Evaluation of the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program 2010 NSF Noyce Conference Abt Associates Inc. July 9, 2010.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Survey Responses Challenges and Opportunities Matt Richey St. Olaf College.
Advertisements

April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
Delta Sierra Middle School Napa/Solano County Office of Education School Assistance and Intervention Team Monitoring Report #8 – July 2008 Mary Camezon,
“NSF’s Division of Undergraduate Education: Funding Opportunities for Community Colleges” CUR November 18, 2011 Eun-Woo Chang Montgomery College.
An Overview of Preparation Program Effectiveness Measures Georgia Assessment Directors’ Association Fall 2013 Meeting Chuck McCampbell.
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.
Noyce Program Evaluation Group Our evaluation project has four major components: –Preparation of an extensive literature review pertaining to recruitment.
NSF-Noyce Scholars Partnership of Western NY New Jersey Science Convention, Somerset, New Jersey 06 October 2005 Joseph Zawicki, Department of Earth Science.
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.
CRICOS Provider No 00025B Strategies for enhancing teaching and learning: Reflections from Australia Merrilyn Goos Director Teaching and Educational Development.
School Library Media Specialists Who Provide In-service Training for Teachers Graduate Thesis Spring 2005 Stephanie Gaughan.
Noyce Program Participatory Evaluation FRANCES LAWRENZ JIM APPLETON MARJORIE BULLITT BEQUETTE ANN OOMS DEENA WASSENBERG University of Minnesota.
Noyce Program Evaluation Conference Thursday, December 6, 2007 Frances Lawrenz Michelle Fleming Pey-Yan Liou Christina Madsen Karen Hofstad-Parkhill 1.
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.
Presented by CCSSO and Penn Hill Group December 4, 2014
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.
Introduction to the MSP Management Information System Molly Hershey-Arista December 16, 2013.
2011 Proposal Writing Workshop Part II: Features of Effective Proposals.
Evaluation of Math-Science Partnership Projects (or how to find out if you’re really getting your money’s worth)
TIMELESS LEARNING POLICY & PRACTICE. JD HOYE President National Academy Foundation.
Evaluating NSF Programs
Professional Development Day October 2009 Data Matters! Finding and Accessing Information at SPC.
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
Preliminary Highlights from the Noyce National Program Evaluation May 30, 2013 Ellen Bobronnikov Cris Price.
Proposal Writing Webinar February, Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Initiated by Act of Congress in 2002 Reauthorized in 2007 (America COMPETES.
Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, & Advancement From Recruitment to Retention: A Continuum That Works!
An Update on Florida’s Charter Schools Program Grant: CAPES External Evaluation 2014 Florida Charter Schools Conference: Sharing Responsibility November.
ENHANCE Update Research Underway on the Validity of the Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process ECO Center Advisory Board Meeting March 8, 2012 Arlington,
2012 Proposal Writing Workshop Co-sponsored by the: National Science Foundation & American Association for the Advancement of Science.
1 By The Numbers. 2 One of largest programs of its kind at a major research institution Replication is underway at other universities. US Department of.
Interim Joint Committee on Education June 11, 2012.
 NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Integrating Diversity into.
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
Leading Change Through Differentiated PD Approaches and Structures University-District partnerships for Strengthening Instructional Leadership In Mathematics.
Data Development and Pilots Academic Leadership Retreat August 2015.
Frances Lawrenz and The Noyce evaluation team University of Minnesota 1 Acknowledgement: This project was funded by National Science Foundation (Grant#REC )
Developed by Yolanda S. George, AAAS Education & Human Resources Programs and Patricia Campbell, Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc. With input from the AGEP.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Project I.D. Project Instrument Development Empowerment in Career Science Teachers: Instrument Development for Exploring the Professional Growth Continuum.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing Ensuring Educator Excellence 1 Biennial Report October 2008.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships, Title II, Part B, NCLB.
Intel ® Teach to the Future Pre Service Evaluation across Asia - Gaining the Country Perspective - Deakin University Faculty of Education Consultancy and.
Implementation of CCSS CCCOE Curriculum Council November 2011.
 NSF Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts  Additional Considerations Integration of Research & Education Broadening Participation.
CIRTL Network Data Collection 3/2/2013. Institutional Portrait: Purpose Consistency with the TAR principle Accountability: – Helps us all monitor Network.
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
0 Emerging Findings from the Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) Evaluation Gayle Hamilton, MDRC Workforce Innovations 2005 Conference.
CaMSP Cohort 8 Orientation Cohort 8 State and Local Evaluation Overview, Reporting Requirements, and Attendance Database February 23, 2011 California Department.
Presented at State Kindergarten Entry Assessment (KEA) Conference San Antonio, Texas February, 2012 Comprehensive Assessment in Early Childhood: How Assessments.
Proposal Writing Workshop Features of Effective Proposals.
© 2007 SRI International CPATH Principal Investigators Meeting: Program Evaluation Update March 26, 2010 By the Center for Education Policy Dr. Raymond.
Wednesday, October 28 2:30 – 3:30 PM
KY NT3 Kentucky Network to Transform Teaching. KYNT3 is funded by a US Department of Education Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) grant.
Philadelphia Regional Noyce Partnership Doing Together What We Can’t Do Alone Eighth Annual NSF Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Conference Washington,
Evaluating Impacts of MSP Grants Ellen Bobronnikov January 6, 2009 Common Issues and Potential Solutions.
Draft of the Conceptual Framework for Evaluation & Assessment of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Alliance for Graduate Education & the Professoriate.
Evaluation Plan Steven Clauser, PhD Chief, Outcomes Research Branch Applied Research Program Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences NCCCP Launch.
Statewide Evaluation Cohort 7 Overview of Evaluation March 23, 2010 Mikala L. Rahn, Ph.D.
Office of Service Quality
Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation– North Carolina Building LEA and Regional Professional Development Capacity First Annual Evaluation.
CONNECT WITH CAEP | | Measures of Teacher Impact on P-12 Students Stevie Chepko, Sr. VP for Accreditation.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Stimulating Research and Innovation for Preservice Education of STEM Teachers in High-Need Schools W. James Lewis Deputy Assistant Director, Education.
Melanie Taylor Horizon Research, Inc.
CAEP Orientation: Newcomers
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, NSF
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation of the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program 2010 NSF Noyce Conference Abt Associates Inc. July 9, 2010

