Get documents about "APPENDIX E QUALITATIVE DATA Table E1. Principal Investigator and
Document Sample
APPENDIX E: QUALITATIVE DATA
Table E1. Principal Investigator and Evaluator Survey
Note. Because some answers may include several issues, the number of respondents may not equal the
number of responses. Following each question is the number of respondents, N, followed by the number
of evaluators : principal investigators in parentheses. After each category of answer types are the number,
in parentheses, of respondents who included that category in their open-ended response followed by two
numbers separated by a colon, also in parentheses. Again these two numbers are the number of
respondents who are evaluators and the number who are principal investigators or co-principal
investigators. Any identifiers have been replaced by generic terms in brackets.
Question 1: What do you believe are the three most important things your Collaborative for excellence
in teacher preparation (CETP) accomplished? N = 17 (8:9)
# Answer types Reformed courses – (12) (6:6)
(# of each type): Documented success of program – (4) (3:1)
Improved interaction between HE & K-12 – (4) (2:2)
Improved interaction between STEM & Ed – (4) (3:1)
Provided HE professional development – (4) (1:3)
Raised awareness – (4) (2:2)
Improved interaction between 2- and 4-yr colleges – (3) (1:2)
Improved interaction between HE institutions – (3) (2:1)
Improved recruitment of STEM teachers – (3) (0:3)
Established new course – (2) (1:1)
Institutionalized course reform/program – (2) (2:0)
Improved support for pre-service teachers – (1) (0:1)
Improved support for new teachers – (1) (0:1)
Hosted major conference – (1) (0:1)
Changed state licensure standards – (1) (1:0)
Coordination of courses – (1) (0:1)
Representative Reformed courses:
quotes: “ Incorporation of active-learning and other strategies into a wide variety of
science and math courses across the collaborative.”
Documented success:
“Developed assessment instruments used to measure reform and discovered that
reformed instruction significantly improves achievement.”
Improved interaction between HE & K-12:
“The significant collaboration through summer workshops involving the practicum
cooperating teachers and College of Education Math/Science faculty.”
Improved interaction between STEM & Ed:
“Got math, science, and education faculty talking to each other about reforming
courses and teaching practices at the original collaborative member institutions.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-1
Continued: Table E1. Question 1
Representative HE professional development:
quotes: “Faculty development around instructional strategies and assessment.”
Raised awareness:
“Increasing the understanding that disciplines must take a leading role in
improving the quality of STEM preservice programs.”
Improved interaction between 2- and 4-yr colleges:
“Better communication and articulation between universities and feeder
community colleges.”
Improved interaction among HE institutions:
“Inter-campus communications and collaborations.”
Improved recruitment:
“We believe that we have pioneered a novel approach to recruitment of new
teachers.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-2
Question 2: Were there any mechanisms or processes in place before the CETP began that
facilitated the achievement of the CETP Goals? N = 18; Yes = 77.8%
If yes, please describe up to the three most important mechanisms in place before the CETP began.
N = 14 (7:7)
# Answer types Institutional reform already in place – (6) (4:2)
(# of each type): Reform efforts of state – (3) (1:2)
Prior collaboration within institution – (3) (1:2)
Reform efforts of individuals – (2) (1:1)
Prior collaboration among institutions – (1) (0:1)
Prior collaboration between HE and K-12 – (1) (0:1)
Institute/Learning Center in place – (1) (0:1)
Reform-based materials already in place – (1) (0:1)
Involved in other organizations – (1) (1:0)
Previous professional development – (1) (0:1)
Representative Institutional reform:
quotes: “Each of the campuses had in place campus-wide initiatives encouraging
professional development of faculty.”
Reform efforts of state:
“The existence of the [state] Mathematics and Science Alliance…which was one
product of the [state] SSI project of 1992-1997 gave us the human resource
connections necessary to ramp up our effort faster than would be possible without
[that alliance].”
Within institution:
“The College of Education and the College of Science and Technology at [our
institution] had worked together before on other projects.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-3
Question 3: Were there any barriers that inhibited the achievement of the CETP goals?
