneficiation (concentration of ore); 6) cost of reclamation.

Two activities that model a typical mining venture involve using chocolate chip cookies for one venture and a hard-boiled egg for another. In contemplating these models it is suggested that students be challenged to consider how the cookies, the egg, and other materials can be used to model a real mining situation, i.e. what is the ore; what is the gangue or overburden; and what other concerns of mining can be addressed?

EGG MINING

(adapted from AGI Investigating Earth Systems)

This should be done as a team activity with individuals given specific responsibilities. Some of the duties that may be assigned include: a timer, a miner, a person to weigh and calculate, a person to measure area, someone to do reclamation, etc. Materials needed:

Hard-boiled egg
Toothpicks/paper clips/popsicle sticks (mining tools)
Graph paper in millimeters
Weighing paper or index cards
Calculator
Stopwatch
Paper towels
A scale that weighs at least tenths of a gram

 

1                     The team must figure out how to mine as much of the yolk (the valuable mineral product) as possible using the mining tools (toothpicks, etc.) while disturbing as little as possible the egg shell (the land surface) and removing as little as possible of the egg white.

2                    Once any mining or exploration (doing anything to the egg) begins the stop watch is started. The watch is not stopped until all reclamation is completed.

3                    The square millimeters of the removed shell is measured on the graph paper, recorded and set aside for the reclamation.

4                    The mass (weight) of egg white and yolk are determined separately by placing them upon separate pre-weighed weighing papers or index cards, weighed, and the results recorded.

5                    The land is reclaimed by restoring the egg white and the shell onto the egg. Once reclaimed the watch is stopped and the total lapsed time is recorded.

6                    Tally up the costs (pay out) and the profits. Double check all calculations. Was the team venture profitable? Is there anything that your team might have done differently that could have changed the outcome? (Hint: yolk is not exactly in the center - how could you determine this?)

 

UNIT

COST

WHAT IT REPRESENTS IN MINING

Square mm of egg shell

$2.00 (payout)

Reclaiming the surface of the land

Gram of Egg white

$25.00 (payout)

Removal of overburden or gangue

Gram of Egg yolk

$75.00 (profit)

Money from mineral/rock product sold

Minutes mining operation takes

$100.00 (payout)

Worker's salaries and machinery costs

 

 


 

 

 

Attachment 10

Teacher Preparation Grant Workshop

Physical Sciences/Chemistry Meeting, 5-6-08

 

I.                    PRE-SERVICE TEACHER NEEDS

            Suggested Activities

Use of Technology to Address Needs

Stimulus/Response Materials to Elicit Inquiry

II.                 NEW SCIENCE STANDARDS

Concerns

            Questions

            Ideas

III.               MANAGEMENT

Groups

            Assessment for Groups

            Discouraging Absences

            Class Assessment Criteria

            Dealing with Dysfunctional Groups

            What’s the answer and is it right?

IV.              EVALUATION OF PROGRAM

 

 

PRE-SERVICE TEACHER NEEDS

 

Suggested Activities

 

HOW CAN TECHNOLOGY BE USED TO ADDRESS ANY OF THESE “NEEDS”?

 

 

STIMULUS/RESPONSE efforts to elicit inquiry

 

Montessori – students are teachable, find the way they learn

 

 

NEW SCIENCE STANDARDS: Greater Number of Upper School Courses

                                                                 Yearly Science Testing for Elementary School

 

Concerns

Physical Science

Chemistry

 

 

Questions

 

 

Ideas

 

 

 

 

MANAGEMENT

Groups

GPA mixture criteria

Random

Buddies

Playing Cards

Work with someone with whom you have not worked with before

 

Assessment for Groups

Peer Evaluations

Practical Portion that is done by group + second part with individual questions

Work in group, followed by individual assessments

 

Discouraging Absences

Make-up activities with the students, but lose points for being absent

Points associated with attendance

Tests have activity associated questions (so students can learn activity content from other students)

 

Class Assessment Criteria

Attendance

Activities

Daily Quizzes

Tests

Projects

Teaching Application Project

Bonus Points

 

Dealing with Dysfunctional Groups

Talk privately using reasoning

Change groups more often

Put the “difficult” students in the same group

Assign roles within the group and have students rotate roles

Give time alerts

 

Student asks, “What’s the answer?”

Ask a question back

 

Student asks, “Is this right?” --- “What is the truth?”

Response, “Does it address the evidence?”

 

 

EVALUATION OF PROGRAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 11

Report of the National Visiting Committee

Submitted November 1, 2007

Patricia A. Cunniff, Chair

pcunniff@pgcc.edu

 

 

The goal of the Tennessee Board of Regents Teacher Preparation Partnership (TBRTP), based at Pellissippi State Technical Community College, is to improve the mathematics, science, and technology preparation of future teachers at seven community colleges and two universities in eastern Tennessee. Pellissippi State Technical Community College is to be commended for leveraging their Phi Theta Kappa and initial NSFATE grant so as to bring the results of these projects to a large number of institutions in eastern Tennessee.

 

The award letter from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the TBRTP Partnership grant was received August 25, 2005.  As such, many of the colleges involved in the project had already finalized their staffing situations and courses for the fall semester. As a result, meaningful activity on the grant began with the spring 2006 semester and the February 2006 workshop with faculty from the partner institutions.  From the information provided, representatives from all partner institutions, except Cleveland State Technical Community College, participated in this opening workshop.

 

The National Visiting Committee (NVC) visited the project in May 2006 during a faculty workshop. Most of the recommendations from the NVC which were made at that time were explained by the Principal Investigator and/or dealt with.  However, issues related to lack of organization and inadequate communications among the partners, mentioned in the first report of the NVC, continue to surface. These are discussed more fully below.

 

The NVC again visited the project October 25-26, 2007. The NVC found the following particularly commendable:

 

 

The NVC was pleased to meet with the new project evaluator, Dr. Gary Skolits.  We regret that Dr. Skolits is just beginning his work so late in the project.  However, we believe that his expertise and connections will prove valuable in bringing the very qualitative and anecdotal information that has been submitted to date into substantive quantitative data that will provide validation of the successes within this project. We encourage the evaluator to develop specific action items and a precise timeline for each partner institution in order to bring this effort to fruition and to make these available to members of the NVC.

 

The NVC suggests that the evaluator should attempt to obtain the following information:  the number of courses that have been developed and implemented on each campus; the progression of course development on each campus; the number of student enrollments over time; the number of student graduations; the number of students passing PRAXIS; demographic information regarding class composition on each campus; assessment of student learning; survey of faculty views on their faculty roles, accomplishments, and needs; a list of all dissemination efforts; and an annual report from each partner institution.

 

The PI has a responsibility to alert each of the Co-PIs and the campus coordinators as to the timing of the evaluator’s visit to their respective campus, the expectations of the evaluator, and the type of quantitative data that will be required.  This should be done as soon as possible.  The NVC feels strongly about the need for quantitative data and will be submitting a copy of its report to the Project Evaluator.

 

Response to NVC Report Regarding Evaluation:

 

After some email discussions, Co-PI Hector met with Gary Skolits and two of his associates at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville on November 6 to facilitate the evaluation process.  They reviewed a list of information that the NVC suggested be obtained from each campus and discussed setting up campus visits was reviewed.  Co-PI Hector then communicated with the campus coordinators from each school.  Dr. Skolits’ plan was to contact each campus coordinator to set up dates to visit as many project schools as possible after Thanksgiving, but before faculty left for the holidays. 

 

Dr. Skolits suggested that each campus decide on what personnel should be interviewed during the visit besides grant faculty.  The list might include the Dean of Mathematics and/or Science, the Academic Vice-President, etc.  This information was also part of the campus coordinators’ emailing, thus giving a heads up on when the visits were to occur and what sort of information was to be collected.  Each campus was asked to prepare a written report on the first two years of the grant in lieu of two separate annual reports. (Written annual reports had not previously been requested.)  Campuses were alerted that they will also be asked to prepare an annual report for the third year of the grant in the summer of 2008.  The report of the first two years of the grant is to be made available to Dr. Skolits at his visit and also submitted to project PI Kelley. 

 

Syllabi for the education course (Teaching and Technology) and the mathematics and science courses developed or enhanced with grant funding are to be made available for Dr. Skolits visit and also sent by Thanksgiving in electronic form to PI Kelley, to be placed on the grant web site.  In this way, all grant participants can refer to syllabi from other campuses.  To provide a model of how quantitative data might be reported, Co-PI Hector prepared an enrollment report detailing course enrollment at WSCC in the education/math/science grant courses and where the courses were taught. Enrollment increases were specifically noted.  A second report summarized number of graduates in elementary education at WSCC for the year before the grant and the two years of the grant.  Again increases in the number of students graduating since the grant began were noted.  Demographic information was summarized for these graduates.  These reports were shared with campus coordinators to help them prepare their own reports.

 

 There has been a continuous e-mail interchange from campuses with Co-PI Hector, as campuses prepare their reports.  It appears that some visits may need to be scheduled in January in order to accommodate both Dr. Skolits and the project campuses.  Both end of term in December and beginning of term in January are very busy for all concerned.  In general, however, grant faculty are gathering much positive qualitative and quantitative information into reports and presentations for the visits.   

 

The NVC did note some issues that were of concern.

 

There appears to be a lack of organization and communication on the part of the PI. This was cited previously and appears to be continuing. This was noted by members of the NVC, faculty from different campuses, and staff. The NVC consistently heard from participating faculty and the Project Co-PIs that there is very little communication with the exception of the two workshops per year. We believe that the PI should do more to promote ongoing communication.