1 Overview of Presentation Relationship between previous and current studies What does the national evaluation mean for Noyce awardees and recipients? Study schedule Evaluation questions Approaches to analyses

2 Relationship Between Previous and Current Studies The current study builds on the prior evaluation in several ways: Updates the evaluation with more current information and encompasses recent program components Examines the career trajectories of fellows who are beyond their teaching requirement Includes a more a rigorous impact study to assess program impact on recruitment and retention of STEM teachers in high-need districts and schools

3 What Does the Program Evaluation Mean for Noyce Awardees and Recipients? This evaluation is a program evaluation, not an evaluation of individual Noyce awardees or recipients. While data will be collected from individual respondents, all information will be analyzed and reported in an aggregate form to draw conclusions about the impacts of the program as a whole. Individual awardees or recipients will not be identifiable.

4 Role of Noyce Stakeholders Noyce stakeholders know best about what is happening in their projects, departments, and schools; and Noyce recipients understand how the scholarship and stipends affect their experiences. Therefore, we hope to work closely with Noyce stakeholders throughout the study, engaging in an ongoing dialogue to guarantee that we obtain the most complete picture of the work of each project. We will be requesting assistance from PIs in encouraging participants in their projects to participate in surveys and interviews and in ensuring we are interpreting their data correctly.

