COMPONENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE ATE ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Annual reports provide a mechanism for NSF-supported projects to inform NSF via a comprehensive yearly report about project activities and impact. Program officers use these reports to learn about project activities, monitor progress the project is making relative towards its goals and objectives, and provide feedback to projects. We also use this information as we analyze program impact and produce our own reports. Annual progress reports are required as a condition of all NSF awards; however, the FastLane template was created for the Research Directorates. It is often difficult for education projects to know where to input important information. We hope you will find this document useful as you prepare your annual report. (Note: For the purpose of this document, project means project or center.)
You must type or copy-and-paste information into the relevant text boxes of the FastLane report template. Attached PDF files should be used only for certain types of information, such as evaluation reports, confidential information, charts and graphs, pictures, and news articles.
Continuation Awards: A continuation award requires a satisfactory annual report before the next year's funds are released. Reports for these awards are due March 31 of each year unless special arrangements are made with your program officer. We know that in some cases this is an earlier date than the report submission date specified in the ATE solicitation or the Grant Proposal Guide. NSF requires us to commit annual funds no later than the beginning of July. To allow program officers time to read and respond to your report, the ATE program cannot allow you an extension beyond May 31. (Note: If the annual report is not satisfactory or sufficient progress is not being made, NSF can delay the funding increment, reduce it, or withhold it.)
Standard Awards: The report is due 90 days before the anniversary date of your award.
Part I. Participants: Include in this section only those people and organizations that have made major contributions to the project or spent significant time on the project. What people have worked on your project? What other organizations have been involved as partners? Have you had other collaborators or contacts?
Major contributors to the TBR-Teacher Preparation Partnership:
Mr. Chuck English, Independent Science Education Consultant
Dr. Steve Robinson, Professor of Physics, Tennessee Technological University
Ms. Audrey Williams, Technology Specialist, Pellissippi State Technical Community College
Dr. Terry Lashley, Assistant Professor of Education, Tennessee Technological University, former Director of Appalachian Rural Systemic Initiative and University of Tennessee Director for the NSF Appalachian Math/Science Partnership(MSP) Project; current PI for the Tennessee MSP East Tennessee Science Partnership Project. Mr. Garry Pennycuff, Ms. Yolanda Sankey, and Dr. Kathleen Affholter, TBR-TP participants, are all area leaders in the MSP project.
Mr. Joel Zachry, Ms. Kathy Zachry, local naturalists.
Dr. Don Byerly, University of Tennessee, Department of Geology, retired.
Dr. Ellen Keene, Pellissippi State Technical Community College.
Dr. Ann Kronk, Pellissippi State Technical Community College.
Dr. Richard Audet, Associate Professor of Teacher Education, Roger Williams University and Ms. Linda Jordan, Tennessee State Science Coordinator; producers of the CD, Tennessee’s Next
Generation Tools for Teaching Standards-Based Science in the Twenty-first Century.
Dr. Dovie Kimmins, Associate Professor Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University
Dr. Gary Skolits, Project Evaluator, University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Dr. Judy Boser. Project Evaluator, University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Dr. Richard Audet, Roger Williams University, Rhode Island
Ms. Linda Jordan, Tennessee State Science Coordinator
Mr. Gary Petko, Knox County Schools Math teacher (Dr. Audet’s assistant)
1. Executive Summary: The Executive Summary includes:
· A brief overview of your project.
· A short description of major accomplishments.
· The number of faculty and students you have impacted directly or indirectly and how they were impacted (students in ATE classes, internships, faculty workshops, materials, etc.).
· Specific measures of the effectiveness of your activities on students, faculty, and employers. (What difference has your project made and how do you know?)
During the third year of the TBR-TP project we continue to address teacher education among the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) System schools in the Eastern portion of Tennessee.
Originally this project included seven community colleges and two four-year universities from the TBR system participating. Those schools are as follows: Northeast State CC, East Tennessee State University, Walters State CC, Roane State CC, Tennessee Technological University, Motlow State CC, Chattanooga State Technical CC, Cleveland State CC, and Pellissippi State Technical CC. After subsequent discussion, Cleveland State Community College opted not to participate in this project.