 

The NVC was very pleased to learn of the ongoing collaboration of mathematics faculty who teach on the different campuses. This apparently preceded this grant. We encourage the project leadership to strive to develop some type of annual professional development experience for the science faculty involved in this project.

 

Note that the above paragraph was moved to its current position. It appears that the following response addresses both of the NVC concerns now shown above.

 

While listening to the various presentations and comments from faculty from the participating schools, it sounded as if there is a level of disconnect in communication among the project participants, particularly for the science faculty. As the NVC noted in the above paragraph, mathematics faculties at the project schools are involved in several different types of activities where they can share information related to project related courses.

In subsequent live and email conversations, it was noted that there are some significant factors contributing to the absence of discourse among the various science groups. The number one constraint noted by all science participant faculty was time. While they were involved in development of their respective courses at the project schools, they did converse with each other, but they did not find time to easily communicate with their peers at other project institutions.

 

The second problem was that there was typically only one science faculty member working in a particular field at a given campus. This was explained in terms of a comparison of project and math and science faculty, again noting the NVC observation above. If a math faculty member needed to take a day or two and attend a meeting related to, for example Math 1410/1420, it was possible for faculty to find another math faculty member, even someone not in the project, who could substitute; math = math. On the other hand, if someone is the only project earth science person, or physical science person on a given campus, they did not feel that they could afford to miss class. This was compounded by the fact that participating schools have typically scheduled the science classes in two and three hour blocks to allow for the meshing of lab and lecture information.

 

As ways were considered to enhance faculty interaction, an examination of the skills of the campus coordinators at the project campuses was studied. At the community colleges, where the aforementioned “time problem” is most acute, there are four campus coordinators from math, two from education, and only one from science. Some additional mechanism to improve sharing of ideas outside of the workshop settings was necessary.

 

Consequently, it has been decided that in essence, focus groups from the areas of biology, physical science, earth science and the teaching and technology courses will be established; each group will have two leaders. Although math has clearly been doing an excellent job of sharing information, they will have a focus group also. As has been occurring, the PI/Co-PI team receive a variety of information related to ideas and opportunities in math and science. When these seem applicable, they are passed on to the whole project via email. In the new format, these items will be channeled to the focus group, with the leaders being asked to solicit input from their respective group, and reply to the PI/Co-PI’s. Phelps and Kelley will work with the science groups and Hector and Godbole with math. The PI/Co-PI’s will specifically make email contact with the groups at least once each month.

 

This new interactive communication should enhance information sharing as well as problem solving. The following are specific examples of where such interactions could bring about a different result. At the May 2007 workshop, it was pointed out that this October, there would be a math/science symposium held at Pellissippi State, sponsored by an independent organization. There would be both paper and poster presentations. Information was passed along to project participants. In the end six participants attended; four were from Pellissippi State, and from them one paper and one poster were contributed. In mid-November, the Tennessee Science Teachers Association(TSTA) meeting and the Tennessee Academy of Sciences meetings were held within a twenty minute drive of each other. Information about these meetings was sent to all participating schools. Seven project participants attended the TSTA. However, the interesting thing about this event was that the earth science group within TSTA had one and one-half days for K-8 activities presented. The two earth science project participants who attended knew about the program, but didn’t think about notifying their project colleagues.

 

In addition, the development of this interactive format will provide an opportunity for those project faculty who have shown leadership to work effectively with a groups of their peers. It will also introduce new faculty entering the project to others working in their fields, prior to the February Workshop.

 

The NVC also felt that a specific assignment should be given to each Co-PI in order to spread the work around and to ensure that things are done in an organized and timely manner. Examples of specific assignments for Co-PIs could include: serving as chair for the Planning Committee for the February and May Workshops; serving as liaison with the Project Evaluator; assisting the PI with budget management; and collecting annual reports from each partner institution. The Project’s Annual Report which is submitted to NSF should be developed collaboratively with the project Co-PIs and other faculty leaders prior to submission. This does not appear to be done at present.

 

As suggested by this portion of the NVC report, the administrative team for this project have divided up several of the components of the project. Co-PI Hector will working directly with Dr. Skolits for the procurement and assessment of evaluation materials. Co-PI Phelps will work with the project budget. Even since the NVC’s visit, it is evident that the TBR transition between its current SIS budget system and the new Banner system continues to have problems. The understanding of grant funding processing at a four-year school may be helpful to some of the community colleges. Co-PI Godbole will take the lead in planning for the February and May workshops. Because the grant secretary is located on the Pellissippi State Campus and virtually all of the information related to the project is stored there, PI Kelley will be in charge of information collection from the partner schools.

It should be noted that in preparation of submission of the annual report, PI Kelley has taken the responsibility of final report preparation and merging information from all C0-PI’s. For purposes of consistency within the report, this PI was the primary composer, but the CoPI’s provided valuable input, which was incorporated.

 

The NVC was concerned about the messy state of the Science/Math Education Room on the Pellissippi State campus. The Committee visited this lab early on the morning of the 25th of October.  Each sink in the lab was full of dirty glassware, numerous materials were just strewn about on different tables, chemicals were present in the sink, and some food supplies, forbidden by laboratory protocol, were present.  The state of this laboratory-classroom indicated that it had not been cleaned up for a long period of time.  The NVC felt strongly that this set a very poor example for future science and mathematics education teachers who will have to do experiments in their classrooms and clean up the mess on their own. Likewise, it appears to violate NSTA safety standards.  The NVC asked several faculty who was in charge of this facility, but failed to get an adequate response. 

 

Certainly the conditions of the “Master Hub,” McWherter Building MC-143 were appalling. One observation would be that if there had been any clue it was going to be like that, it would not have been the first stop on your visit. Following your visit, there was a flurry of activity related to a cleaning of the facility. However, this PI had already been in contact with Pellissippi State’s Internal Auditor concerning this matter. The auditor will carry out a review of the facility prior to its cleaning and again after its cleaning. If anything is amiss, the problem will be corrected. The Internal Auditor reports directly to the President of the College, so this review will not be taken lightly.

Concerning the establishment of who is responsible for the room, the laboratory portion of the room certainly belongs directly to Natural and Behavioral Sciences. However, a review of items scattered around the room suggest that areas had becomes storage places for non-NBS materials. If this is the case it will be noted and verified by the Internal Auditor.

 

The education program appears to have grown rapidly on various campuses. As a consequence, a significant number of adjunct or new faculty have been hired. There does not seem to be an adequate plan for professional development of these faculty.  The NVC suggests that there also appears to be an underutilization of the participating project faculty who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in course design and implementation. These faculty could, and should, be used as workshop leaders within the project. Furthermore, additional funds should be provided to send these experienced faculty to other professional development opportunities and/or conferences. 

 

The expansion of this project to involve a number of new faculty and additional branch campuses does represent an unexpected, yet beneficial and solvable problem. From the in-service student standpoint, these expansions can only be viewed as opportunities for easier and better pursuance of their college degrees.

 

However, coupled with the addition of “new” faculty to the project there is an additional need for some specific training. Both the Tennessee State Mathematics and Science Standards are in the final stages of revision. These revised standards are closely aligned with NAEP materials and will benefit the whole state.

In view of this, the February Workshop will also include a session introducing original and new participants to the new standards and their format.

 

Additionally, the new participants will also receive an introduction to the various state performance indicators. Finally, the new participants will receive a brief introduction to the CD Tennessee’s Next Generation Tools for Teaching Standards-Based Science, that was used during the May Workshop in the first year of this project. This item has been upgraded to the new standards, and Dr. Richard Audet, the co-author of this exceptional tool has moved to Tennessee and will be doing workshops here during the coming year. The new participants will be afforded the opportunity for a complete session on this item either at the May workshop, or independently sponsored summer activities.

 

It is good to note that all current participating schools and original participating faculty have made certain that their new faculty are following the plans developed for the original courses. On the other hand, this also requires the use of materials developed and required by the original plans. With respect to this, it should be noted that schools have done a great job of either buying the appropriate items for the branch campuses (Motlow State and Walters State), or developing a “share” plan for use across campuses (Roane State).

 

There is a significant need for all partners to introduce authentic assessment into their courses.  This would be an appropriate topic for the February workshop.

 

The training of the project participants in processes related to authentic assessment would add an excellent skill both for them and for their in-service teacher clientele. Co-PI Phelps has done extensive work in this area through work with student teachers over approximately the past twenty-five years. The introduction of Rubric construction and use will be the first step in this process and is planned for the February workshop.

 

The NVC recommends that the Project leadership meet with the Tennessee Board of Regents to review legal issues related to the current process for evaluating the disposition of teacher training candidates. The outcomes from this meeting should be disseminated swiftly to all partners.

 

The Disposition Form related to teacher training candidates was developed by a  composite committee, led by Dr. Kay Clark with whom the NVC met during their visit. Several of the project participants were involved in this process. It has been noted that is typical straight forward situations the form should pose no problems. However, in other cases, its use needs further discussion.

 

 Through recent email conversations, and a telephone conversation between Dr. Clark and Ms. Coffey (Motlow State), who worked on the original development of the form, the general plan is described as follows. Faculty can decline to fill out a form for someone they can't say much positive about, and the student should be self-aware enough to choose faculty who can fill out the form positively.  Eventually there may be a student who comes along that really shouldn't be in teaching.  In such a case, there should be some counseling with the student well before the time for the Disposition Form arrives.

