1. Reading the River Evaluation Summary 2002-2003 Jeffrey Smith Department of Psychology Northern Kentucky University

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. Participant’s Confidence 1=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

5. 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

6. Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Rating for Items 1-7.

7. 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

8. Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Rating in the use of Instructional Strategies.

9. 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

10. Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings in the Ability to use Community Resources

11. 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

12. Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings for the use of Field Based Investigations.

13. 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

14. Average Pre, Post and Long-term Post Confidence Ratings in the Ability to Teach Program Topics

15. 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

16. Average Pre and Long-term Post Ratings of Student Enthusiasm for Science (1= Low…5=High)

17. Item 31: Percentage of Curriculum aligned with the Core Content for Assessment

18. 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

19. Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of Program Technologies

20. 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

21. Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Use of Instructional Strategies

22. 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

23. Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Reported Use of Community Resources

24. 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

25. Average Pre and Long-term Post Use of Field Based Investigations

26. 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

27. Average Pre and Long-term Post Reported Teaching of Program Topics

28. 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=2.53 The instructional techniques used during the professional development were appropriate for reaching the intended objectives. M=2.16 The professional development provided ample time to achieve stated objectives M=2.37 The professional development provided adequate follow-up M=2.21 The professional development provided useful methods for transferring new knowledge and skills to the classroom. M=2.26

29. 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

30. Item F10, Long-term Follow-up: Impact of the Program (Yes, No, or na). I maintained contact with participants. yes=18, no=1 Developed a professional network yes=18, no=1 Joined an organization yes=10, no=8, na=1 I attended professional conference yes=13, no=5, na=1 I have or would recommend this program to other teachers yes=19, no=1 I shared what I learning with colleagues through informal interactions yes=19, no=0 I shared what I learned with colleagues through formally interactions. yes=11, no=8

31. 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

32. 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=2.63Lt. Post M=2.16 I believe I am an effective teacher. Pre M=2.53Lt. Post M=2.16 I am excited about teaching my subject area. Pre M=2.32 Lt. Post M=2.05

33. Item F13, Pre and Long-term Follow-up: Approaches in Classroom Teaching Pair A: Lecture vs. Interaction Pre M=3.95Post M=3.88 Pair B: Group work vs. Independent Pre M=2.79Post M=2.5 Pair C: Central ideas vs. Broad coverage Pre M=2.74Post M=3.0 Pair D: Repetitive vs. Manipulate ideas Pre M=3.58 Post M=3.44 Pair E: Hand-on vs. Lectures/demos Pre M=2.74Post M=2.75 Pair F: Successful vs. Unsuccessful encouragement Pre M=2.37Post M=2.63 Pair G: Conventional vs.Alternative Assessment Pre M=3.2 Post M=3.4

34. Reading the River Session Evaluations Scaling Strongly agree = 1 Agree = 2 Undecided = 3 Disagree = 4 Strongly Disagree = 5

35. 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

36. 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

37. Reading the River Session Evaluations Tuesday AM Cave Run Lake Session was beneficial M = 1.59 Tuesday AM Fish Identification Session was beneficial M = 1.74 Tuesday Afternoon Pontoon Study Session was beneficial M = 1.12 Tuesday PM Recreation Experience was beneficial M = 1.60

38. Reading the River Session Evaluations Wednesday AM Mussel Study Session was beneficial M = 1.11 Wednesday Afternoon Canoe Trip Session was beneficial M = 1.21 Wednesday PM Recreation Experience Was Beneficial M = 1.56

39. Reading the River Session Evaluations Thursday AM Canoeing/Monitoring Session was beneficial M = 1.44 Thursday Afternoon History & Flooding Session was beneficial M = 2.0 Thursday Afternoon Cultural Resources Session was beneficial M = 2.4 Thursday Afternoon Farm Visit Session was beneficial M = 1.39 Thursday PM Campfire Program Session was beneficial M = 1.6

40. 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

41. Pro Environmental Attitudes (New Ecological Paradigm Scale)