5 Which Awards will be Included? The study will initially focus on all Noyce awards funded between 2003 through – In fall 2010, we will begin surveying all PIs, STEM faculty involved in the Noyce programs, Noyce recipients, and the K-12 principals in which former Noyce recipients are teaching. – In winter 2011, the study will also interview a small subset of these same respondent groups. In fall 2011, we will survey the same respondents for all 2009 awards, and similarly conduct interviews with a small subset of the respondents. This will enable newer awardees sufficient time to get grant activities started.

6 Planned Data Collection Activities and Schedule Spring 2010: Finalize study design and contact PIs to collect contact information Summer/Fall 2010: Pilot instruments and prepare online surveys Fall 2010/2011: Administer online surveys of PIs, STEM faculty, Noyce recipients, and school principals and collect teacher employment data Winter 2011/2012 Conduct interviews with a sample of Principal Investigators, STEM faculty, and Noyce recipients Spring 2011/2012:Analyze data Fall 2012:Prepare final report

7 Surveys Types of individuals who participate in the Noyce Program: – Census of current Principal Investigators – Convenience sample of STEM Faculty – Census of current recipients – Purposive sample of K-12 Principals Topics Covered: – Award Information, Recruitment and Selection, Program Activities, Relationships between departments and with High- Need LEAs – Recipients’ Plans for Teaching in High-Need Schools, for Leadership Roles – Respondents’ Perceptions of Program

8 Interviews Purposive sample of types of individuals who participate in the Noyce program: PIs, to pursue more detailed questions about programmatic decision-making and responsibilities STEM Faculty, to provide more detailed information on how Noyce programs influence whether and how STEM departments interact with teacher preparation programs Recipients, to provide more information about programmatic features deemed most and least useful to Noyce recipients, and whether and how Noyce funding have influenced career decisions to date K-12 Principals, to pursue additional information about how principals perceive qualifications of Noyce teachers and how Noyce has affected the availability of qualified math and science teachers

9 Evaluation Questions 1.What are the goals and activities of the teacher certification programs from which Noyce grants are housed? How do stakeholders perceive the Noyce Program and Noyce recipients? What are the characteristics of the schools in which Noyce recipients teach? 2.What are the relationships between characteristics of the Noyce Program, types of Noyce recipients, and recipients’ plans to go into/stay in teaching and leadership roles? 3.What is the impact of Noyce on teacher recruitment, retention, and teacher effectiveness?

10 Descriptive Analyses Descriptive analyses will tell us how the Noyce Program is being implemented across all awardees; they will also tell us about how Noyce recipients progress through their teacher preparation and early teaching years. The descriptive analyses will be complemented by 2 in-depth inquiries: – One focuses on institutional change within STEM departments, to learn whether and how STEM faculty take responsibility for teacher preparation – One focuses on supports received by recipients during induction, whether from the Noyce Program and/or the employing school/district, to learn whether and how such support influences decisions to stay in teaching and to enter leadership positions

11 Relational Analyses Relational analyses will examine variation in whether recipients plans to teach, to teach in high-need districts and schools, in particular, and their leadership activities, as a function of: – Initial status upon program entry (e.g., undergraduate, post-baccalaureate, or STEM professional) – Demographic characteristics of IHEs and recipients – Financial incentives received – School climate

12 Impact Analyses Impact analyses will test whether receipt of a Noyce award has an impact on an IHE teacher certification program in terms of: – The number of STEM majors/professionals who graduate from teacher certification programs both prior to and post- Noyce – The rate of entry into teaching in high-need schools – The expected retention in high-need schools – Teacher content knowledge at certification Analyses will be based on certification and employment data collected from state departments of education

13 How Will This Study Help Noyce PIs? The program evaluation will provide Noyce PIs with information about activities being developed and implemented through other Noyce awards and the program components that are associated with various outcomes for different types of recipients. Abt Associates staff will present findings from the study at the Annual Noyce conferences.

14 Contact Information For more information about the Noyce Program Evaluation, please contact: Connie Della-Piana, National Science Foundation, Ellen Bobronnikov, Abt Associates Inc., General Questions:

15