This fiscal year, the project was fortunate enough to have three significant events occur up to this point, First, both the National Visiting Committee (NVC), consisting of Dr. Pat Cunniff, chair, Dr. Marj Enneking, Dr. Kate Denniston, Mr. Joe Andrews, and our NSF program manager, Dr. Joan Prival carried out a site visit during Fall Semester 2007. This was followed by the typical February and May workshops. The comments and observations of the NVC and Dr. Prival in the fall provided the opportunity for the workshops to address specific interests and concerns of that group.
The development of the specific courses for math, science and teaching and technology are basically finished. All syllabi for all courses at all schools are now available on-line at the grant web site. However, the refinement of course content continues.
Items from the NVC and Dr. Prival that were specifically addressed, along with the approaches taken were:
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.
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.
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.
Working with Dr. Forde, Ms. Marie Westfall and Dr. Tom Ciaccia, all of ORAU, a NSF/MSP proposal has now bee developed. As proposed it uses the TBR-TP content and pedagogy approach coupled with the ORAU research component. This proposal will be discuss at NSF Monday, September 8, with Dr. Kathleen Bergin being the NSF contact.
The February 2008 workshop agenda (Attachment 2) began with a review of the goals of the project followed by presentations of accomplishments by each school. The schools had been advised to review the goals in advance and relate their presentations to the goals.
Because of a shift in the evaluator’s schedules, Dr. Boser did an early presentation and the groups then moved into separate math and science groups.
On the second day of the workshop, because of the aforementioned upgrading of the Tennessee K-12 mathematics and science standards, the math and science groups reviewed and discussed the new information. This introduction was followed by a shorter focus group type discussion for both groups. These discussions extended until the lunch break.
Following lunch, the whole group discussed their various plans for presenting information related to the TBR-TP project to outside groups, locally, regionally and nationally. This was enhanced by individual schools and participants indicating plans to visit other specific participating schools to see what they have incorporated into their courses. This plan was reviewed at the May workshop and the projections appear as Attachment 1.
Day one of the May workshop (agenda, Attachment 3) started with a review of the TBR-TP project back to its origin with specific observations concerning items each school should have in place by the end of the project. This was most helpful, because the next session allowed each school to meet and review their individual plans for the next three months.
After lunch, the whole group participated in an extensive review of technology related presentations and activities presented by Ms. Audrey Williams, PSTCC technology specialist. The day concluded with Ms. Charle Coffey leading a discussion about the Teaching and Technology courses that have been created during the project.
Day Two of the May workshop focused upon the area that had the greatest requests following the February meeting. The day concluded with a discussion of 2+2 articulation and the Associate of Science in Teaching Degree. As indicated specific community colleges were interacting with their closest four-year school.
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
On the third workshop day, math continued with Dr. Hector’s recommended presentations. However, science had a split format with geology and biology doing field trips while physical science received information related to a series of course, classroom and student topics that came from Dr. Hector’s post-February accumulation of future topics. The physical science group received the information that was presented to geology and biology on the fourth day, because Oak Ridge National laboratory could not accommodate the physical science group on Day Three.
The final day of the workshop concluded with Chuck English and Terry Lashley presenting information on a series of topics that came from Dr. Hector’s surveying participants following the February meeting.
Following lunch that fourth day concluded as the whole group held an extensive discussion of summer plans and reviewed the school/participant visiting other school/participants matrix, Attachment 1.
Course development continues to be guided by the TBR mandated Associate of Science in Teaching Degree for the community colleges (Attachment 4). The guidelines were established in March 2006 with full implementation to occur by Fall Semester 2008. Within the AST context, twelve hours of science, nine hours of math and a three hour Introduction to Teaching and Technology course are being prepared and taught to the K-6 pre-service teachers. Logistically this posed no problem for the community colleges, because most courses were created specifically for this K-6 curriculum. Some schools are following the three 4-hour course pattern for science while others follow the four 3-hour course patterns. There continues to be some considerations in the science sequence at ETSU and this will be discussed in detail later. There is some difference in third math course among the participating schools, based on what they feel are the needs of their students. The remaining TBR point of discussion is the development of disposition forms for all schools. These will be prepared by faculty associated with the students’ specific pre-service teacher curriculum, prior to students being accepted to the junior level of the four-year school teacher education program.