 

However, the grant administrative team agreed that Dr. Clark should take a pro-active role in further defining the use of the Disposition form to insure continuity across the TBR system. Dr. Clark will be making this determination and his message will be conveyed to all participants. His comments and recommendations will also be reviewed and discussed at the February Workshop to make certain that all of the “teacher education” representatives at the participating schools will be able to assist any of their campus faculty who might be asked to use the disposition form.

Although the development of the Disposition form was not an outgrowth of this project, everyone, including Dr. Clark appreciates the NVC’s observation that the details of using this instrument should be more clearly defined to insure consistent use.

 

The NVC expressed strong support for the overall goal of this project, its potential impact on the future teaching force in Tennessee, its positive role in supporting the economic development of the state, and the positive attitudes of the disciplinary faculty from the multiple institutions involved. This project could provide a model for the entire state.

 

As indicated under the documents provided by the National Science Foundation regarding the role of the National Visiting Committee, the NVC is requesting that the project director respond in writing to the concerns and recommendations of this committee within one month of receiving this report.

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________

Members of the NVC present for the meetings, October 25, 26, 2007, Pellissippi State Technical Community College, Knoxville, TN

Mr. Joe Andrews

Dr. Katherine Denniston

Dr. Marjorie Enneking

Dr. Patricia A. Cunniff,

 

 

 

 

 

.

Attachment 12

 

 

 

 

NSF TBR Teacher Preparation Program 

Partnership Evaluation Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

 

The Institute for Assessment and Evaluation 

College of Education, Health and Human Sciences

The University of Tennessee

July 15, 2008


 

 

Contributors to This Study

 

Data collection, analysis, and report preparation have been conducted by the following team members:

 

Dr. Gary Skolits, Evaluation Principal Investigator

Dr. Judy Boser, Senior Research Associate

Ms. Erin Mehalic Burr, Graduate Research Assistant

 

 

All of the above referenced evaluation team members are associated with the:  

 

Institute for Assessment and Evaluation

College of Education, Health and Human Sciences

University of Tennessee

1126 Volunteer Blvd, Bailey Complex A503

Knoxville, TN 37996-3456

(865) 974-2777   

We also thank our support staff, Ms. Shauna Cook for the many hours of work she contributed to the study.

 

 

 


 

 

Preface

The Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) – Teacher Preparation Partnership (TPP) project received funding from the National Science Foundation for a three-year period:  Year 1, 2005-2006; Year 2, 2006-2007; and Year 3, 2007-2008.  The original project grant application was designed to include all Tennessee two-year and four-year higher education institutions which are governed by the Tennessee Board of Regents.  However, the eventual funding of $1.25 million awarded to the project was substantially less than the funding requested, and the reduced level of resources required that the project be scaled back.  In response, the project was only able to fund and include the Tennessee Board of Regents institutions in the eastern region and a portion of the middle of the state.  Ultimately, the following eight institutions participated in the grant:

            East Tennessee State University (ETSU)

            Tennessee Technological University (TTU)

            Chattanooga State Technical Community College (CSTCC)

            Motlow State Community College (MSCC)

            Northeast State Technical Community College (NSTCC)

            Pellissippi State Technical Community College (PSTCC)

            Roane State Community College (RSCC)

            Walters State Community College (WSCC)

 

 

This TPP grant project built upon several previous articulation projects, especially a project that enhanced science and mathematics teacher education content courses articulated between Pellissippi State and Tennessee Technological University (TTU).  Pellissippi State and TTU staff who had been involved in previous efforts was instrumental in the development of the current TPP grant addressed in this evaluation. For the current TPP grant, Pellissippi assumed the role of lead institution (grant coordinator) and fiscal agent for the project.  The senior project principal investigator, Dr. Jim Kelley, is a sciences dean at Pellissippi State.  Three co-PIs participated in the administration and coordination of the grant project (Dr. Judy Hector at Walters State; Dr. Maggie Phelps at Tennessee Tech, and Dr. Anant Godbole at East Tennessee State University).  

The original project evaluator who began work at the inception of the project left about mid-way through the three-year life of the grant.  As a result of his departure, the senior project principal investigator requested assistance from the Institute for Assessment and Evaluation (IAE) for evaluation services throughout the remainder of the grant.   Given that the life of the grant is essentially over (year three ends in August of 2008), the following is the first of two evaluation reports to be prepared by the IAE evaluation team.


 

 

Table of Contents

 

 

Contents                 Page

 

 

Preface ................................................................................................................... i

 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 3

 

Introduction ..................................................................................... 7

 

Data Collection Methods ................................................................ 7

 

Findings ..........................................................................................11

 

             Evaluation Question One ...........................................................11

             Evaluation Question Two ...........................................................16

             Evaluation Question Three .........................................................26

 

 

 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................27

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)

In the following report, findings, conclusions, and considerations for the future are presented in response to the evaluation study questions.   As an executive summary, the evaluation team consolidated their conclusions and recommendations as follows.

                                                Conclusions

Based upon the data collected and analyzed for the evaluation of the third and final year of the project, the evaluation team offers the following conclusions: Conclusions - Evaluation Question 1 (Achievement of Project Priorities)

            1. TPP project staff, campus level project coordinators, and faculty addressed the project priorities.  There is substantial evidence that meaningful progress was achieved in establishing systemic change in community college and university collaboration in the preparation of K-6 teacher education students.  

            2. This project successfully established and implemented a unique standards-based content faculty collaboration model that included the active engagement of two-year and four-year teacher education and content faculty.

            3. While two-year to four-year program articulation has a long history in Tennessee, the process for community college - university articulation has been substantially strengthened for K-6 teacher education.

            4. This project resulted in a fully articulated standards-based science, math, and technology curriculum for elementary education majors at the eight participating campuses.    

Conclusions - Evaluation Question 2 (Project Outcomes) 

            1. Due to the Partnership nature of this project, the number of faculty members who participated in the project are substantial. Moreover, review of institutional project reports and interviews with participants are laudatory of the collaboration fostered by the project.  

            2. All participating institutions have made changes in their courses and curricula, although a few changes, new courses in science, have not yet been implemented.

            3. It is still too early to determine the impact of this project on the following elements of participating elementary education programs:  

            - enrollment

            - majors

            - graduates

            - diversity of the teaching pool

            However, the necessary data will be available in the future, after the grant has been completed. 

 

 

  

            4. The project is well received by faculty and students, and it is impacting courses and faculty instruction beyond the scope of the project (elementary education coursework in mathematics, science, and education).  

 

Conclusions – Evaluation Question 3 (Sustainability) 

            1. Several aspects of this project have a strong potential to be sustained (course content, faculty collaboration, pedagogical enhancements, etc.), including the curriculum change model introduced with this project.

 

 

Recommendations

The evaluation team offers two types of recommendations: overarching recommendations and recommendations resulting from the analysis of data related to each specific evaluation question. 

Overarching Recommendations

Based upon the data collected and analyzed for all aspects of the evaluation for this project, the evaluation team offers recommendations for promoting the sustainability of this project as well as the potential enhancement of future projects involving project staff or NSF (funding agency).  

Overall, three themes emerged from this evaluation that suggest a potential framework for enhancing project sustainability and the long-term monitoring of project impacts. These include: 1) the ongoing collection of student achievement data for continuous program improvement; 2) the collection of specific student data (enrollment, retention, graduation), including demographics on diversity, for monitoring program productivity and its effects on the diversity of the teacher pool; and 3) the sustaining of ongoing opportunities for teacher education and content faculty collaboration and interaction across institutions on both informal and formal bases.  The evaluation team addresses each of these themes below.

 

            1. Collection of Teacher Education Student Achievement Data

 

 

Consistent with the grant proposal, the focus of this project was on teacher education content course curriculum design, development, and implementation; a substantial level of project activity and inter-institutional effort and time was necessarily focused on the Partnership development of new/revised content and pedagogical strategies. Accordingly, several courses developed or re-designed through this project were implemented later in the project or are scheduled for initial implementation after the scheduled three year life of the grant project has ended.  Given the time required for Partnership curriculum design and implementation in a three-year grant schedule, the opportunity to collect more than initial outputs and outcomes data is limited. More definitive data will not be available until all courses affected by the project have been implemented and a critical mass of students have enrolled and completed the whole program sequence, attained their teaching license, and entered the teaching workforce. 

 

However, participating institutions have a unique opportunity to ensure that critical student achievement outcome data related to this project are collected and integrated into future ongoing institutional effectiveness assessments. These data would assist in the monitoring of elementary education courses and the overall effectiveness of elementary education programs of these institutions.  The collection and analysis of these data would be consistent with Tennessee Board of Regents and accreditation agencies expectations for ongoing program evaluation and the subsequent use of evaluation results for continuous improvements.  As such, consideration should be given to the following assessment elements related to the elementary education students and programs addressed by this grant project:

 

            • Offering of end of course assessments to ensure desired teacher education standard “competencies” have been met  

            • Development of common end-of-course assessment instruments for these teacher preparation courses within institutions (This presented an interesting situation because the State of Tennessee revised the state K-12 mathematics and science standards this year to align them with NAEP. This new information is scheduled to be addressed in the August project workshop which is specifically aimed at the standards as well as proposed workshops occurring throughout the no cost extension of the grant). 

            • Sharing of teacher education student PRAXIS I and II assessment results with each student’s originating community college (it should be noted that some community colleges were not aware of how to retrieve their PRAXIS I data).

            • Sharing of assessment results among participating community colleges and universities

 

  A plan for collecting, summarizing, and disseminating these results among participating two-year and four-year institutions would require substantial thought and discussion among faculty and academic administrators. There will be some technical and practical problems in collecting these data that would need to be addressed. To assist this process, project institutions may find assistance from their campus institutional research staff to be of significant benefit. 

