Noyce Program Evaluation Conference Thursday, December 6, 2007 Frances Lawrenz Michelle Fleming Pey-Yan Liou Christina Madsen Karen Hofstad-Parkhill 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Template: Making Effective Presentation about Your Evidence-based Health Promotion Program This template is intended for you to adapt to your own program.
Advertisements

Orientation to the Planning 10 IRP  How does Planning 10 fit into the 2004 Graduation Program?  How was Planning 10 developed?  What’s the difference.
Bridging Research, Information and Culture An Initiative of the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges Your Name Your Institution.
Now That They Stay, What Next?: Using NSSE Results to Enhance the Impact of the Undergraduate Experience.
Results of the Faculty Survey on Internationalization at Villanova: A Preliminary Report Prepared for the International Leadership Committee Prepared by.
Writing an Effective Proposal for Innovations in Teaching Grant
 Bridge Builders Creating Collaborations Between Student Affairs and Fundraising Emilie Cravens Dr. April Heiselt Mississippi State University 2012 SACSA.
T HE W HO AND THE H OW ? K EY COMPONENTS OF RECRUITING HIGHLY QUALIFIED STEM TEACHERS Anica Bowe, PhD Student; Christina Madsen, M.Ed; Frances Lawrenz,
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals: Fellowship Track Washington, DC January 9, 2014.
S-STEM Program Evaluation S-STEM PI Meeting Arlington, VA October 2012.
Mathematics and Science Teaching Programs Grant Proposal Workshop Panel Discussion: Writing Successful STEM Education Proposals - Principal Investigator.
Noyce Program Evaluation Group Our evaluation project has four major components: –Preparation of an extensive literature review pertaining to recruitment.
1 Exploring NSF Funding Opportunities in DUE Tim Fossum Division of Undergraduate Education Vermont EPSCoR NSF Research Day May 6, 2008.
Selected Results from the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Evaluation Frances Lawrenz Christina Madsen University of Minnesota.
TRIPARTITE SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH AND DATA ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF STEM TEACHERS FRANCES LAWRENZ JIM APPLETON MARJORIE BULLITT BEQUETTE ANN OOMS.
Interaction with and Reflection on the Noyce Program Evaluation Data Frances Lawrenz Pey-Yan Liou Christina Madsen Christopher Desjardins Allison Kirchhoff.
1 Faculty Leadership Development Programs at Virginia Tech Peggy Layne, P.E., Director, AdvanceVT.
BEST Survey Results: Feeding Information Back to Institutions of Higher Education Scott W. Brown, Ph.D. Teachers for a New Era Project University of Connecticut.
Noyce Program Participatory Evaluation FRANCES LAWRENZ JIM APPLETON MARJORIE BULLITT BEQUETTE ANN OOMS DEENA WASSENBERG University of Minnesota.
National Science Foundation: Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (TUES)
Pey-Yan Liou and Frances Lawrenz Quantitative Methods in Education of the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota Abstract This research.
Cluster Analysis on Perceived Effects of Scholarships on STEM Majors’ Commitment to Becoming Teachers versus Teaching in High Needs Schools Pey-Yan Liou.
The Influence of Scholarships on the Recruitment of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Majors to Teach in High Needs Settings Pey-Yan.
Connecting Work and Academics: How Students and Employers Benefit.
Assessment Surveys July 22, 2004 Chancellor’s Meeting.
Evaluating NSF Programs
Enhancing Parents’ Role in Higher Education Assessment Anne Marie Delaney Director of Institutional Research, Babson College.
Preliminary Highlights from the Noyce National Program Evaluation May 30, 2013 Ellen Bobronnikov Cris Price.
Orientation to the Health and Career Education 8 and 9 IRP 2005.
Company LOGO Broader Impacts Sherita Moses-Whitlow 07/09/09.
 NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Integrating Diversity into.
The Impact of CReSIS Summer Research Programs that Influence Students’ Choice of a STEM Related Major in College By: Alica Reynolds, Jessica.
Proposal Writing Workshop Part II: Features of Effective Proposals.