N = 18; Yes = 88.9%
If yes, please describe up to the three most important. N = 15 (7:8)
# Answer types HE coordination/bureaucracy – (5) (3:2)
(# of each type): All faculty inertia/resistance/lack of awareness – (4) (2:2)
K-12 bureaucracy – (3) (3:0)
More SMET emphasis than Ed – (3) (1:2)
Ed faculty inertia/resistance/lack of awareness – (2) (2:0)
Unreasonable grant expectations – (2) (0:2)
SMET faculty inertia/resistance/lack of awareness – (1) (1:0)
Students resistance to reform-based teaching – (1) (1:0)
Lack of support for teaching from culture – (1) (0:1)
Capacity issues – (1) (0:1)
Representative HE coordination/bureaucracy:
quotes: “Coordinating the faculty effort at the different institutions was a challenge
because some college faculty were already ‘reforming’ their courses and teaching
practices while others were not.”
All faculty – resistance to reform:
“Reluctance of higher ed faculty to change the way they teach, partly due to lack of
confidence.”
K-12 bureaucracy:
“One such barrier was an unwillingness of teachers to take on any new
(research/reform) responsibilities because they were already so swamped with non-
educational chores like administering batteries standardized tests.”
SMET rather than Ed:
“The School of Education has been marginalized by both campus administration
and SMET faculty.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-4
Question 4: What evidence do you have that any of the changes begun by your CETP will continue,
e.g., funds available, continuing faculty support, collaborative activities, or other changes? N = 17 (8:9)
# Answer types Institutionalization of new/reformed courses – (7) (5:2)
(# of each type): New funding/grants – (6) (3:3)
Continuing collaboration – (5) (2:3)
Institutionalization of reform-based teaching – (4) (1:3)
Institutionalization of Centers – (4) (1:3)
Follow-on funding of CETP – (3) (0:3)
Institutionalization of changes in College of Ed – (3) (2:1)
New hires/appointments – (3) (1:2)
State reform efforts – (2) (2:0)
More students going into STEM teaching program – (1) (0:1)
More openness of teachers to reform – (1) (1:0)
New buildings designed for reform-based teaching – (1) (1:0)
Representative Institutionalization of new/reformed courses:
quotes: “Courses are institutionalized and are requirements for an Elementary Education
degree.”
New funding/grants:
“We have secured complementary and successor funding from federal and private
(Raytheon, Hewlett Foundation) to support efforts similar to CETP goals.
Continuing collaboration:
“Working teams (and friendships) within disciplines have developed across
collaborative partner campuses.”
Institutionalization of reform-based teaching:
“College faculty members are continuing and expanding their teaching of classes
in ‘the active voice’.”
Institutionalization of Centers:
“We now have a science/math teaching/learning center funded by state funds to
continue the reforms.”
Institutionalization of changes in College of Ed:
“The changes in the College of Education at [our institution] including
coordination among methods courses and the math-science practicum are now
institutionalized.”
Follow-on funding:
“Through the extension CETP grant, we have continued to bring future
cooperating teachers in for training in math-science integration, and to continue the
format of the practicum.”
New hires/appointments:
“In biology and in some of the other departments we have hired people to work on
sustained reforms (e.g., in BIO 181/182 our freshman majors course).”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-5
Question 5: Did your CETP implement any special programs designed to increase the ethnic and
gender diversity of students planning to become teachers, e.g., recruitment, retention, other?
N = 18; Yes = 72.2%
If yes, what evidence do you have that these will continue after the CETP? N = 12 (4:8)
# Answer types Scholarships – (3) (2:1)
(# of each type): Outreach/recruiting – (3) (1:2)
Events/presentations – (2) (1:1)
Collaboration with minority HE and urban K-12 schools – (1) (0:1)
Graduate course – (1) (0:1)
Extended teacher ed program to immigrants – (1) (0:1)
Varies with institution – (1) (1:0)
Materials, e.g., brochures etc., in place – (1) (0:1)
Representative Scholarships:
quotes: “NSF scholar program concentrated on a targeted recruitment of Native
Americans.”
Outreach/recruiting:
“The Project Coordinator was a member of the (local) Futures Round Table which
worked with college prep organizations focused on encouraging minorities to
participate in higher education.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-6
Question 6: Were any additional opportunities or responsibilities provided for National Science
Foundation Scholars because of the scholarship? N = 18; Yes = 75.0%
If yes, please describe. N = 15 (6:9)
# Answer types Participate in seminars/workshops/summer academy – (6) (3:3)
(# of each type): Participate in conferences (regional/state/national) – (6) (2:4)
Go on field trips/work in the field – (3) (1:2)
No answer – (2) (1:1)
Participate in student groups – (2) (1:1)
Access to free materials – (1) (1:0)
Be TAs – (1) (1:0)
Act as peer tutors – (1) (1:0)
Didn’t know what scholars are – (1) (0:1)
Representative Seminars, etc.:
quotes: “The Teaching Scholars were included in many of the newly developed
professional development programs of [the CETP and related systemic
initiatives].”