 

 

 

 

2.  Program Outcomes Data (including student counts/demographics related to course and program enrollment, retention, graduation, licensure, and employment) at the elementary education program level.

The elementary education programs of the two-year and four-year institutions participating in this project have the potential to serve a vital need for more, better-trained (including training in STEM content areas), and highly qualified teachers across east and middle Tennessee as well as enhance the diversity of the teacher labor pool as envisioned in the grant project. However, it is still too early to determine the effects of the project on addressing the teacher shortage and the diversity of the teacher pool in eastern and central Tennessee. Over time, as all project courses are implemented and more students enter the program, successfully complete it, and become licensed teachers, it will be possible to determine the long-term project impact. However, this outcomes assessment requires institutional assessment data that are disaggregated to the level of the elementary education programs that were the focus of this grant. Some of the initial campus project data reporting has been at an aggregate level (i.e., all education majors), and this aggregated data does not inform impact assessment of this project.  

3. Sustain Formal/Informal Opportunities for Content Faculty Collaboration.  

The following evaluation report will offer evidence that one major benefit or effect of this project was the opportunity it provided faculty to interact with their colleagues from other institutions, especially colleagues who work at a different institutional level (e.g., two-year or four-year).  Beyond the collaborations sponsored by this project, campus content faculty reported having limited opportunities to meet with these colleagues at other state/regional meetings. Usually typical (non-grant) collaboration opportunities were not structured to provide focused opportunities for inter-institutional faculty engagement. One of the strengths of the faculty collaboration provided by this grant was that faculty had the opportunity to work together for a common purpose (i.e., collaboration of content faculty within/between institutions focused on standards-based teacher education). It should also be noted, as reflected in the interim report, that there has been considerable visitation among project faculty within the past year. These collaboration opportunities, and the many benefits they offer faculty to work together to improve course and program articulation, need to be sustained if at all possible.  

Recommendations Per Evaluation Question

Throughout the following report, the evaluation team has developed specific recommendations resulting from the analysis of data collected for each evaluation question.  The following is a summary listing of all of recommendations offered for each evaluation question:

Recommendations - Evaluation Question 1 (Achievement of Project Objectives)

            1. Project staff should promote elementary education K-6 data collection related to this project after the grant has ended.  The data necessary to provide a critical mass of definitive information regarding the long-term effectiveness of this project will not be available until more students have completed the program.  

            2. Institutions need to address the challenges of providing project data on the diversity of the teaching pool.  Diversity of the “teacher pool” in Tennessee was a key aspect of the grant, and analysis of the effects of the grant is incomplete without diversity data related to elementary education teacher enrollments, graduates, transfers, etc., at the project institutions.

 

Recommendation - Evaluation Question 2 (Project Outcomes)

            1. Project institutions should develop and implement a methodology that accurately reflects the number of faculty members who have been affected by the project. The numbers of faculty participants provided in the institutional reports appears to undercount faculty involvement in the project. 

 

Recommendation - Evaluation Question 3 (Sustainability)

            1. Project staff should encourage institutions to promote the sustainability of project elements, and they should share the project model, especially the Partnership nature of the project, with other Tennessee Board of Regents institutions.

I.   Introduction

 This evaluation report addresses the progress achieved on the TBR-NSF Teacher Preparation Partnership (TPP) project near the end of the third and scheduled final project year (as of Summer 2008).  This evaluation report is organized around three evaluation questions developed as the foundation of the evaluation design.  

The three questions guiding the evaluation included the following:  

            1. To what extent have the project’s stated priorities and goals been accomplished?

            2. What project outcomes of interest to NSF (the funding agency) (e.g., course content and development, course alignment, curriculum changes, enrollments/graduates, etc.) have occurred across participating institutions?

            3. To what extent are key project components likely to be sustained among project institutions after the life of the grant?

 

As indicated within the following sections of this report, the evaluation team utilized multiple sources of data to address these evaluation study questions.  Based on these multiple data sources, the evaluation team addressed each evaluation question to the extent that data are available at this stage of the project.  However, given the future implementation schedule of some of the newly created, revised, and articulated courses, it is not possible to address the ultimate impact of the project at this time since very few students have completed project courses and progressed to the four-year institutions to complete their teacher education program.   

II.   Data Collection Sources and Methods

 This report is based upon multiple sources of data that were used by the evaluation team to generate answers to the evaluation study questions.  These data sources included: 

            1. Interviews with the project director and co-PIs 

            2. Review of project-related products (e.g., workshop materials and documents from participation institutions) 

            3. Observations of project meetings and workshops

            4. Campus site visit to each participating institution that included interviews and focus groups

 

The evaluation team will introduce data from each of these sources where appropriate for each evaluation question in the body of this report.  The following presents a brief introductory preview of data collection sources and related issues.

            1. Interviews with the Project Director and Co-Principal Investigators

The evaluation team members interviewed the project director and co-principal investigators on multiple occasions. These include three semi-structured interviews with the project director and one interview with each of the three co-principal investigators. 

2. Review of Project-Related Products

Campus project artifacts were made available to the evaluation team.  These included:  campus status reports, campus curriculum materials and documents, project annual reports, and course syllabi. 

3. Observations of Project Meetings and Workshop

While the evaluation team was added to the project after the first implementation year of the project (to replace a previous evaluator who left the project), evaluation team members were able to attend and observe two project workshops that were offered to faculty and staff from all participating institutions.  

4. Campus Site Visits that included Interviews and Focus Groups

The evaluation team visited each of the two universities and six community colleges participating in the project.  These site visits occurred during December and January of the 2007-2008 academic year.  Each site visit provided the evaluation team an opportunity to: 1) observe project facilities and artifacts; and 2) interview project staff, project faculty, and senior academic administrators.  The evaluation team was also able to talk with a few students at several institutions and observe a project designed class. 

 

III. Findings 

TBR Teacher Preparation Partnership (TPP) Program Description

To establish a project context supporting the analysis of findings under each evaluation question, the evaluation team begins this section of the report with a brief review of the project purpose, priorities, key project elements, project years, participating institutions, and the overall evaluation approach.  These contextual elements provide relevant background information supporting the subsequent evaluation team discussion offered under each evaluation question.

Project Purpose:  Among the related purposes of the grant reflected in the stated grant proposal priorities, project staff indicated that the project ultimately seeks to: improve K-6 teacher education by redesigning mathematics and science classes to align with state K-6 content standards, establish instructional alignment and articulation across all participating eight universities and community colleges, and promote meaningful student learning through activity and experience- based instruction that integrates hands-on manipulative and materials.  

Project Priorities:  The project entailed five priorities.  These are: 1) Improve the mathematics, science, and technology preparation of future teachers through statewide collaboration and systemic change; 2) Improve articulation and advising in the field of teacher education among all institutions involved in this project by offering and requiring the same mathematics, science, and educational technology courses at each institution; 3) Develop student support systems; 4) Improve the capacity and training of a diverse teaching pool in Tennessee; and 5) Provide opportunities for both in-service and pre-service teachers to gain content credit hours to meet NCLB requirements.

Key Project Elements:  In meeting these project goals, several project elements were addressed:

            • Curriculum development (K-6 Teacher Preparation)

            • New and revised courses (mathematics, science, and education)

            • Pedagogical improvement

            • Curriculum alignment to state content standards

            • Curriculum articulation (community college to university)

            • Faculty collaboration

            • Faculty professional development

            • Student development resources including expanded or new campus student teachers education associations

            • Instructional materials and resources

            • Instructional settings (dedicated reserved classrooms and secure storage for instructional materials and equipment)

 

Project Years:  The TBR-TPP project is a grant initiative funded by the National Science Foundation.  The life of the project covered a three-year period as follows:

 Year 1  2005-2006 (September 1, 2005)

 Year 2  2006-2007

 Year 3   2007-2008 (ends August 31, 2008)

Participating Institutions: Eight Tennessee Board of Regents institutions participated in the project. 

Universities

East Tennessee State University

Tennessee Technological University

Community Colleges

Chattanooga State Technical Community College

Motlow State Community College

Northeast State Technical Community College

Pellissippi State Technical Community College

Roane State Community College

Walters State Community College

The original project proposal was designed as a statewide project, but the lower level of federal funding eventually awarded required that project staff scale the project down in scope to two universities and six community colleges within the eastern and a portion of the middle regions of the state.  One of the participating institutions, Pellissippi State Technical Community College, served as the fiscal agent.  

Evaluation Approach:  After the original project evaluator left the project, an evaluation team from the Institute for Assessment and Evaluation (University of Tennessee) was engaged as the project evaluator. The Institute evaluation design was jointly developed by the project principal investigators and the evaluation team members.  In addition to data collection efforts that included interviews, meetings with staff, review of project materials, records, etc., the evaluation team also conducted site visits to each of the two universities and six community colleges engaged in the project.  The purposes of the evaluation team on these site visits were to: 

            • Receive a project update from campus coordinator, faculty, and academic administrators regarding the accomplishments of the project since its inception.

            • Interview campus coordinator, faculty (group interview), campus academic administrators, and students (on some campuses students were available to talk with the valuation team).

            • Observe project facilities (e.g., reserved classrooms) and project-purchased instructional resources and materials.  

 

Two evaluation team members conducted campus visits November, 2007 through January of 2008.   During and after the evaluation team visits, campus project participants shared PowerPoint slides, reports of progress, course syllabi and a variety of other materials in support of their project efforts.  These materials were shared with project staff who added them to artifacts of the permanent project record.  