2. Describe what was proposed to be done during the reporting period and explain any differences (e.g., changes in schedule, small modifications in the project). In particular, describe enhancement and development activities for college faculty and secondary school teachers; processes used for developing, testing, and validating materials; processes used for recruiting students, including those from underserved populations; activities and classes for students; and involvement of industry in your project.
According to our original timeline (Attachment 5) for this fiscal year, eight out of sixteen items which were planned have been completed. The most significant differences in completion of items were related to some of the logistics which were put in place at the beginning of the project. As mentioned in last year’s report, it had been anticipated that Two-Way Audio/Video meetings would be held regularly among the participating schools. Because of the diversity among schools in terms of where each school was in its implementation, coupled with the problem of what can actually be considered a good development, this was found not to be very feasible. Five of the six community colleges have been able to at least begin expansion of this project to their branch campuses. This pretty much uncoupled possible live interactions among participating faculty. The project management team and the campus coordinators continue to communicate regularly via email.
Again, as previously mentioned, there was a problem related to the timing of course initiation. PSTCC can initiate a new course in about two weeks, a couple of other schools literally require two semesters). Aside from those areas, everything else proceeded on schedule.
Thirdly, it was anticipated that there would be extensive training of the participants using the CD, Tennessee’s Next Generation Tools for Teaching Standards-Based Science. However after Tennessee received a grade of “F” for their math and science scores, the state took some drastic action. A new set of state standards for math and science were put together using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) standards. This resulted in generation of a whole new CD which now includes both Math and Science standards. A one-day presentation on this item will be held in mid-august for the TBR-TP project participants.
It had also been anticipated that during the May workshop, it would be possible of project participants to visit classroom settings where they could see K-6 math and/or science being taught. However, it was discovered (and finally admitted to by one principal) that once state testing was over (mid-April), very little true math/science lesson planning/teaching was occurring. So that planned activity was dropped.
On Monday August 11, Dr. Richards Audet, Tennessee State Science Coordinator, Ms. Linda Jordan, and Mr. Gary Petko led a presentation/discussion of Dr. Audet’s new CD which contains the new Tennessee math/science standards. Because TBR school can have different reporting days for their faculty, not all project participants (47 in attendance) were able to attend this event. However, all schools were represented and all participants will receive an on-line version of the CD. It was however fortuitous that because of the timing of this presentation some participant schools brought local K-6 faculty (10 from various school districts.)
Finally, the last timeline activity, the filing of the Final Project Report, will be occurring after the grant ends on August 31. However, in July Pellissippi State’s SRO filed for a one-year no-cost extension of the TBR-TP project, so an interim report will be submitted at this time. The TRB-TP Evaluation from Dr. Skolits will be found as Attachment 12 for that report.
In terms of specific enhancement, development validation and recruitment activities, a number of these occurred during the February and May workshops. The breakdown was as follows:
On the first day of the February workshop, Dr. Holly Anthony worked with examples of using NAEP materials in math courses, and Mr. John Roberts worked with science faculty using Calculator Based laboratory materials and other new probe-ware.
On the second day, Dr. Maggie Phelps then led a discussion related to designing and using rubrics to assess the newly designed math and science courses used in the project. Finally there was a general discussion concerning the Pre-Service Teaching Disposition that is being designed by TBR.
At the May workshop the first breakout session allowed each school to meet and review their individual plans for the next three months. A specific template was used (Attachment 6). These discussions were led by individuals from outside each school, but as can be noted, the discussion leaders were sometimes related to schools where it seemed that additional coordinative information might be provided by a given leader. For example, Dr. Kathy Rust from TTU where things are running smoothly, working with the ETSU groups where some individual course problems still need to be resolved; while Drs. Godbole and Hector led discussions related to same upper East Tennessee grouping. All schools and leaders are listed below:
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 (Dr. Phelps had a schedule conflict; Dr. Ann Kronk worked with the RSCC team)
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
After lunch, the whole group participated in an extensive review of technology related presentations and activities presented by Ms. Audrey Williams, PSTCC technology specialist. Ultimately Ms. Williams initiated a game called “Stump the Chump,” in which for about an hour she fielded any question related to teaching with technology and using the internet found one or more references related to the question. She was only stumped once. The day concluded with Ms. Charle Coffey leading a discussion about the Teaching and Technology courses that have been created during the project.
