Reading the River Evaluation Summary
2002-2003
Jeffrey Smith
Department of Psychology
Northern Kentucky University
Participant Demographics
N= 20 (12 Female & 8 males)Teaching level (2 primary, 1 intermediate, 6 middle school, 10 high school, & 1 missing)Subject area taught (2 self-contained, 16 science, 1 math & science, & 1other)Influenced to participant by (15 own initiative, 1school staff agreed program was need, 1 other, & 3 missing)
Pre-test, Post-test, & Long-term Post-test Comparisons
Pre-test measures were taken on the first day of the program.
Post-test measures were taken on the last day of the program.
Long-term post measures were take eight months after end of the program.
Participant’s Confidence1=Low……………5=High
Confidence in the use of teaching technology
Confidence in the use of instructional strategies
Confidence in use of community resources
Confidence in use of field based investigations
Confidence in the teaching of program topics
Items 1-7: Rate your confidence in the use of the following program technologies (1=Low…5=High)
Water quality kits
Labware, probes, CBLs, and graphing Calculators
Internet websites
Microscopes
Videoscopes
Presentation technologies
Digital cameras
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Rating for Items 1-7.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
WaterQuality
labware Websites Microscopes Videoscopes PresentationTech.
DigitalCamera
PrePostLt. Post
Items 8-12: Confidence in the use of Instructional Strategies (1=Low…5=High)
Hands-on instruction
Inquiry-based teaching
Gender & minority equity
Integrating the sciences
Integrating science with other subjects
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Rating in the use of Instructional Strategies.
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Hands-onInstruction
Inquiry-base Gender&Minority
Equity
IntegrateScience
IntegrateScience &
OtherSubjects
PrePostLt. Post
Items 13-15: Confidence in the Ability to use Community Resources(1=Low…5=High)
Guest speakers
Natural environment field sites
Field trips to watershed community resources
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings in the Ability to use Community Resources
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Guest Speakers NaturalEnvironment
Field Trips
PrePostLt. Post
Items 18-21: Confidence in the use of
Field Based Investigations (1=Low…5=High)
Water chemistry
Macroinvertebrate study
Fish study
Geology study with Topo maps
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Water Chemistry Macroinvertebrate Fish Study Geology Study
PrePostLt. Post
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings for the use of Field Based Investigations.
Items 23-26: Confidence in the Ability to
Teach Program Topics (1=Low…5=High)
Watersheds
Connections between science and real life
Connections between science and societal issues
Connections between science and science-related careers
Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings in the Ability to Teach Program Topics
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Watershed Science & Life Science & Society Science & Careers
PrePostLt. Post
Items 27-30: Rate the General enthusiasm of the following for Science (1=Low…5=High).
All students in my classes
Male students
Female students
Minority students
Average Pre and Long-term Post Ratings of Student Enthusiasm for Science (1= Low…5=High)
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
All Students Males Females Minority
PreLt. Post
Item 31: Percentage of Curriculum aligned with the Core Content for Assessment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%
PreLt. Post
Items 1-7: Participants Reported Use of Program Technologies a Year (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)
Water quality kits
Labware, probes, CBLs, and graphing Calculators
Internet websites
Microscopes
Videoscopes
Presentation technologies
Digital cameras
Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of Program Technologies
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
WaterQuality*
Labware Websites Microscopes Videoscopes PresentationTech.
DigitalCamera
PreLt. Post
Items 8-12: Participants Reported Use of Instructional Strategies (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)
Hands-on instruction
Inquiry-based teaching
Gender & minority equity
Integrating the sciences
Integrating science with other subjects
Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of Instructional Strategies
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Hands-onInstruction
Inquiry-based Gender &Minority Equity
Integrated Science Integrate Science& Other Subjects
PreLt. Post
Items 13-15: Participants Reported Use of Community Resources (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)
Guest speakers
Natural environment field sites
Field trips to watershed community resources
Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Reported Use of Community Resources
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Guest Speakers NaturalEnvironment
Field Trips
PreLt. Post
Items 18-21: Participants Reported Use of Field Based Investigations(1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)
Water chemistry
Macroinvertebrate study
Fish study
Geology study with Topo maps
Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Field Based Investigations
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Water Chemistry MacroinvertebrateStudy
Fish Study Geology Study
PreLt. Post
Items 23-26: Participants Reported Teaching of Program Related Topics (1=Never, 2= 1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=Over 6 times)
Watersheds
Connections between science and real life
Connections between science and societal issues
Connections between science and science-related careers
Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Teaching of Program Topics
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Watershed Science & Life Science &Society
Science &Careers
PreLt. Post
Item F8, Long-term Follow-up: Quality of the Program(1 Strong agree ----5 Strongly disagree)
The professional development addressed my most pressing professional needs M=2.53The instructional techniques used during the professional development were appropriate for reaching the intended objectives. M=2.16The professional development provided ample time to achieve stated objectives M=2.37The professional development provided adequate follow-up M=2.21The professional development provided useful methods for transferring new knowledge and skills to the classroom. M=2.26
Item F9, Long-term Follow-up: Quality of the Program
(1 Strong agree ----5 Strongly disagree)
I learned new concepts, facts & definitions M=2.26
I learned new instructional approaches. M=2.31
I learned about new forms of assessment. M= 2.68
I participated in hand-on activities that I now use in my own classroom. M=2.32
Item F10, Long-term Follow-up: Impact of the Program (Yes, No, or na).