Brief Grant History: This TPP grant project expanded on the efforts of two institutions, Pellissippi State Technical Community College (PSTCC) and Tennessee Technological University (TTU) to enhance the articulation of two-year to four year institutions and promote the STEM preparation of elementary education graduates. Also occurring early the life of the grant, TTU received approval to offer a 2 + 2 degree option on community college campuses, and the common course structure developed through this 2 + 2 promoted the efforts of the current TPP project.  Moreover, the Tennessee Board of Regents approved the Associate of Science in Teaching degree for the community colleges in the project, required PRAXIS I, a minimum GPA of 2.75 and assessment of student dispositions.  While these developments did not result from this grant project, they provide important contextual elements for this project. 

 

Evaluation Question One:  To what extent have the project’s stated priorities been accomplished?

Status of Progress on Project Priorities

 The NSF TBR Teacher Preparation Partnership (TBR TPP) established five project priorities. These include:

            1. Improve the mathematics, science, and technology preparation of future teachers through statewide collaboration and systemic change.

            2. Improve articulation and advising in the field of teacher education among all institutions involved in the project by offering and requiring the same mathematics, science and educational technology courses at each institution.

            3. Develop student support systems.  

            4. Improve the capacity and training of a diverse teaching pool in Tennessee. 

            5. Provide opportunities for both in-service and pre-service teachers to gain content credit hours to meet NCLB requirements.  

 

  There is a substantial body of evidence addressed in this report indicating that project staff and participating institutions have made substantial progress toward the achievement of these project priorities.  Progress on each priority at the time this evaluation report was being prepared (June 2008) is as follows.

Project Priority #1:  Improve the mathematics, science, and technology preparation of future teachers through statewide collaboration and systemic change.

This project has focused exclusively on the improvement of the mathematics, science, and technology preparation of future teachers.  Several key elements of the project influenced the achievement of this priority:  

            STEM content course creation and re-design of existing courses

            • Enhancements in math and science content faculty pedagogy

            • Infusion of new technology and instructional materials into the teacher education program that promote experiential learning.

            • Linking of mathematics and science content and instruction to state and national K-6 science, math, and technology content standards, as well as state performance indicators

            • Statewide faculty collaborations structured to promote interactions and sharing 

            • Faculty professional development

 

Figure 1 presents a more complete list of the key activities of the project.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.  Key Project Elements

Collaboration

            • Project-wide campus content faculty and project staff collaboration

            • Conferences and presentations promoting faculty development

            • 2  year – 4 year teacher education program articulation

 

Curriculum Re-design

            • Standards based content

            • Common math/science content for K-6 majors through new or re-designed:

      o  math classes (6 to 9 hours)

      o  12 hours of science under two options

                  - (3)  4 hour courses option

                  - (4)  3 hour courses option

            • An education course incorporating technology content

            • Enactment of the Associate in Science in Teaching degree by the Tennessee Board of Regents

 

Pedagogy

            • Infusion of active/experiential learning promoting student engagement in teacher education

            • Purchase/Implementation of hands-on instructional materials and manipulatives

 

Faculty Support

                        • Purchase of materials for classrooms ($10,000 per year for each institution)

                        • Support for faculty to attend professional development ($5,000 per institution)

                        • Faculty release time or stipends/support $10,500 - 12,000 per school per year

                        • Two workshops for all faculty at PSTCC

                        • Collaboration with colleagues (within/between institutions)

 

Student Support

                        • Student Teacher Education Association

                        • Student support, especially for testing preparation related to PRAXIS

                        • Designated education centers/classroom and storage space

 

 

 

 

 

The campus project status reports produced by each of the participating institutions provide substantial detail regarding the specific project elements implemented on campus to enhance teacher preparation.  Given that these descriptive reports are part of the project record, it is not necessary for the evaluation team to restate them again for this evaluation. However, this evaluation report will draw upon these institutional reports (and the other data sources previously identified under Section II) to highlight grant accomplishments and the status of progress on each priority.  

Improved Mathematics, Science, and Technology Preparation for Future Teachers:  Since some of the project courses are still being implemented for the first time this year, it is not possible to determine the overall effectiveness of the project based on a substantial number of students who have completed the full complement of these newly enhanced two-year and four-year elementary education programs. However, the project record clearly demonstrates that all participating institutions have enhanced their elementary education programs through new or revised content and teacher education courses consistent with K-6 content standards, and the institutional project reports and interviews demonstrated that participating faculty have introduced new instructional materials and pedagogical practices designed to engage teacher education students in more experiential learning activities.  Additionally, there is substantial evidence that the Partnership element of this project has helped insure and broaden the role and involvement of community college and university content faculty in teacher preparation. It is also important to note that project elements are consistent with the educational best practices that are currently receiving attention in the teacher education literature.  Course content has been aligned to state standards, and university content faculty members have expanded their pedagogical strategies to model experiential learning. 

Statewide Collaboration:  One of the most important aspects of the TPP project according to campus participants was the two-year and four-year faculty collaboration model introduced by the project. Community college and university faculty reported that the structured, yet flexible, collaboration opportunities provided twice each year for participating mathematics and science content faculty was the most productive, rewarding, and effective aspect of the grant.  Through the Partnership settings offered by the project, content faculty were provided with the opportunity to work on course content and pedagogical innovation with both university and community college peers, all of whom had a common interest in  promoting standards-based teacher education (K-6).  These collaborations continued informally throughout the year, periodically reinforced and supported by the formal faculty meetings provided by the project two times during the year.  Faculty reported substantial benefits from Partnership experiences with their content peers, especially regarding the sharing of pedagogical strategies that had proven effective at other campuses.  While many curriculum projects are reported to be Partnership, this project was truly designed and implemented through a Partnership model empowering content faculty.  

Systemic Change:  The design of this project, and the Partnership model it is built upon, was meant to establish a fundamental and sustainable model for systemic change in teacher preparation.  This project has demonstrated, and is expected to continue to demonstrate, that teacher preparation is most effective when content area and teacher education faculty members jointly take the lead in developing course content and incorporating research-based experiential, hands-on pedagogical strategies that link directly to state content standards.  It is important to note that this approach to teacher education represents a significant departure from previous practice.  Content faculty collaboration, especially between university and community college faculty, has typically not occurred among these institutions in the past with the intensity and frequency generated by this project.  Moreover, the project focus on empowering content faculty to use state content standards for the design of course content was also essentially introduced by this project.  For example, many content faculty members reported that were either not aware or only somewhat vaguely familiar with the details of the state K-6 mathematics and science content standards prior to the project.  

 

Project Priority #2:  Improve articulation and advising in the field of teacher education among all institutions involved in this project by offering and requiring the same mathematics, science, and educational technology courses at each institution.

Formal articulation between two-year and four-year higher education programs is not something new in Tennessee.  Project coordinators and campus project staff reported that all participating higher education institutions had previously established multiple program articulation agreements for a range of programs between community colleges and universities for students seeking a four-year degree upon completion of their associate degree.  While many of these community college - university articulated transfer programs included state institutions within the two Tennessee higher education systems (the Tennessee Board of Regents and the University of Tennessee), these program articulation agreements also included private four-year universities.  However, this project appears to have established a new model for articulation, especially from the perspective of the active, Partnership role of content faculty in the design and teaching of mathematics and science content courses for teacher education students in line with state education content standards.  

Moreover, campus project coordinators and faculty reported that the articulation and advisory function has been greatly enhanced through this project from the perspective of both community colleges and universities.  From a formal perspective, the common, shared development of courses among the institutions, resulting in similar standards-based content has greatly promoted articulation.  Not only are these articulation agreements in place, but there is shared agreement on the specific content to be covered (e.g., linked to the Tennessee elementary education content standards). University campus coordinators report that the teacher education students who complete the project curriculum (as embedded in the new AST degree) are much easier to advise and integrate into the university elementary education program.  University teacher education programs enrolling community college elementary education transfer students now know the specific science and mathematics skills and competencies of these entering students. In these instances, universities reported that advising for these elementary education transfer students is straightforward.  

 

Project Priority #3:  Develop student support systems

The primary mechanism project staff used to promote and enhance teacher education student support systems was through the student teacher education association (STEA) chapters. Most of the participating institutions already had existing STEAs, but some were more active than others. Under the auspices of the STEAs, institutions have expanded and strengthened the academic and professional support to K-6 teacher education students.  Examples of some of these student support activities include:  

            • Implementation of student services supporting education majors

            • PRAXIS preparation

            • Involvement of teacher education students in public school classrooms

            •    Education career days for teacher education students

            •    Joint STEA membership (university transfers retain membership in their previous  community college STEA organization)

            • Sponsorship of future teacher conferences 

            • Development of a website of interest to future teachers  

            • STEA sponsored community service project opportunities 

            • STEA sponsored school programs ranging from book drives to grade-specific initiatives

            • Sponsoring of the Leadership Conferences for student teachers

 

 

Project Priority #4:  Improve the capacity and training of a diverse teaching pool in Tennessee.

The project record offers substantial evidence of favorable changes in the design of STEM course content and pedagogy of the elementary education teacher education programs of participating institutions, changes which are expected to have an impact on future elementary school teachers.  However, campus coordinators and project staff need to collect and analyze additional data on project course enrollments, majors, graduates, licensures, teaching employment, etc. (along with associated student demographics) to be able to determine the project’s influence on the size, diversity, and effectiveness of the teaching pool in eastern and central Tennessee.  Expanding student diversity will be a challenge for many of these programs, as the majority of these institutions are located in rural areas where little ethnic diversity exists.  However, Chattanooga State is located near a larger, diverse urban population, and Pellissippi State established its teacher preparation courses at a satellite campus in an inner city neighborhood to promote access to the program for minority community residents. This project priority needs further consideration, and the effort required may be challenging.