On Day 2, all participants spent the entire day sharing ideas and activities that were developed during the project. Because of somewhat stronger link among the math participants, Dr. Judy Hector structured two days of specific exemplary materials that were presented by the participants. They can only fairly be addressed by the examination of pages five and six of the May agenda (Attachment 3).
On the other hand, because of diversity in materials used, the science groups followed a discussion pattern using a designated facilitator. Due to a severe illness in her family, Ms. Diane Vaughn, Tennessee Science Teacher Association President, could not be with us and Dr. Ann Kronk again worked with one of the groups. The groups and leaders were as follows;
Earth Science – with Don Byerly – Room AL-150
Physical Science – with Diane Vaughn – Room AL-225
Biology – with Ellen Keene – Room AL-118
Math sessions – see agenda pages 5 & 6 – Room AL-223
All groups used a template and the results of their discussions are reflected in Attachment 7, 8, and 9.
Day Three of the workshop found the math group continuing to receive information via Dr. Hector’s recommended presentations. However, science had a split format as indicated below.
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 4 & 5 – Room AL-223
On, Wednesday (5/7/08) Physical Science meets in Al-118 with Chuck English and Terry Lashley.
On Thursday (5/8/08) Physical Science ORNL trip – led by Dave Braski – meet in room AL-118 at 8:15
This was necessitated by Oak Ridge National Laboratory only being able to accommodate our group on Thursday, May 8. The agenda for the ORNL visit is Attachment 9.
Day Four of the workshop concluded with Chuck English and Terry Lashley presenting information on a series of topics that came from Dr. Hectors surveying participants following the February meeting. The topics were as follows:
· 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?
Section 2: Major Findings
1. Describe the accomplishments and findings for items you described in Section 1, Part 2, including results of evaluations.
The major findings from this year’s activities can be divided into four portions:
a. Items related to the February Workshop.
b. Items related to the May Workshop.
c. What the participating schools learned about their work for the future.
d. What the participants learned from each other.
The focus for the February workshop was to focus on those items that were mentioned by the NVC and program manager during their October visit. With respect to those items the following areas were assessed by the project management team and specific processes were carried out.
First there were presentations by each school focusing on specific items related to the goals of the project. This was followed by comments from Dr. Judy Boser, representing the project evaluation team. Dr. Boser indicated specific information that each school might work on obtaining for future comparisons. A discussion was then initiated for individual schools to consider and plan interactions with other project schools, including making visits. This discussion was to be continued through the lunch hour.
After lunch Dr. Holly Anthony worked with examples of using NAEP materials in math courses, and Mr. John Roberts worked with science faculty using Calculator Based laboratory materials and other new probe-ware. Both of these items had been indicated as areas of interest by the participants, following the 2007 workshops.
On the second February workshop day, all items related to the NVC/Project manager suggestions. First there was a presentation and then a discussion for both the new Tennessee Mathematics and Science Standards. This was viewed as a preliminary process to insure awareness and the understanding of the new standards and their format. This occupied the whole morning of that day.
After lunch, the participants presented. Dr. Maggie Phelps then led a discussion related to designing and using rubrics to assess the newly designed math and science courses used in the project. Finally there was a general discussion concerning the Pre-Service Teaching Disposition that is being designed by TBR.
2. Describe awards that your project or investigators have received, special contributions, major innovations, news articles about your project, and any other recognition of achievements of the project or the investigators.
The schools in Upper East Tennessee continue to make great progress in the area of funding related to teacher Education. As mentioned in last year’s report the work of Co-PI Godbole and Dr. Jack Rhoton (ETSU teacher education science coordinator, ETSU received approximately one million dollars for the next five years in grant monies to further develop its math and science teacher training facility to begin working with in-service teachers, K-8, from Eastman Chemical Company. This has been a consistent source of newspaper articles and discussion since the announcement in March 2007. This has been followed up with other local support including adjacent Unicoi County receiving monies for in-service upgrades via Nuclear Fuels Incorporated. Additionally ETSU received math/science funding from the Howard Hughes Foundation and NSF funding for their G-16 initiative geared at training graduate students to be effective teachers and mentors for K-12 math and science teachers. These and other items in that region are linked to the development of a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Center at ETSU. Dr. Rhoton serves as the Center’s coordinator, with Dr. Godbole and Dr. Aimee Govett, a member of the ETSU’s TBR-TP original team as integral parts of STEM Center operation.