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
Outreach to Districts and Schools ?Is there a drop down menu with three items, or does it go to a page on outreach, or both?
Student Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.
GSA OGP Advisory Committee Engagement Survey ACES 2004 Overall Results September 23, 2004.
Operation STEM Cleveland State University February 22, 2014.
A Roadmap to Success Writing an Effective Research Grant Proposal Bob Miller, PhD Regents Professor Oklahoma State University 2011 Bob Miller, PhD Regents.
Exploring How Community-Engaged Experiential Education Programs Foster Student Learning and Career Readiness: A Study of Student Development in Service-Learning,
EDU December 1, Methods – 8 Likert five-point questions were entered into SPSS 14.0 – Analysis was conducted into two parts: Analysis.
Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) What is RCR? New Requirements for RCR Who Does it Affect? When? Data Management What is the Institutional Plan? What.
Frances Lawrenz and The Noyce evaluation team University of Minnesota 1 Acknowledgement: This project was funded by National Science Foundation (Grant#REC )
Differential Effects of Participatory Evaluation in a National Multi-site Program Evaluation Frances Lawrenz University of Minnesota.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
HERI FACULTY SURVEY Surveys mailed through campus mail to all Full-Time faculty during the Spring 2005 semester A follow-up second mailing for non- respondents.
NSF IGERT proposals Yang Zhao Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Wayne State University.
How to develop an independent research plan – review literature with an eye for problem, approach, solution, new ideas – review objectives of funding programs.
 NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Broadening Participation.
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results October 2009.
Evaluation of the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program 2010 NSF Noyce Conference Abt Associates Inc. July 9, 2010.
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
Comparative Alumni Research 2011 Update Overall Comparison: Lutheran Colleges to Flagship Public Universities Lutheran Educational Conference of North.
NOVA Evaluation Report Presented by: Dr. Dennis Sunal.
Philadelphia Regional Noyce Partnership Doing Together What We Can’t Do Alone Eighth Annual NSF Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Conference Washington,
Instructors’ General Perceptions on Students’ Self-Awareness Frances Feng-Mei Choi HUNGKUANG UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH.
T HE G ALLUP O RGANIZATION GSA OGP Advisory Committee Engagement Survey ACES 2004 Overall Results October 14, 2004.
Entering Student Surveys: Fall 2010 Perry Deess, Ph.D. Institutional Research and Planning November 17, 2010.
Preparing for the Title III Part F STEM Competition Alliance of Hispanic Serving Institutions Educators Grantsmanship Institute March 20, 2016.
1 Program Details Name: TIGER DAD (Design & Development) of College Pedagogy Courses Persons responsible: Laura Border, PJ Bennett, Vivek Kaila, Abby Watrous,
1 Howard University Name: Effective Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning (ETTL) Person responsible: Dr. Folahan Ayorinde, Professor and Chair of.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2013 Presented by: November 2013 Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness.
Informational Webinar Troy Grant Assistant Executive Director for P-16 Initiatives Tennessee Higher Education Commission.
1 Vanderbilt University Name: Vanderbilt TAR Fellows Program Persons responsible: Thomas R. Harris, Derek Bruff, Jean Alley Time Commitment: Introductory.
MINT MENTORING AND INDUCTION FOR NEW TEACHERS Miami Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Development and Evaluation.
Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
This presentation will include:
Jamie Weinstein, MPH The MayaTech Corporation,
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, NSF
Presentation transcript:

Noyce Program Evaluation Conference Thursday, December 6, 2007 Frances Lawrenz Michelle Fleming Pey-Yan Liou Christina Madsen Karen Hofstad-Parkhill 1

Outline of Today’s Presentation Overall goals for our project Data overview – Scholar survey data – Scholar interview data – PI survey data – Scholar and PI survey comparison data Your additional questions and suggestions 2

Overall Goals for Our Project To contribute to the knowledge base about effective strategies for attracting and retaining high quality STEM teachers To collaboratively develop a plan to evaluate the Noyce Program that will document overall program accomplishments while celebrating the uniqueness of each project To conduct the evaluation and disseminate findings in a utility-oriented fashion 3

4

Methodology Data sources: Monitoring data collected for NSF PI online survey (N=65) Scholar online survey (N=557) Faculty on line survey (in progress) Interviews of scholars and districts (in progress) Analyses: Frequencies, %s and cross tabs Bias: Voluntary response, low number of “leavers” 5

Overview of Included Data Selected charts about the influence of the Noyce Funding Scholar yes no items by group and year: items about cultural and high needs education, mentoring opportunities, educational experiences, and the influences affecting the decision making process. Scholar Likert items by group and year: items about teaching ELL students, choosing the same teacher preparation program again, over 50% of students receive free or reduced lunch in their school, the influence of the Noyce money on completing the certification program and taking a teaching job. PI by type of program and year: items about activities the Noyce funding supports, different screening used for selecting Noyce scholars, required field experiences and hours, and how integral the Noyce scholarship is to the teacher preparation program PI scholar comparisons on 16 items: items about cultural and high needs education, mentoring opportunities, and educational field experience 6

Scholar Survey Project overview – provides a broad description of their teacher certification program Program characteristics and organization – provides more details about the opportunities and requirements of their teacher certification program Teaching environment and experience – provides details of their teaching setting, and their feeling about that setting The decision to become a teacher – explores the timing and factors that led them to pursue a career in education Background and experience – provides details about their previous work and education Overall experience – open-ended responses that explore some of these issues in more depth. 7

Selected Charts Showing the Influence of the Noyce Funding Timing of learning about Noyce Funding Effect of funding by timing of learning on decision to be a teacher Effect of funding by timing of learning on decision to teach in a high needs school Differences on timing and effect by career changer status How learn about funding Attitudes and school characteristics Influence of funding on commitment to Noyce goals 8

Did you first learn about the Noyce Scholarship before or after you decided to become a teacher? *Scholar survey Section IV:4 Timing of Learning about the Noyce Funding 9

Timing of Learning about the Noyce Funding by Year *Scholar survey Section IV:4 Did you first learn about the Noyce scholarship before or after you decided to become a teacher? (percentage of scholars’ response by year) 10

Would you have become a teacher if you had not received the Noyce scholarship? (Scholars said ‘Before’ in the previous question ) *Scholar survey Section IV:6 Effect of Funding on Decision to Become a Teacher (Before Group) 11

Would you have become a teacher if you had not received the Noyce scholarship? (Scholars said ‘After’ in the previous question) *Scholar survey Section IV:6 Effect of Funding on Decision to Become a Teacher (After Group) 12

Would you have decided to teach in a high needs school if you had not participated in the Noyce scholarship program? (Scholars said ‘Before’ in the previous question) *Scholar survey Section IV:7 Effect of Funding on Decision to Teach in a High Needs School (Before Group) 13

Would you have decided to teach in a high needs school if you had not participated in the Noyce scholarship program? (Scholars said ‘After’ in the previous question) *Scholar survey Section IV:7 Effect of Funding on Decision to Teach in a High Needs School (After Group) 14

Timing of Learning about Funding for Career Changers Did you first learn about the Noyce Scholarship before or after you decided to become a teacher? (Analysis for those who said they were career changers.) *Scholar survey Section V:4 *Scholar survey Section IV:4 15

Timing of Learning about Funding for Non Career Changers *Scholar survey Section V:4 *Scholar survey Section IV:4 Did you first learn about the Noyce Scholarship before or after you decided to become a teacher? (Analysis for those who said they were NOT career changers.) 16

Did any of the following help you learn about the Noyce scholarship? *Scholar survey Section IV:6 How students learned about the Noyce Funding by Year 17

Other ways student learned about funding….. students friends professors in the department of education, mathematics… directors of the program instructors teachers s radio advertisement flyers newspaper advertisement bulletin notices program office college of education scholarship database workshops financial aid offices 18

Scholars’ Attitudes about Their Jobs and Their Certification Programs *Scholar survey Section II:6 19