Conferences:
“Participation in NSTA and NCTM regional and national conferences, and in [the
CETP] Forum.
Field trips/work in field:
“…helped facilitate informal teaching experiences.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-7
Question 7: Is there any funding to continue the National Science Foundation (NSF) Scholars
program beyond the extension grant? N = 18; Yes = 14.3%
7a: If yes, what are the funding sources? N = 5 (3:2)
# Answer types No answer – (2) (2:0)
(# of each type): Institution – (2) (1:1)
No – (1) (0:1)
Other funding – (1) (0:1)
Representative No answer:
quotes: “I don’t think so, but again I was not involved directly in that part of the project.”
Institution:
“[Our university is] committed to providing scholarships after the end of the
grant.”
7b: If yes, what is the level of funding? N = 3 (2:1)
# Answer types No answer – (1) (1:0)
(# of each type): $50,000 – (1) (1:0)
$1,000 – 2,000 – (1) (0:1)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-8
Question 8a. To what extent do you believe the CETP improved the way science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty interact.
N=16; Overall Mean = 3.69; Overall SD = .704
N Mean SD
Evaluators 8 3.75 .463
PIs/Co-PIs 8 3.63 .916
t-value p-value
.344 .736
Please describe the evidence to support the rating: N = 15 (7:8)
# Answer types Cooperation/Collaboration – (4) (2:2)
(# of each type): Attendance/activity at events – (4) (2:2)
Discussion at meetings – (3) (1:3)
Curriculum change – (3) (2:1)
Fundraising/grant writing – (2) (2:0)
Conversations – (2) (1:1)
Development of networks – (2) (1:1)
Increase in reformed teaching – (2) (0:2)
Interaction with K-12 – (1) (1:0)
Joint teaching – (1) (0:1)
Survey data & project reports – (1) (1:0)
No answer – (1) (0:1)
Representative Cooperation/Collaboration:
quotes: “There is now a culture of cooperation and collaboration on our campus,
particularly among those colleges and departments that offer teacher preparation
courses. The CETP provided the foundation for this condition, and future reform
initiatives, such as the redesign for teacher preparation, built upon that
foundation.”
Attendance/activity at events:
“The attendance of math and science faculty at various [CETP] sponsored eve nts.”
Discussion at meetings:
“The discussions among math and science faculty about instructional reform at
these professional meetings are also evidence.”
Curriculum change:
“At the [institutions], at least some departments embarked on major curricular
change that involved many faculty. At [the 2-yr institutions], two of the four
impacted virtually all of the tenure track faculty in science and math due to the
strong commitment of the Deans. At the other [2-yr institutions], most of the
faculty were attracted into curricular revisions that made a major impact.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-9
8b. To what extent do you believe the CETP improved the way STEM faculty and STEM-education
faculty interact about improving instruction at the CETP four-year institutions of higher
education? N = 16; Overall Mean = 3.38; Overall SD = .885
N Mean SD
Evaluators 8 3.25 1.035
PIs/Co-PIs 8 3.50 .756
t-value p-value
-.522 .590
Please describe the evidence to support the rating: N = 15 (7:8)
# Answer types Talking together – (8) (4:4)
(# of each type): Joint appointments – (4) (2:2)
New programs – (3) (3:0)
Participation on committees/teams – (2) (1:1)
Administrative support – (2) (1:1)
Joint collaboration on research projects – (2) (0:2)
Shared faculty between institutions – (1) (1:0)
Low participation in CETP activity – (1) (1:0)
Varies among institutions – (1) (0:1)
Interaction increased STEM teaching changes – (1) (0:1)
Representative Talking together:
quotes: “While there is always room for improvement, and there will always be personality
conflicts, [our institution] education and science faculty worked together, talked
and communicated.”
Joint appointments:
“Joint appointments between Education and [STEM] resulted from CETP
initiatives.”