All of these projects began to some degree with ETSU’s participation in the TBR-TP project and thus the recognition of their area’s need and their school’s abilities to enhance math/science teacher education in that region of the state.
In a somewhat similar fashion, TTU established their STEM Center and is in the process of constructing a seven million dollar facility on their main campus to house classrooms and laboratories for their K-12 math/science teacher education classes.
Also as mentioned in last year’s report, the TBR-TP Project and its participants are consistently recognized within the TBR system as providing leadership in the areas of K-6 math/science teacher education. As an example, Chattanooga State just hosted the state Math1410/1420 conference.
Additionally, PI Kelley is working with Dr. Tim Forde, Assistant Director for Education Programs at Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) and two of his colleagues planning a NSF/MSP proposal based on course content, best practices pedagogy, and a research component.
2. Describe additional support from non-NSF sources (industry, academic, government).
Dr. Kathleen Affholter, PSTCC project participant (earth science), participated as part of Dr. Terri Lashley’s team selected for the education portion of SuperComputing SC06 project and will continue working as part of the SC07 Project. Dr. Affholter’s expenses are covered by the SC Project. That brought Dr. Affholter in contact with additional colleagues, leading to her continued work with the SuperComputing Education group. It also led to her hosting a earth science/geology “mash-up” event at Pellissippi State with several TBR-TP project participant schools attending.
Section 3: Training and Development: Describe the opportunities for training and development for college faculty and secondary teachers and their impact and effectiveness. How many faculty and teachers participated? How did faculty and teachers improve programs and student achievement as a result of these activities? (Or refer the reader to Section 1 unless there is additional relevant information.)
There were three major components related to the 2008 workshop training. First, the February workshop was aimed at addressing the items that the NVC and the TBR-TP NSF program officer addressed at the October meeting. This was carried out successfully and is described in detail in Section 1.
Secondly the most requested item for the May workshop was an opportunity for each group, math, biology, chemistry, physics, earth science to spend a full day, sharing what each school had planned and instituted in their courses over the period of the grant. Those items are reflected in the May math agenda, and the science area records (Attachment 6, 7, and 8). Finally, it was possible to introduce new information for use across the courses, for example, the afternoon at the May workshop was devoted completely to technology available for course enhancement. These activities were also covered in Section 1.
1. List project related presentations to professional societies, community organizations, and other relevant groups.
2. List outreach activities to students, educators, parents, administrators, and others in schools, colleges, and community organizations.
Last year the establishment of the Future Teachers Conferences represents the broadest outreach mechanism by this project. All FTC’s now contact local high schools with information about their conferences and possible high school student participation. In this area the strength of the schools Student Tennessee Education Associations continue to be exceptionally important. Chattanooga State’s STEA was recognized for its work by receiving the outstanding organization award at Chattanooga State and the outstanding chapter award for STEA within the state.
This year, particularly the more rural community colleges are making consistent contact with local school systems and working with them for in-service teacher training as well as community involvement. TBR-TP faculty at Motlow State CC work with area schools to meet particularly their science needs at both their Fayetteville and McMinnville campuses. Roane State is similarly involved in their service areas. However, Walters State probably set the benchmark when their chapter of STEA hosted a First Grade Day promoting math and science and had over 600 first graders attend the program. They also promoted and operated the Middle School Math Contest, which drew 356 participants.
3. Describe work with industry.
Information related to all course syllabi for all participating schools is now loaded on the TBR-TP Project’s URL, which is http://pstcc15.pstcc.edu/misc/tppnsf/. This is promoted as a resource for other TBR schools seeking models for their AST math and science courses.