I maintained contact with participants. yes=18, no=1Developed a professional network yes=18, no=1Joined an organization yes=10, no=8, na=1I attended professional conference yes=13, no=5, na=1I have or would recommend this program to other teachers yes=19, no=1I shared what I learning with colleagues through informal interactions yes=19, no=0I shared what I learned with colleagues through formally interactions. yes=11, no=8
Item F11, Long-term Follow-up: Impact of the
Program on Students (1 Strongly agree ----5 Strongly disagree)
My students are more attentive and involved in classroom activities. M=2.32
The quality of student work is noticeably improved. M=2.42
Student scores of statewide student assessments have improved M=2.8
Item F12, Pre and Long-term Follow-up: Professional Impact
(1 Strong agree ----5 Strongly disagree)
I have a good understanding of fundamental core content in my discipline. Pre M=2.63 Lt. Post M=2.16I believe I am an effective teacher. Pre M=2.53 Lt. Post M=2.16I am excited about teaching my subject area.Pre M=2.32 Lt. Post M=2.05
Item F13, Pre and Long-term Follow-up: Approaches in Classroom Teaching
Pair A: Lecture vs. Interaction Pre M=3.95 Post M=3.88Pair B: Group work vs. Independent Pre M=2.79 Post M=2.5Pair C: Central ideas vs. Broad coverage Pre M=2.74 Post M=3.0Pair D: Repetitive vs. Manipulate ideas Pre M=3.58 Post M=3.44Pair E: Hand-on vs. Lectures/demos Pre M=2.74 Post M=2.75Pair F: Successful vs. Unsuccessful encouragement Pre M=2.37 Post M=2.63Pair G: Conventional vs.Alternative Assessment Pre M=3.2 Post M=3.4
Reading the River Session Evaluations
Scaling
Strongly agree = 1
Agree = 2
Undecided = 3
Disagree = 4
Strongly Disagree = 5
Reading the River Session Evaluations
Sunday AM: Curriculum Guidelines
Session was beneficial M = 1.84
Sunday: Afternoon Stations
Experience was beneficial M = 1.56
Sunday PM: Watershed Watch & Riparin Zones
Experience was beneficial M = 2.0
Reading the River Session Evaluations
Monday AM: Headwaters
Experience was beneficial M = 1.10
Monday PM: Stream Monitoring
Experience was beneficial M = 1.58
Monday PM: Historical Society
Experience was beneficial M = 1.40
Reading the River Session Evaluations
Tuesday AM Cave Run Lake Session was beneficial M = 1.59Tuesday AM Fish IdentificationSession was beneficial M = 1.74Tuesday Afternoon Pontoon StudySession was beneficial M = 1.12Tuesday PM RecreationExperience was beneficial M = 1.60
Reading the River Session Evaluations
Wednesday AM Mussel StudySession was beneficial M = 1.11Wednesday Afternoon Canoe TripSession was beneficial M = 1.21Wednesday PM RecreationExperience Was Beneficial M = 1.56
Reading the River Session Evaluations
Thursday AM Canoeing/MonitoringSession was beneficial M = 1.44Thursday Afternoon History & FloodingSession was beneficial M = 2.0Thursday Afternoon Cultural ResourcesSession was beneficial M = 2.4Thursday Afternoon Farm VisitSession was beneficial M = 1.39Thursday PM Campfire ProgramSession was beneficial M = 1.6
Reading the River Session Evaluations
Friday AM Microscopic Study
Session was beneficial M = 1.47
Friday Mouth of Licking River
Session was beneficial M = 1.50
Friday Sanitation District No. 1
Session was beneficial M = 1.63
Friday Summary of Data
Session was beneficial M = 1.47
Pro Environmental Attitudes(New Ecological Paradigm Scale)
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
Proenvironemntal Attitudes
PrePostLong-term Post