New programs:
“A five-year program in which majors in content areas take graduate education
courses in their junior and senior years is being constructed.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-10
8c. To what extent do you believe the CETP improved the way STEM faculty and STEM education
faculty interact with the faculty at the CETP two-year institutions of higher education?
N = 16; Overall Mean = 3.19; Overall SD = 1.328
N Mean SD
Evaluators 8 2.88 1.126
PIs/Co-PIs 8 3.50 1.512
t-value p-value
-.938 .364
Please describe the evidence to support the rating: N = 15 (7:8)
# Answer types No answer – (4) (2:2)
(# of each type): Collegial activity – (4) (0:4)
More cooperation – (4) (1:3)
Course reform – (3) (2:1)
Joint membership on committees – (3) (1:2)
Parallel courses – (2) (1:1)
Conversations re course reform/coordination – (2) (0:2)
Seminars – (2) (1:1)
Participation in CETP – (1) (1:0)
Shared faculty – (1) (0:1)
Representative No answer:
quotes: “. . . the connection is being brought to their attention as well as the differences in
how the two-year institutions view the four-year institutions and the conditions
under which the two-year faculties have to work.”
Collegial activity:
“Many of these faculty became not only colleagues, but friends.”
More cooperation:
“There is still a lack of articulation between all of the levels of schooling.
However, there does not seem to be as much blaming others. There seems to be a
more cooperative, we all need to work together attitude.”
Course reform:
“STEM faculty (from Colleges of Education) have forged new and interesting
collaborations about course reform…”
Joint membership on committees:
“The two-year colleges were virtually unknown prior to [our CETP]. Now they are
part of the mix when discussions, roundtables, seminars or professional
development workshops are organized.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-11
8d. To what extent do you believe the CETP improved the way STEM, STEM education faculty
and K-12 teachers interact about improving instructio n?
N = 16; Overall Mean = 3.13; Overall SD = .806
N Mean SD
Evaluators 8 3.00 1.069
PIs/Co-PIs 8 3.25 .465
t-value p-value
-.607 .554
Please describe the evidence to support the rating: N = 15 (7:8)
# Answer types Outreach activities/courses – (6) (4:2)
(# of each type): Communication/collaboration – (5) (2:3)
K-12 consultants – (4) (2:2)
Shared responsibility for pre-service teachers – (2) (0:2)
Good interaction at conferences – (2) (1:1)
Committees/Councils – (2) (2:0)
Professional Development Schools – (1) (1:0)
Mentor programs – (1) (1:0)
Representative Outreach activities/courses:
quotes: “Also, a large number of professional development programs are either in planning
or implementation phase, and these are designed to bring K-12 teachers back to the
campuses for enhanced inservice training on a continuous basis.”
Communication/collaboration:
“With respect to College of Education and K-12 folks, the role has become much
more collaborative as opposed to a top-down professional development
opportunity.”
K-12 consultants:
“The inclusion of K-12 teachers remains minimal, but there are some notable
improvements in physics education to include classroom teachers as ‘high school
professors’.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-12
8e: To what extent do you believe the CETP improved the way institutions of higher education and
K-12 schools interact? N = 15; Overall Mean = 2.93; Overall SD = 1.387
N Mean SD
Evaluators 8 3.00 1.414
PIs/Co-PIs 7 2.86 1.464
t-value p-value
.192 .851
Please describe the evidence to support the rating: N = 13 (5:8)
# Answer types Good before CETP/No change – (4) (2:2)
(# of each type): New programs with K-12 – (4) (1:3)
Requests for services – (2) (2:0)
Professional Development Schools – (2) (1:1)
Future Teachers Club – (1) (1:0)
Attendance at meetings/activities – (1) (0:1)
Increased interactions – (1) (1:0)
Influenced more by state and national politics – (1) (0:1)
Shared responsibility for pre-service teachers – (1) (0:1)
Representative Good before CETP/No change:
quotes: “My observation is that the college’s continued past historical patterns in
interacting with neighboring K-12 school systems [are continuing].”