 

Project Priority #5:  Provide opportunities for both in-service and pre-service teachers to gain content credit hours to meet NCLB requirements.

The primary focus and effort of this grant was on pre-service teachers, especially from the perspective of content credit hours/instruction that meet NCLB requirements. Campus project administrators and faculty reported some limited in-service teacher involvement with the grant, but this priority essentially focused on pre-service teachers’ content knowledge in light of NCLB requirements.

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the data presented in response to this evaluation question, the evaluation team offers the following conclusions and considerations for the future:

Conclusions 

            1. TPP project staff, campus level project coordinators, and faculty addressed the project priorities.  There is substantial evidence that meaningful progress was achieved in establishing systemic change in community college and university collaboration in the preparation of K-6 teacher education students.  

            2. This project successfully established and implemented a unique standards-based content faculty collaboration model that included the active engagement of two-year and four-year teacher education and content faculty.

            3. While two-year to four-year program articulation has a long history in Tennessee – the process for community college - university articulation has been substantially strengthened for K-6 teacher education.

            4. This project resulted in a fully articulated standards-based science, math, and technology curriculum for elementary education majors at the eight participating campuses.  

 

Recommendations

            1. Project staff should promote elementary education K-6 data collection related to this project after the grant has ended.  The data necessary to provide a critical mass of definitive data regarding the long-term effectiveness of this project will not be available until more students have completed the program.  

            2. Institutions need to address the challenges of providing project data on the diversity of the teaching pool.  Diversity of the “teacher pool” in Tennessee was a key aspect of the grant, and analysis of the effects of the grant is incomplete without diversity data related to elementary education teacher enrollments, graduates, transfers, etc.,  at the project institutions

 

 

Evaluation Question Two:  What key project outcomes of interest to NSF (funding agency) (e.g., course content and development, course alignment, curriculum changes, enrollments/graduates curriculum assessment etc.) have resulted within and across participating institutions?

 

In response to this evaluation question, the evaluation team addressed five aspects of this project. These include 1) the Partnership element of the curriculum development process, 2) the curriculum design/changes, 3) curriculum implementation, 4) curriculum assessment, and 5) faculty perceptions regarding the project. 

 

 

Partnership Curriculum Development Process

 The project’s process for content and teacher education faculty to partnership in developing a fully articulated curriculum deserves significant consideration as a best practice.  It is rare to encounter scientists who are university or community college faculty members with an in-depth knowledge of teacher education state standards and pedagogical strategies that are reflective of the current research-based literature.  Each campus reported broad involvement of campus faculty.  While institutional reports identify the faculty involved with the project, the evaluation team discussions with campus faculty suggest that campus figures are undercounting. For example, careful reading of campus reports suggested that new faculty have been added to the project across the years. Faculty reported, during campus interviews with evaluation team members, that major elements of the project have been shared with university and community college colleagues who were not directly involved with the project. One of the activities that project institutions should undertake before the grant ends is to establish a methodology for accurately reflecting the number of faculty that have been impacted by the project, and that number may be surprisingly larger than expected. 

 

Curriculum Changes

Table 2 identifies the mathematics, science, and teacher education content courses that were established or enhanced as part of this project. The curriculum changes for each course have been identified within the separate individual institutional project reports. Project staff, campus coordinators, and project faculty confirmed the nature and depth of the curriculum changes that are reflected with newly created or revised courses. Elements of the curriculum included: new content, new pedagogical practices, the introduction of hands-on and experiential learning activities, new texts, new course syllabi, and new course sequencing options in the sciences. For the sciences, some institutions used 3 four-credit hour courses or 4 three-credit hour courses to achieve the science content need to address the state standards. Institutions also indicated the helpful role of the Associate Science Teaching degree that was not a part of the grant but provided a beneficial structure in which to embed the curriculum in an articulated program structure.  The student reactions to the new or revised courses have been very positive, and some campuses reported that students who are not teacher education majors are attracted to and enrolling in them.  It should also be recognized that in addition to the creating and revising of courses shown in Table 2, at the beginning of this project the aforementioned courses were offered at only nine sites across the project. As of Spring Semester 2008, these courses had been offered at 23 sites associated with the eight participating institutions. 

In addition to changes in courses for the teacher preparation program, content faculty also frequently reported making changes in other courses as a result of the successes they observed in the teacher education courses.  

 

Table 2. Institutional Requirements TPP (K-6)

 

 

Math

Science

Education

ETSU 

Math 1410

Math 1420

Math 1530 

Physics

Chemistry

Biology

Earth Science

 

SCED 4321

TN Tech 

Math 1410

Math 1420

New K-6 Math course introduced this year

Biology 1310

Chemistry 1310

Physics 1310

Geology 1310

FOED 2011

CSTCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

 

Physics 1310

Chemistry 1310

Psci.  1310

Biology 1310

ED 201

ED Psy 207

MSCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

Math 1010

 

Biology 1030

Geol 1030

PSCI 1030

EDU 1120

NSTCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

Math 1530

Biology 1030

PSCI 1010

PSCI 1020

EDUC 2300

PSTCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

 Math 1010 or 1530

Biology 1310

Chemistry 1310

Physics 1310

Geology 1310

EDUC 2010

RSCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

Math 1530

BIOL 1110

GEOL 1410

MSC 1012 (Physics/Chemistry)

EDUC 101

WSCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

Biol 1030/31

Chem 1020/21

PSCI 1030/31

EDUC 2300

 

 


 

 

Revised Sequencing

The mathematics and education courses included in this project were in existence prior to the grant. While some existing science courses were revised through this project, several new science courses (and course sequences) were also introduced as a result of this grant.  Institutions used two strategies to address the science content courses:  three (four hour) courses or four (three hour) courses.  Regardless of the number of courses, the underlying design criteria were to ensure that students received the science content knowledge required of them as elementary education teachers in Tennessee.  Table 3 reflects the courses reported to be covered under this project and their implementation schedule (where appropriate). 

Table 3.  Course Creation Sequencing

 

Institution

Course

Revised

Created

First Offered

ETSU  

Math 1410

Math 1420

Math 1530

Biology

Physics

Chemistry

Earth Science

SCED 4321

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

TTU  

Math 1410

Math 1420

Bio 1310

Chem 1310

Geol 1310

Phys 1310 

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CSTCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

ED 201

ED PY 207

Phy 1310

Chem 1310

PSCI 1310

Biology 1310

X

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

 

-

-

-

X

X

X

X

X

NA

NA

NA

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

 

 

Note.  Course revisions in existing courses, and even in newly created courses, occur over time.  It is not always possible to pinpoint a specific semester when courses were revised due to the ongoing nature of the project and evaluative reflection on the changes as they are introduced.

Institution

Course

Revised

Created

First Offered

MSCC

Math 1410

Math 1420

PSCI 1030

Biology 1030

Geol 1030

Educ 1120 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

 

NSTCC  

Math 1410

Math 1420

Math 1530

Biology 1030

PSCI 1010

PSCI 1020

EDUC 2300

X

X

X

-

-

-

X

-

-

-

X

X

X -

NA

NA

NA

Fall 2008

Fall 2008

Fall 2008

NA

PSTCC  

Math 1410

Math 1420

Biology 1310

Chem 1310

Geol 1310

Phys 131-

EDUC 2010

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-RSCC  

Math 1410

Math 1420

Math 1530

Biology 1110

Geol 1410

MSC 1012

EDUC 101

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

-

-

-

X

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

Spring 2008

NA

NA

NA

WSCC  

Math 1410

Math 1420

Biology 1030/31

Chem 1020/21

PSCI 1030/31

EDUC 2300

X

X

-

-

X

-

-

X

X

X

-

NA

NA

Fall 2007

Spring 2008

Fall 2008

NA

Curriculum Participation - Enrollment, Majors, Graduates

Campus project coordinators were asked to provide data on project course enrollments, majors, and graduates. However, the lack of a common template and timeframe for reporting student enrollment, majors and graduates proved to be problematic.  The primary focus of this grant was elementary education; but in some cases enrollment, majors, and/or graduates were reported in a manner that did not provide for the disaggregation of data for elementary education students.  Institutional challenges also presented problems for the reliability of project data.  In some cases, campuses expressed various reservations about the count of elementary education majors, since campus information systems and processes do not enable accurate counts of majors – in such cases counts of majors are simply estimates.  

These data are reported in the campus project reports that have been filed with the project coordinators.  Also, campuses used different time periods for the reporting of course enrollment, majors and graduates.  In some cases just one year (i.e., the current year) of data were reported.  The evaluation team has attempted to re-construct a table of course enrollments, but the reader is required to review campus reports.  A common template and time frame is required.  From the perspective of the evaluation team, the following comments can be offered within the limitation of the different approaches project campuses used in reporting.  

 

Course Enrollments

 Based on the campus project reports, the evaluation team sought to develop a table that depicted course enrollment in project courses (Table 4).  However, several challenges were encountered:

            • Reported enrollments sometimes included all education majors.

            • Several new/revised courses had not yet been offered.

            • Baseline years were not consistent across institutions.

            • Course enrollments are not always limited to teacher education statewide.

            • This three-year project has focused on curriculum development, and much has occurred in the three years focused on curriculum design and implementation – enrollment changes due to the grant can only be determined upon implementation of all courses.  