Many of you may not have anything additional to report here, but you have the opportunity to discuss unique contributions, major accomplishments, innovations, and successes relative to
1. Your discipline,
2. Other disciplines,
3. Development of human resources,
In the 2006-2007 NSF Effective Annual Report, this PI wrote the italicized statement below, and it certainly still holds true. The difference from then through now is that over the past year, the participants took the information provided through all aspects of this project and applied it to their specific schools. Not only did they apply it, but because of great teamwork at their respective schools, they were able to work creatively and manipulate things to best meet their needs whether those were physical, monetary, or intellectual. As one participant put it, “This project required us to closely examine what we were doing in the area of math and science K-6 teacher education and adjust various aspects of our program based upon what we were learning.” The key words here seem to be that last set, “we were learning,” because this was now occurring in about 70 people, and the collective was putting everything they knew to use, and asking for more. We would be hard pressed to find a more receptive and creative environment.
This plan to prepare more highly qualified K-12 teachers who are mathematically, scientifically, and technologically literate in Tennessee was originally stimulated by a Pellissippi State team’s participation in the Phi Theta Kappa(PTK)/ National Science Foundation (NSF)Project, Preparing Tomorrow’s Science and Mathematics Teachers: The Community College Response. The PTK/NSF project brought together a plethora of community college/ university level teacher education knowledge and experience, all to be shared. That project was followed by Pellissippi State’s NSF project, The Math And Science Teacher Education Resource (MASTER) Plan. This MASTER Plan borrowed a considerable amount from the PTK/NSF project, but also drew on successful strategies learned through both of these projects as well the PI/Co-PI's work with Appalachian Education Laboratory (AEL), the NSF funded math ACCLAIM project, The Institute of Inquiry at The Exploratorium, and other activities in which that PI team has been involved.
One of the best features of the TBR-TPP project is that this informational infrastructure borrowed from the above sources and applied to the TBR-TPP project allowed its processes for specific schools to be very flexible. This was a necessity considering that the nine schools in the project did not have extensive teacher education experience nor had they previously worked with together much as a group.
The first step in enhancing the teacher education programs in this project was identification/creation and implementation of the most appropriate teacher education program activities. This included development at the management level, and the faculty level. Once well qualified faculty members from the science, math, and technology areas, are identified, they were well positioned to improve the math, science, and technology knowledge and confidence of future teachers.
The presence of quality faculty lead to the development of quality courses and programs. As schools began working together, they recognized that program expansion and modification would attract additional students. The community colleges could provide the basic courses, followed by Tennessee Tech and East Tennessee State bringing the Junior/Senior years of their programs to the community college campuses. As the number of teacher education students on community college campuses increase, the organizational structure of STEA increases. This type of increased student collaboration brings out a discussion of what is best needed for the students (i.e. what do they need to enhance passage of Praxis I).
If we can simply start with what we already know works well, appropriate and successful teacher education programs geared to enhance math, science and technology for the pre-service teachers will move forward.
5. Other aspects of public welfare beyond science and engineering.
Part V: Special Requirements
Respond to the items in this section if they are applicable. There is a link from the annual report site to FastLane Notifications and Requests. For example, you may submit a request for significant modifications to the scope of work or reallocation of funds originally budgeted for participant support. You can see the web site for a complete list of notifications and requests. (NOTE: NOTIFICATIONS AND REQUESTS ARE A SEPARATE FastLane action. Merely including this information in your annual report is not sufficient).
Attachments: You must put relevant information into the appropriate text boxes and ONLY attach PDF files as backup documentation. PDF files sent as attachments are not accessible to the public via the web. Among the things that are appropriate to send as PDF attachments are:
1. Evaluation information such as reports from your National Visiting Committee, other advisory committees, and evaluators. These are often confidential or preliminary and not appropriate to be broadly shared.
2. Difficulties that your project is having that you do not wish to share widely, but wish your program officer to know.
3. Charts, graphs, data tables, pictures, news articles, and like material that cannot be represented in text-only format.
4. Documents that are too long to be included in the text boxes, such as modules or short publications.
Part VI: DUE Information: The Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) has a searchable Project Information Resource System (https://www.ehr.nsf.gov/pirs_prs_web/search/) that allows the public to find out more about DUE-supported projects. In the "DUE Information" section of your report, most of the information you have filled out in Parts I - IV will be automatically duplicated. There are a few additional boxes where you will be asked to provide information such as an updated project description, curricular targets, key words, etc.