New programs:
“The on going . . . project (an on-site project in [a school district]) produces middle
school teachers. [Project] was developed with [our CETP] funds.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-13
8f: To what extent do you believe the CETP improved the way institutions of higher education
consider teaching performance and/or instructional improvement in promotion/tenure and merit
decisions? N = 16; Overall Mean = 2.44; Overall SD = 1.031
N Mean SD
Evaluators 8 2.25 1.035
PIs/Co-PIs 8 2.63 1.061
t-value p-value
-.716 .486
Please describe the evidence to support the rating: N = 12 (4:8)
# Answer types Teaching valued at CETP institution – (5) (3:2)
(# of each type): There is more discussion – (3) (1:2)
There is no change – (2) (0:2)
Lip service – (2) (1:1)
There is an increase in reformed teaching – (1) (0:1)
Community colleges always stressed teaching – (1) (0:1)
Teaching valued in College of Ed – (1) (0:1)
Research in ed valued – (1) (1:0)
Varies among institutions – (1) (0:1)
CETP involvement counts toward tenure and promotion – (1) (0:1)
Representative Teaching valued at CETP institution:
quotes: “Faculty members whose primary area of interest has been Excellence in Teaching
are now beginning to be rewarded through promotions and tenure; research in
educational reform is now regarded more favorably by review committees.”
More discussion:
“They are beginning to consider this in some content areas.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-14
Question 10: How do you determine if a course counts as a reformed course for your CETP?
N = 16 (8:8)
# Answer types Includes standards-based teaching strategies – (9) (3:6)
(# of each type): Faculty go through professional development and/or observation experience – (6)
(2:4)
Supported by or developed from course supported by CETP funds – (5) (4:1)
Working on definition – (4) (1:3)
Course design is assessed – (2) (1:1)
Institutionalized course) – (1) (1:0)
Course development was collaborative K-12/HE experience – (1) (0:1)
Able to be disseminated – (1) (0:1)
Representative Standards-based teaching strategies:
quotes: “…to include one or more of the best teaching practices (incorporation of
technology, small group learning, hands-on discovery or inquiry activities, etc.)…”
Professional development/observation:
“A course counts as reformed for the CETP if its instructor or curriculum was
influenced by an activity (class, workshop, etc.) funded by the CETP…”
Supported directly or indirectly by CETP funds:
“Reformed courses were either developed specifically for the CETP or they
evolved from courses that were developed or revised as a result of the CETP.”
Working on definition:
“We are still struggling with this issue, and recently held a forum to identify
components of a reformed course.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-15
Question 11: Other comments: N = 9 (4:5)
# Answer types CETPs work – (4) (2:2)
(# of each type): Climate of reform established at institution – (2) (1:1)
Emphasis of reform at intro level courses – (1) (0:1)
Independent evaluator answered for state – (1) (1:0)
Answered for major CETP institutions – (1) (1:0)
Answered from within pre-existing collaboration with strong K-12 partnership –
(1) (0:1)
Representative CETPs work:
quotes: “I think the CETPs were an excellent idea. One large grant instead of many small
grants allowed a variety of responses and participants to try things they probably
never would have.”
Climate of reform:
“We reformers are no longer considered ‘strange’. Now if you do not embrace the
reforms, you are the ‘strange’ faculty member. I think NSF. AAAS and the NRC
deserve considerable credit for promoting a climate of reform.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-16
Table E2. Faculty Survey
Note. Because some answers may include several issues, the number of respondents may not equal the
number of responses. Following each question is the number of survey respondents, N, the number of
those responding with a written comment, n, and the number missing. After each category of answer
types are the number, in parentheses, of respondents who included that category in their open-ended
response followed by and four numbers in parentheses that stand for 2 year STEM: 4 year STEM: 2 year
education: 4 year education. Any identifiers have been replaced by generic terms in brackets.