            • In many cases, the campuses created new science courses, and these courses were being offered for the first time after the last year of the project.  These courses offer no enrollment history, obviously, so it is too early to determine project impact on enrollment.  

Table 4 represents the current data regarding enrollment in project courses provided to the evaluators through campus reports.  Campus representatives would have been in a better position to provide these data in a common framework had a framework been provided. The senior project principal investigator will be sharing a common framework for the reporting of project data, and these data will be reflected in the final evaluation report. Table 4. Enrollment in Project Courses Reflected In Institutional Project Reports

 

 

ETSU  

                        • Specific course-by course enrollment data not included in the campus report, but large numbers of graduates suggests high program course enrollment.

 

TTU 

                        • Actual headcount enrollment data reported    as follows:

                         2005-2006=1071

                         2006-2007=1011

                         2007-2008=1085

 

CSTCC (Education and math courses only)

                        • Fall 2005 = 154

                        • Fall 2006 = 169

 

• Fall 2007 = 213

MSCC 

                        • Reported an increase from 236 education students before the grant to 374 students by Fall 2007.  (The grant began during the 2003-2004 school year). 

 

 

NSTCC   

                        • Enrollment data were available only for the math courses since the science courses would be offered for the first time after the grant is completed.  Enrollment in these math courses reported: 2004-05=97, 2005-06=114, 2006-07=32.

 

PSTCC 

                        • Fall 2005 = 251; Fall 2006 = 223; Fall 2007 = 218

                        • This institution provided course by course detailed enrollment on the main campus and one off-campus center.  

                        • Demographics data (including ethnicity/race, gender, age, etc.) were provided, but these data referenced all education majors, which included elementary education majors as well as all other education majors.  This type of data provided is helpful, but of interest for this grant project are the elementary education majors. 

 

RSCC

                        • Detailed course enrollment data provided for 1410, 1420, and Educ 101.

 

WSCC 

                        • Before the grant, grant course enrollment in courses enhanced by the grant was 167.  By the third year of the grant, course enrollment was 204 in these courses.  Enrollment in education courses by the grant is expected to increase because of changes inspired by the grant.

                         

 

 

 

Majors 

The data reported by institutions on majors was inconsistent and problematic. More than one two-year institution reported that counts of majors at their institution were not accurate – the process for recording and identifying and updating students major codes did not reflect the “ true” count of majors in institutional programs. In other cases, headcounts of majors were reported, but they were not disaggregated to include only elementary education, while in other cases there was more than one listing of majors for elementary education. Another challenge is related to the newness of the Associate of Science Teaching program. The issue of the accuracy of major headcounts and their role in the project needs to be reconsidered. If, for whatever reason, the headcount of majors does not accurately reflect the true numbers of majors, reporting and tracking the numbers of majors may not be helpful. However, it may be time that institutions re-examine this issue as some of the participating institutions appear to have no problem reporting what they claim are accurate major counts. 

 Graduates

Data project institutions provided on graduates were more definitive (Table 5), but it is too early to expect changes in the numbers of graduates due to this project.  

 


 

Table 5 Institutional Graduates – Elementary Education

 

ETSU 

 

2004-05 72 (K8)

2005-06 89 (K6)

2006-07 61 (K6)

 

TTU  

 

Spring 2006 =88

Fall 2006 =8

Spring 2007 =102

Fall 2007 =5

Spring 2008 =159 (projected)

 

CSCC  

 

2004-05 =16

2005-06 =29

2006-07 = 22

 

MSCC   (Data provided as ranges)

 

2004-05 =<50

2005-06 =<50

2006-07 =>70

 

 

NSTCC  

 

2004-05 =29

2005-06 =34

2006-07 =15

 

PSTCC   

          

 

RSCC  

2004 =80

2005 =65

2006 =65

2007 =78

 

WSCC  

 

2004-05 =19

2005-06 =19

2006-07 =24

 

 

 

Student Demographics

Some institutions participating in this grant do not have readily available demographic data on students from the perspective of majors, graduates, and transfers.  Given the central aspect of the grant related to diversity, these data should be collected, especially regarding race and gender.  Project staff should consider computing and reporting demographic data for their final project report.

Curriculum Assessment

Curriculum assessment is an area where this project has not had a major focus.  While common content, linked to state standards has been a focus, much needs to be done in the assessment of student achievement.  In one sense, the assessment process will be greatly promoted by the existence of specific content standards.  Campus coordinators and faculty reported the existence of course student assessments, and these are identified on course syllabi.  However, there was less emphasis on assessment across the curriculum.  Additionally, important outcomes measures will occur in some cases after the elementary education students have transferred to a four-year institution.  A systematic feedback process is essential for reporting PRAXIS scores and other pertinent data (e.g., academic success in junior and senior education courses) back to the students’ original community colleges.  

Student outcomes data for students involved and project courses are being collected as part of the multiple assessments associated with each course.  Review of course syllabi suggests that student assessments are frequently conducted and they cover a wide range of assessment strategies.  However, there are many opportunities to use these assessment results in a more informative manner.  For example, at one institution student grade distributions are compared for project courses across each semester.  There are other comparisons that may also prove to be helpful, such as comparison of student outcomes for teacher education students sections to students in other sections that are not restricted to teacher education students.  Moreover, there is an opportunity to track student achievement of competencies across courses. 

 

 

 

 

 

Faculty and Student Perspectives

The evaluation team conducted site visits to each of the eight participating institutions.  During the site visits, evaluation team members conducted formal individual and group interviews that included the site coordinator, faculty, academic administrators, and in several cases project students.  

Campus Personnel Perceptions

Faculty Collaboration At each campus evaluation team visit, faculty offered comments about the value of the project from the perspective of inter-institutional faculty collaboration.  Faculty members across all project institutions were united in their assessment that one of the most fulfilling aspects of the project was the regularly scheduled meeting (twice each year) of faculty from each participating institution.  These meetings provided the opportunity for faculty from the same content areas to share content materials, pedagogical techniques, and curriculum development best practices.  Many faculty members indicated that these collaborations continued after the meetings through informal mechanisms such as emails and phone calls.  Moreover, several of the project faculty members noted that they had other opportunities to interact with other faculty members at state conferences.  However, the structure of the project meetings, formal group sessions and informal faculty content sessions, along with the purposes they shared through the project, provided an ideal environment for content faculty collaboration across institutions.  Among the many project benefits to this collaboration, faculty members noted how helpful it was for two-year and four-year faculty to gain a better understanding of each other.  

Awareness of State Content Standards Several community college content faculty members indicated that they first became aware of state elementary education content standards as a result of their participation in the project.  They reported that while they have been teaching future educators in their mathematics and science classes, they were not necessarily sensitive to the content that these future teachers would be addressing.  Knowledge of these standards helped them focus their content in a manner that would be supportive of future teachers.  

Sharing Beyond Project Faculty:  Several faculty reported that other content faculty members on their campus had expressed interest in the project and curiosity about the pedagogical aspects being introduced.  Project materials, strategies and pedagogical techniques have been shared with non-project faculty, but the extent of this sharing and the depth of the adoption and use of materials and strategies are beyond the scope of this evaluation.  

Curriculum Materials At almost all of the campus site visits conducted by the evaluation team, campus project coordinators and/or faculty made it a point to display the learning materials and resources that were purchased through the grant and currently used in project courses. 

Education Center As a part of the grant, each participating institution was required to establish a room exclusively to support the project as a dedicated classroom. Campus site visits were usually conducted in the designated room for campus education center, but in a few cases these rooms were being used for project classes. 

Pedagogical Enhancement Content faculty members at the community colleges also reported that their project experiences introduced them to a broader range of pedagogical strategies, especially strategies related to experiential and inquiry-based learning models.  While these strategies are quite common in the field of education, they are often not included in the educational training of mathematics and science content faculty members.  The impact of exposure to these newly introduced techniques was substantial in the cases of several faculty members.  One faculty reported when discussing how the project influenced his teaching, the inquiry-based and experimental pedagogical techniques he learned from the project have been so effective in his teacher education courses that he has integrated them into all of his science classes.  

Student Perceptions

 Faculty were helpful to project evaluations in reporting an initial sense of how students were responding to the changes in these teacher education courses.  Most faculty noted that students responded well to the hands-on activity-based format of the classes.  The few students who the evaluation team was able to talk with reflected positively on their classroom experiences, but it is not known to what extent these students reflected the perceptions of all students.  Faculty members at one institution suggested that the pedagogical strategies resulting from the grant work well with some students, but not all students are comfortable initially with this style of learning. Some students may not have been exposed to hands-on and group instructional techniques, and for some of these students being engaged during class may move them out of their comfort zone. This was reflected in student evaluations of instruction for project courses. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the data presented in response to this evaluation question, the evaluation team offers the following conclusions and recommendations:

Conclusions

            1. Due to the Partnership nature of this project, the numbers of faculty members who participated in the project are substantial. Moreover, review of institutional project reports and interviews with participants are laudatory of the collaboration fostered by the project.  

            2. All participating institutions have made changes in their courses and curricula, although a few changes, new courses in science, have not yet been implemented.

            3. It is still too early to determine the impact of this project on the following elements of participating elementary education programs:  

      - enrollment

      - majors

      - graduates

      - diversity of the teaching pool

                        However, the necessary data will be available in the future, after the grant has been completed. 

            4. The project is well received by faculty and students, and it is impacting courses and faculty instruction beyond the scope of the project (elementary education coursework in mathematics, science, and education).  