Which of the following characterize your school? (percentage for scholars who responded “applies”) *Scholar survey Section III:3 Characteristics of Schools in which Scholars are Employed by Year 20

Influence of Funding in Scholar Commitment to Noyce Goals by Year *Scholar survey Section IV:8 The Likert-scale is as follows: Very influential:4; Somewhat influential:3; Not very influential:2; Not at all influential:1. The value in this graph is the mean for each item by year. 21

Scholar Yes-No Survey Data There were 28 Items The % yes ranges from 0 to 100 There were 15 Items showing significant differences by year There were 15 Items showing significant differences by group Considerations: small numbers, many chi square analyses, and different populations by item. 22

Questions about the Scholar Yes/No Survey Data From , the scholars who are in the certification program and/or teaching full time indicated an increase in education about how to work in high needs schools. Do you feel the Noyce program is related to this increase? According to the data, the scholars (who are working as full-time teachers) indicated that, over the time span, they have received more mentoring experiences from the districts compared to the certification program. Do you find this to be true? If so, why do you think that is? 23

Scholar Likert Survey Data There were 28 Items. The means range from 1.00 to There was 1 Item showing a significant difference by year There were 5 Items showing significant differences by group Considerations: small numbers, many comparisons, and different populations by item 24

Questions about the Scholar Likert Survey Data From , scholars total mean scores on the opportunity to “Develop specific strategies for teaching students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.” has slightly increased from on a 5.00 scale. – Is this sufficient? – What particular strategies do you promote in your program? From , the Noyce money had an increasing impact on the scholars’ decision to remain teaching in a high needs school to fulfill the scholarship commitment. – How influential is the Noyce money on scholars’ initial commitment to teach in high needs schools? – Past the initial commitment, do you find the scholars continue teaching in high needs schools? 25

Scholar Interview Model 26

Questions about the Scholar Interview Model In terms of your work with the scholars, do you see any connections or relationships between the scholars’ SES and their desire to work in high needs schools or choosing to teach as a career? Do you see the Noyce money playing a role in scholars’ decisions to work in high needs schools? Would you like the interviews to focus on any particular decisions, factors or other issues? 27

PI Survey Project overview – provides a broad description of the teacher certification programs offered at this site Noyce money – explores what the money provided by the Noyce grant does and does not do, and the roles it plays in the program most scholars participate in Program characteristics and organization – provides more details about the opportunities and requirements of the teacher certification program that most scholars participate in Contacts and partners – this information will be used for later investigation by the evaluation team, and is not included here 28

PI Survey Data There were 42 yes/no items and 23 Likert items The % of yes ranges from 0 to 100 The Likert means range from 1.28 to 4.00 No differences by year 29

Questions about the PI Survey The question “How Integral is the Noyce scholarship funding to your teacher preparation program,” has changed every year from,”The program would continue mostly unchanged without the funding” to “The program would be substantially different without the funding.” – Do you think that the projects funded more recently are more affected by the Noyce funding than those funded initially? According to the data, student teaching experiences in a high needs district are offered but not necessarily required by all programs Noyce scholars participate in. – Should these types of experiences be required? 30

Scholar and PI Comparison Data on 16 Survey Items The scholars felt the following experiences were more available than the PIs did – Interaction with adults from other cultures – Educational field experiences (not student teaching) – Research field experiences – Student teaching in NON high needs schools The PIs felt the remaining 12 experiences were more available than the scholars did Limitation was that the PI and scholar response options were slightly different 31

Questions about the Scholar and PI Comparison Survey Data According to the data, the Principal Investigators (85 % required 9% offered) and Scholars (82 %) agreed that the scholars receive education about different cultures. – Are these percentages high enough? – If culture education is not provided, how else are these issues dealt with? According to the data, 67% of the scholars indicated they received supervised classroom teaching experiences in high needs schools (i.e. student teaching, internship). However, 87% of the PIs indicated that their institutions require supervised classroom teaching in high needs schools. – Why do you think there is a such difference? – Do you feel this is important? Why or why not? 32

Do you have any questions or suggestions you would like to share? 33

Thank you! 34