Question 4: Briefly describe any efforts that have been taken to increase the level of
gender and ethnic diversity among students in the teacher preparation programs at your institution.1 N
= 262; n = 173; missing = 89
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 33 19.1
4 yr STEM 104 60.1
2 yr Ed 2 1.2
4 yr Ed 34 19.7
# Answer types Don’t know/None/Very little – (41) (4:29:0:8)
(# of each type): Local area/institution already diverse – (29) (2:22:0:5)
Recruitment of students – (28) (3:15:1:9)
Scholarships/fellowships – (19) (2:12:0:5)
Not involved/NA2 – (19) (3:15:0:1)
Outreach programs – (16) (3:7:1:5)
Have new or special programs – (12) (6:2:0:4)
Mostly “minority” students – (10) (2:8:0:0)
Student clubs – (9) (5:2:0:2)
Courses/projects/course materials – (9) (3:4:0:2)
Encouragement/attention from faculty/staff – (9) (2:5:1:1)
Learning communities/groups/support/tutoring – (8) (4:4:0:0)
Institutional commitment/mission – (6) (3:1:0:2)
Mentoring – (4) (0:4:0:0)
Affirmative action/admission policy – (4) (0:3:0:1)
Internships – (3) (1:2:0:0)
Creative assessments – (3) (2:1:0:0)
Have diverse faculty – (3) (2:1:0:0)
CETP initiatives – (3) (0:3:0:0)
More publicity – (2) (0:1:0:1)
“Reverse recruitment” – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Teacher academy – (2) (0:1:0:1)
Presentations/modeling roles – (2) (1:1:0:0)
Partnerships/teams – (2) (0:1:0:1)
Teaching styles/philosophy – (2) (1:1:0:0)
o
Faculty professional devel pment – (2) (2:0:0:0)
Faculty recruitment – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Stated goal – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Future initiatives – (1) (0:0:1:0)
1
Gender diversity and ethnic diversity are treated differently by the respondents.
2
NA respondents include STEM and 2 year institutional faculty without teaching programs .
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-17
Continued: Table E2. Question 4
Representative Don’t know/None/Very little:
quotes: “I am not aware of any specific efforts.”
Local area/institution already diverse:
“We are in an ethnically diverse environment and the College of Education reflects
that diversity.”
Recruitment:
“Some recruiting of underrepresented populations.”
Scholarships/Fellowships:
“Teacher Quality Enhancement scholarships.”
Not involved/NA:
“I haven’t been a part of those efforts.”
Outreach programs:
“Outreach programs in elementary school (summer lab experiences, visiting
‘lectures’, etc.) in the inner city classroom”
Have new or special programs:
“…creation of a Community College Teaching Scholars Program at [a local
community college] (to provide a supportive, seamless teacher preparation pipeline
from the community college to [our four-year institution]”
Mostly minority students:
“Our institution is an Historically [minority] Institution, and I believe that
generally it is felt that our mission is to help the community to achieve more ethnic
diversity by training more minority students to be teachers. Although we do recruit
and welc ome both white students and male students in addition to our
predominance of [minority] female students in the teacher preparation program, I
believe that it is felt that that is not as critical a problem for us as trying to train our
students, who every they are, well.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-18
Question 5a: In the past five years has there been any change in the way you and your colleagues
interact? N = 262; n = 256; missing = 6
Frequency Percent
Yes 162 63.3
No 94 36.7
If yes, describe the nature of the change and what caused it. n = 192
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 32 16.7
4 yr STEM 119 62.0
2 yr Ed 1 0.5
4 yr Ed 40 20.8
# Answer types CETP – (66) (9:39:0:18)
(# of each type): Greater collaboration between HE institutions – (64) (13:37:1:13)
Greater collaboration between STEM & Ed – (46) (1:35:1:9)
Course development/improvement – (30) (8:20:0:2)
More professional development opportunities – (25) (6:17:0:2)
Greater collaboration in general – (23) (1:14:0:8)
Grant3 funding or programs (not named) – (22) (1:15:0:6)
More meeting/interaction opportunities – (21) (4:13:0:4)
Joint projects/proposals – (18) (2:15:0:1)
More collaboration w/ 2 year institutions – (14) (4:5:1:4)
Institutional support – (14) (1:9:0:4)
New joint academic programs – (8) (0:5:0:3)
Articulation agreements – (8) (2:3:0:3)
More collaboration w/ local school districts – (8) (0:4:1:3)
Other grants/initiatives (named) – (7) (1:4:0:2)
More collegiality – (7) (1:5:0:1)
Team-teaching – (6) (1:5:0:0)
Joint appointments – (6) (0:6:0:0)
Internet and other technology – (6) (2:2:0:2)
Teaching and learning centers – (5) (1:3:0:1)
Greater interest and enthusiasm – (5) (0:4:0:1)
Certification issues – (4) (0:2:0:2)
State mandates – (4) (0:3:0:1)
Negative response/need more – (4) (1:2:0:1)
Existing consortia – (3) (2:0:0:1)
Recruitment/retention issues – (2) (1:1:0:1)
Formation of student learning groups, etc. – (2) (1:1:0:0)
Individual efforts – (2) (0:1:0:1)
Faculty effort – (2) (1:1:0:0)
Professional organizations – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Seemingly irrelevant response – (1) (0:0:0:1)
No answer – (1) (0:0:0:1)
3
When grants are not named they could include CETPs. CETP influence may be implied within several other
categories as well.
