Note: Results from the survey are in italics.

STEMTEC 1999 Summer Institute

Feedback Survey

1. This summer’s institute aimed to address four central goals:

developing strategies for recruiting prospective K12 teachers through course reform, campus-based policies, and the new STEMTEC Science and Math Pre-Education Program

providing information and opportunities for reflecting on the cognitive aspects and theoretical assumptions surrounding teaching and learning

discussing the evaluation component of STEMTEC, including the feedback that evaluation has provided thus far, evaluation plans for next year, needs in preparing for the third-year review before NSF, etc.

offering opportunities for discussion on specific topics identified by STEMTEC participants through concurrent sessions

Was the first goal above accomplished to your satisfaction? YES NO

Why or why not?

40% responded "Yes" to this question.

Representative comments:

No, but I feel we took important steps in that direction.

I had not previously made this a major focus. I now realize how important this component is to STEMTEC and I do have tools to encourage this in my students.

No, while progress was made, there seems to be a long way to go.

Gave me a greater feeling of personal responsibility to initiate change.

Our campus discussion produced some good ideas for outreach and encouraging students (college students) to become involved in K-12 education.

Was the second goal above accomplished to your satisfaction? YES NO

Why or why not?

58% responded "Yes" to this question.

Representative comments:

I had the opportunity to reflect and expand on my own thinking in these areas, which helped me more clearly define what I believe is true in T/L [teaching/learning]. Experts also fortified my ideas.

Much of the conversation this week actually centered around this.

This seems a daunting task that would take several days. We were give enough time (for me) to entice participants into looking farther into this topic.

Introductory to me. More time is needed. I will definitely give more time to this.

Was the third goal above accomplished to your satisfaction? YES NO

Why or why not?

42% responded "Yes" to this question.

Representative comments:

I think participants need to know more about assessing diffuse intellectual skills like critical thinking.

Don’t think we spent enough time discussing how STEMTEC participants could help the PIs address the criticism raised by NVC.

I appreciate the opportunity to have input into this process.

Evaluation was thoroughly discussed, but the methods of evaluation are unclear and don’t appear to be very effective so far. This is a very difficult piece for STEMTEC.

It is more complex than I imagined and I feel I can contribute now.

Was the fourth goal above accomplished to your satisfaction? YES NO

Why or why not?

90% responded "Yes" to this question.

Representative comments:

The opportunities were there and the sessions were solid and very useful.

The small group sessions were nice because we could pick and choose. My only regret was that I could not go to a couple of them that sounded interesting and helpful. Too much good stuff to choose from!

Yes, important and broad (cross-discipline) issues were discussed.

These sessions were great!

 

2. On a scale from 1-5, with "1" representing the lowest value and "5" representing the highest value, please rate the following sessions in terms of their interest and utility to you (please circle your response).

Session 2 (Monday, 10 a..m.-12 p.m.): Teams discussion of new courses and how STEMTEC faculty can reach prospective teachers

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

 

Overall rating: 3.5

Representative comments:

Interesting, especially to hear how courses went that we heard the instructors start to develop last summer.

There wasn’t enough time allowed to discuss both new courses and recruiting teachers.

I am very pleased with the new vitality of the physics team.

Session 3 (Monday afternoon): Rod Cocking, "How People Learn"

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

 

Overall rating: 1.9

Representative comments:

I looked forward to hearing national speakers (Rod Cocking) but was disappointed in his presentation. He was much better speaking in one-to-one conversation.

Too brief; I was hungry for more; am looking forward to reading the book.

This topic is interesting but would have made more sense to focus on one example and do it in depth instead of covering a whole book.

 

 

Session 4 (Tuesday, 9-10:30 a.m.): Teams discussion of whether assumptions about teaching and learning are consistent with their methods

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

 

Overall rating: 3.6

Representative comments:

Difficult because of the cursory treatment of the subject matter.

Good topic/teachers don’t impart knowledge/students are responsible to seek out various methods to become experts.

Fun and interesting; how practical it was to my teaching is something that is still stewing in my brain. I have no doubt that the usefulness is there, and it’s becoming more and more apparent to me.

 

Session 5 (Tuesday, 11 a.m.-12 p.m.): Update on course evaluation

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

 

Overall rating: 2.3

Representative comments:

It was not clear what the goal of this presentation was. The anger (audience) and defensiveness (presenter) were not useful.

Too much time on science literacy survey.

Need more focus on what is being tested and why.

 

Session 6 (Tuesday, 12:30-2 p.m.): Effective evaluation strategies

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

 

Overall rating: 2.9

Representative comments:

Interesting intellectual discussion. Applicability unknown.

I think faculty have a lot to learn about effective evaluation. As I understand, there is a real push to get quantitative data about learning and the effectiveness of STEMTEC techniques. Others did not seem to get this and, if so, to have no idea how to do it.

Fruitful discussion with other faculty members, but we had a hard time defining the goals of the evaluation process.

 

Session 7 (Tuesday, 2:30-4:30 p.m.): Concurrent sessions

Becoming a K12 teacher

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 4.3

Collaborative learning: Successes and failures

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 3.9

Using the web in courses

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 4.6

Alternative assessment of students

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 4.6

Formative evaluation of teaching

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 5

Comments:

 

Great demonstration/modeling; good tips designing assessment tools.

K12 teachers were very informative and candid about the motives for becoming a teacher and realities of classroom.

The web presentation by Dave Demers was outstanding.

I gained useful insights into how to improve formative evaluation in my teaching practice.

I really learned a lot, one of the best workshops I have attended.

 

 

Session 8 (Wednesday, 9-10:30 a.m.): Teams self-analysis

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

 

Overall rating: 3.7

Representative comments:

The conversations were really great in that we had ideas that helped each other and our issues were surprisingly similar.

This was great. Groups were an appropriate size (small) so that discussion remained on task. Our group was very productive in working through each others issues.

Most helpful because we had a specific course to discuss.

 

 

Session 9 (Wednesday, 11 a.m.-12 p.m.): Campus meetings

1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

 

Overall rating: 3.9

Representative comments:

Lively discussions—we were still talking when lunch break came.

Great connections were made. A lot of good ideas—and practical ones—came out in this session.

Input of K12 teachers invaluable. Made definite plans and set up next meeting time.

 

Session 10 (Wednesday, 12:30-2 p.m.): Concurrent sessions

Becoming a K12 teacher

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 3.5

Collaborative learning: Successes and failures

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 4.2

Using the web in courses

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 4.1

Alternative assessment of students

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 4.4

Formative evaluation of teaching

1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating: 4.2

Comments:

 

See earlier representative comments on concurrent sessions.

 

 

What did you find MOST useful about this summer’s institute?

 

The top three things listed:

team meetings

concurrent sessions

networking that went on between college and K-12 faculty

What did you find LEAST useful about this summer’s institute?

 

The two things generally listed as least useful:

The lecture by Rod Cocking on how people learn

The presentation on evaluation

 

5. Overall, and again on a scale of 1-5 with "1" representing the lowest value and "5" the highest, how would you rate this summer’s institute?

1 2 3 4 5

 

Overall rating: 3.4