 

 Recommendations 

            1. Project institutions should develop and implement a methodology that accurately reflects the number of faculty who have been materially affected by the project. The numbers of faculty participants provided in the institutional reports appears to undercount faculty involvement in the project. 

 

Question Three:  To what extent will key project components likely be sustained among project institutions after the grant period?

As identified in several sections of this report, several project elements appear to have the potential for long-term sustainability from the perspective of project participants.  These included:

    • Course Requirements:  Course requirements in science, mathematics, and education for elementary education have been revised, are in print, and are jointly recognized and respected by both the community colleges and the universities.  New courses have been approved and are (or soon will be) taught.

    • University and community college content faculty collaboration: This is the element of the grant that most grant participants, and especially the faculty, would prefer to see continued.  

    • Standards-based STEM content courses for teacher education students: The standards-based content for the elementary education has a high probability to be sustained beyond the life of the grant.  

    • Constructivist pedagogy: Participating faculty reported the benefit of their experiences with the project related to new pedagogical strategies.  

The evaluation team also suggests that this program may serve as a model for inter-institutional collaboration that may be unique and worthy of adoption across the state (as originally intended in the grant proposal but scaled back due to financial limitations) and at other institutions across the country.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the data presented in response to this evaluation question, the evaluation team offers the following conclusions and recommendations:

Conclusions

            1. Several aspects of this project have a strong potential to be sustained (course content, faculty collaboration, pedagogical enhancements, etc.), including the curriculum change model introduced with this project.

 

 

Recommendations

            1. Project staff should encourage institutions to promote sustainability of project elements, and they should share the project model, especially the Partnership nature of the project, with other Tennessee Board of Regents Institutions.

 

 

 

IV. Summary of Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations)

Conclusions - Evaluation Question 1 (Achievement of Project Priorities)

            1. TPP project staff, campus level project coordinators, and faculty addressed the project priorities.  There is substantial evidence that meaningful progress was achieved in establishing systemic change in community college and university collaboration in the preparation of K-6 teacher education students.  

            2. This project successfully established and implemented a unique standards-based content faculty collaboration model that included the active engagement of two-year and four-year teacher education and content faculty.

            3. While two-year to four-year program articulation has a long history in Tennessee – the process for community college - university articulation has been substantially strengthened for K-6 teacher education.

            4. This project resulted in a fully articulated standards-based science, math, and technology curriculum for elementary education majors at the eight participating campuses.  

 

 

 

Conclusions - Evaluation Question 2   (Project Outcomes)

            1. Due to the Partnership nature of this project, the numbers of faculty members who participated in the project are substantial. Moreover, review of institutional project reports and interviews with participants are laudatory of the collaboration fostered by the project.  

            2. All participating institutions have made changes in their courses and curricula, although a few changes, new courses in science, have not yet been implemented.

            3. It is still too early to determine the impact of this project on the following elements of participating elementary education programs:  

      - enrollment

      - majors

      - graduates

      - diversity of the teaching pool

                        However, the necessary data will be available in the future, after the grant has been completed. 

            4. The project is well received by faculty and students, and it is impacting courses and faculty instruction beyond the scope of the project (elementary education coursework in mathematics, science, and education).  

 

 

 

Conclusions – Evaluation Question 3 (Sustainability) 

            1. Several aspects of this project have a strong potential to be sustained (course content, faculty collaboration, pedagogical enhancements, etc.), including the curriculum change model introduced with this project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations

The evaluation team offers two types of recommendations: overarching recommendations and recommendations resulting from the analysis of data related to each specific evaluation question. 

Overarching Recommendations

Based upon the data collected and analyzed for all aspects of the evaluation for this project, the evaluation team offers recommendations for promoting the sustainability of this project as well as the potential enhancement of future projects involving project staff or NSF (funding agency).  

Overall, three themes emerged from this evaluation that suggest a potential framework for enhancing project sustainability and the long-term monitoring of project impacts. These include:   1) the ongoing collection of student achievement data for continuous program improvement; 2) the collection of specific student data (enrollment, retention, graduation), including demographics on diversity, for monitoring program productivity and its effects on the diversity of the teacher pool; and 3) the sustaining of ongoing opportunities for teacher education and content faculty collaboration and interaction across institutions on both informal and formal bases.  The evaluation team addresses each of these themes below.

 

                        2. Collection of Teacher Education Student Achievement Data

 

 

Consistent with the grant proposal, the focus of this project was on teacher education content course curriculum design, development, and implementation; a substantial level of project activity and inter-institutional effort and time was necessarily focused on the Partnership development of new/revised content and pedagogical strategies. Accordingly, several courses developed or re-designed through this project were implemented later in the project or are scheduled for initial implementation after the scheduled three year life of the grant project has ended.  Given the time required for Partnership curriculum design and implementation in a three-year grant schedule, the opportunity to collect more than initial outputs and outcomes data is limited. More definitive data will not be available until all courses affected by the project have been implemented and a critical mass of students have enrolled and completed the whole program sequence, attained their teaching license, and entered the teaching workforce. 

 

However, participating institutions have a unique opportunity to ensure that critical student achievement outcome data related to this project are collected and integrated into future ongoing institutional effectiveness assessments. These data would assist in the monitoring of elementary education courses and the overall effectiveness of elementary education programs of these institutions.  The collection and analysis of these data would be consistent with Tennessee Board of Regents and accreditation agencies expectations for ongoing program evaluation and the subsequent use of evaluation results for continuous improvements.  As such, consideration should be given to the following assessment elements related to the elementary education students and programs addressed by this grant project:

 

            • Offering of end of courses assessments to ensure desired teacher education standard “competencies” have been met  

            • Development of common end-of-course assessment instruments for these teacher preparation courses within institutions (This presented an interesting situation because the State of Tennessee revised the state K-12 mathematics and science standards this year to align them with NAEP. This new information is scheduled to be addressed in the August project workshop which is specifically aimed at the standards as well as proposed workshops occurring throughout the no cost extension of the grant. 

            • Sharing of teacher education student PRAXIS I and II assessment results with each student’s originating community college (it should be noted that some community colleges were not aware of how to retrieve their PRAXIS I data)

            • Sharing of assessment results among participating community colleges and universities

 

 A plan for collecting, summarizing, and disseminating these results among participating two-year and four-year institutions would require substantial thought and discussion among faculty and academic administrators. There will be some technical and practical problems in collecting these data that would need to be addressed. To assist this process, project institutions may find assistance from their campus institutional research staff to be of significant benefit. 

2.  Program Outcomes Data (including student counts/demographics related to course and program enrollment, retention, graduation, licensure, and employment) at the elementary education program level.

The elementary education programs of the two-year and four-year institutions participating in this project have the potential to serve a vital need for more, better-trained (including training in STEM content areas), and highly qualified teachers across east and middle Tennessee as well as enhance the diversity of the teacher labor pool as envisioned in the grant project. However, it is still too early to determine the effects of the project on addressing the teacher shortage and the diversity of the teacher pool in eastern and central Tennessee. Over time, as all project courses are implemented and more students enter the program, successfully complete it, and become licensed teachers, it will be possible to determine the long-term project impact. However, this outcomes assessment requires institutional assessment data that are disaggregated to the level of the elementary education programs that were the focus of this grant. Some of the initial campus project data reporting has been at an aggregate level (i.e., all education majors), and this aggregated data does not inform impact assessment of this project.  

3. Sustain Formal/informal Opportunities for Content Faculty Collaboration.  

The following evaluation report will offer evidence that one major benefit or effect of this project was the opportunity it provided faculty to interact with their colleagues from other institutions, especially colleagues who work at a different institutional level (e.g., two-year or four-year).  Beyond the collaborations sponsored by this project, campus content faculty reported having limited opportunities to meet with these colleagues at other state/regional meetings. Usually typical (non-grant) collaboration opportunities were not structured to provide focused opportunities for inter-institutional faculty engagement. One of the strengths of the faculty collaboration provided by this grant was that faculty had the opportunity to work together for a common purpose (i.e., collaboration of content faculty within/between institutions focused on standards-based teacher education). It should also be noted, as reflected in the interim report, that there has been considerable visitation among project faculty within the past year. These collaboration opportunities, and the many benefits they offer faculty to work together to improve course and program articulation, need to be sustained if at all possible.  

       

 

Recommendations Per Evaluation Question

Throughout the following report, the evaluation team has developed specific recommendations resulting from the analysis of data collected for each evaluation question.  The following is a summary listing of all of recommendations offered for each evaluation question:

Recommendations - Evaluation Question 1 (Achievement of Project Priorities)

 

            1. Project staff should promote elementary education K-6 data collection related to this project after the grant has ended.  The data necessary to provide a critical mass of definitive information regarding the long-term effectiveness of this project will not be available until more students have completed the program.  

            2. Institutions need to address the challenges of providing project data on the diversity of the teaching pool.  Diversity of the “teacher pool” in Tennessee was a key aspect of the grant, and analysis of the effects of the grant is incomplete without diversity data related to elementary education teacher enrollments, graduates, transfers, etc.,  at the project institutions.

 

Recommendation - Evaluation Question 2 (Project Outcomes)

 

            1. Project institutions should develop and implement a methodology that accurately reflects the number of faculty members who have been affected by the project. The numbers of faculty participants provided in the institutional reports appears to undercount faculty involvement in the project. 

 

Recommendation - Evaluation Question 3 (Sustainability)

            1. Project staff should encourage institutions to promote the sustainability of project elements, and they should share the project model, especially the Partnership nature of the project, with other Tennessee Board of Regents institutions.