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-19
Continued: Table E2. Question 5a.
Representative CETP:
quotes: “[New] funding has tremendously encouraged collaboration. I will never go back
to working alone. This started with CETP efforts, and has gone on.”
Greater collaboration between HE institutions:
“We have much greater interaction with mathematics and science faculty from
other institutions. [Our CETP] is the cause of it. The idea of working on course
components first brought us together. Now other projects and meetings bring us
together, although not as much as when we worked on course components.
However, we now know each other and know what various individuals are doing
and we contact each other when interests overlap. We also know each other and
connect at other meetings outside of [our CETP].”
Greater collaboration between STEM and Ed:
“I was invited to participate in re-writing the science curricula for education
majors.” [Written by a STEM faculty member]
Course development/improvement:
“New courses for Ed. Majors led to interaction between science departments and
the School of Ed.”
More professional development opportunities:
“More workshops and seminars have become available that are directed toward the
science courses that I teach.”
More collaboration in general:
“More collaboration, discussion, and research on pedagogical technique has
occurred.”
Grant funding/programs (not named):
“More interaction due to the collaborative grants obtained by either [my
institution] or by [the larger state HE system].”
More meeting/interaction opportunities:
“At regional meetings, discussions were held with other institutions where new
methods of teaching were discussed.”
Joint projects/proposals:
“More collaborations and communication after working with them on the project.”
More collaboration w/ 2 yr institutions:
“We have had much greater interaction with the math ed faculty at [our local 4 yr
institution]. In part this is a result of many of us taking courses in math ed
research; some of us are in the doctoral programs.”
Institutional support:
“Research collaborations and communication with faculty at other institutions,
encouraged by administrative changes.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-20
Question 6: Do your responsibilitie s include any formalized interaction with K-12 schools as part of
your assignment at your institution? N = 262; n = 257; missing = 5
Frequency Percent
Yes 96 37.4
No 161 62.6
If yes, please describe the interaction. n = 102 (14:50:2:36)
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 14 13.7
4 yr STEM 50 49.0
2 yr Ed 2 2.0
4 yr Ed 36 35.3
# Answer types General projects/grants/interaction – (26) (3:14:1:8)
(# of each type): Methods/Student teacher supervision/placement – (24) (3:8:0:13)
Professional development team/workshops, etc. – (24) (2:13:0:9)
Outreach/recruitment – (13) (4:6:1:2)
Partnerships/Collaborations – (11) (0:4:0:7)
Field-based HE programs – (8) (2:2:0:4)
Committees/Meetings – (8) (1:2:0:5)
Made presentations/visits – (7) (0:6:0:1)
Consultant – (6) (0:4:0:2)
CETP-related – (6) (2:3:0:1)
Meet with teachers – (4) (1:2:0:1)
K-12 Coordinator/Specialist – (4) (0:0:1:3)
Liaison – (4) (0:4:0:0)
Research teams – (3) (1:2:0:0)
Teacher evaluations – (3) (2:0:0:1)
Science fair judging – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Content projects – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Teach K-12 classes – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Professional Development Schools – (2) (0:0:0:2)
Teach ed majors – (2) (0:2:0:0)
K-12 programs – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Mentor K-12 teachers – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Exchange programs – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Attend conferences – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Tutoring K-12 students – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Future course – (1) (0:1:0:0)
No answer/NA – (1) (0:1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-21
Continued: Table E2. Question 6
Representative quotes: General projects/grants/interaction:
“I am a part of several programs that work with K-12 schools.”
Methods/Student teacher supervision/placement:
“I supervise student teachers in the schools, supervise methods
students in the school…”
Professional development team/workshops, etc.:
“Held meetings with middle level teachers, curriculum coordinators,
and so on to look at professional development needs for new and
other teachers in middle level science and math.”
Outreach/recruitment:
“We host a math-science field day for HS students.”
Partnership s/Collaborations:
“Our [HE institution] has a partnership with [local] High Schools.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-22
Question 7: Are you involved in any classes in your college/department that have field site
experiences? N = 262; n = 260; missing = 2
Frequency Percent
Yes 67 25.8
No 193 74.2
7a: If yes, how many classes have field site experiences? [approximately 100 courses]
7b: What is the descriptive title of the course (with the most substantial field experience)? n = 77
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 9 11.7
4 yr STEM 37 48.0
2 yr Ed 2 2.6
4 yr Ed 29 37.7
# Answer types STEM (science) – (29) (8:20:1:0)
(# of each type): Ed Methods/practicum – (18) (0:3:0:15)
Ed (content) – (9) (0:0:1:8)
Team taught/Crossover courses – (7) (1:5:0:1)
Student teaching/interns – (6) (0:1:0:5)
No answer – (4) (0:0:1:0)
Outreach – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Equity – (1) (0:0:1:0)
Work experience – (1) (0:1:0:0)
STEM internship – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Inservice/professional development – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Whole program – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Science writing – (1) (0:1:0:0)
None in math or sci – (1) (1:0:0:0)
None – (1) (1:0:0:0)
No such courses in departments – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Don’t know – (1) (0:1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-23
7c: What is the nature of the field experience? n = 73
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 8 11.0
4 yr STEM 36 49.3
2 yr Ed 2 2.7
4 yr Ed 27 37.0
# Answer types Guided teaching/mentoring – (22) (1:6:0:15)
(# of each type): “Habitat” field trips (STEM) – (21) (4:17:0:0)
Interning in K-12 classrooms – (19) (0:7:1:11)
Observing teachers – (13) (1:2:0:10)
Data collection – (6) (1:5:0:0)
N/A or unable to respond – (4) (0:3:0:1)
Student teaching – (4) (0:2:0:2)
Visits to businesses/internships – (3) (2:1:0:0)
Field-based course – (3) (0:1:0:2)
Tutoring – (1) (0:0:1:0)
Educational research – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Technological experience – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Work experience – (1) (0:1:0:0)
K-12 students/families – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Other presentations – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Not described – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Representative Guided teaching/mentoring:
Quotes: “Students practice science teaching to little kids.”
“Habitat” field trips (STEM):
“Observing, evaluating and measurement of physical characteristics of natural
environments.”
Interning in K-12:
“2 hours weekly interning in an elementary school classroom in which science is
regularly taught.”
Observing teachers:
“30 hours of observing a master teacher.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-24
Question 11: In the past few years have you ever observed any colleagues teaching and then
discussed your observations with them (or vice versa)? N = 262; n = 262; missing = 0
Frequency Percent
Yes 154 58.8
No 108 41.2
11b: If yes, why did you do it? n = 154
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 36 23.4
4 yr STEM 91 59.1
2 yr Ed 1 0.6
4 yr Ed 26 16.9
#Answer types: Self-improvement – (39) (8:24:0:7)
(# of each type): Peer evaluation of full-time faculty – (36) (16:15:0:5)
Professional obligation/requirement – (20) (6:11:0:3)
Retention/promotion/tenure – (20) (5:14:0:1)
Co-teaching/team-teaching/learning community – (20) (3:8:0:9)
Peer evaluations of non-tenure faculty – (16) (3:12:0:1)
Was asked to – (12) (3:7:0:2)
Part of program – (8) (1:6:0:1)
To assist new faculty/mentorship – (8) (1:6:0:1)
Department/Division chair/Supervisory responsibilities – (6) (1:4:1:0)
Course development – (4) (0:3:0:1)
Faculty presentation – (2) (0:2:0:0)
For CETP – (2) (1:1:0:0)
N/A – (1) (0:1:0:1)
Judging student projects/presentations – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Helping with technology – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Just started – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Described process – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Informal chats r.t. formal observations (1) (0:0:0:1)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-25
Continued: Table E2. Question 11b.
Representative Self -improvement:
Quotes: “To improve my instruction and/or to learn to do something new/different.”
Peer evaluation of full-time faculty:
“We have a formalized program of peer review that our campus follows.”
Professional obligation/requirement:
“I am required to do evaluations of our new and adjunct faculty, so each semester I
make a classroom visitation to observe them with their students.”
Retention/promotion/tenure:
“As part of my duties in the RTP Committee.”
Co-teaching/team-teaching/learning community:
“I co-teach with someone. We’ve been making changes in course structure and
have had numerous discussions about what works and what doesn’t. We both
attend all classes.”
Peer evaluations of non-tenure faculty:
“I have also observed when there are problems with new faculty members.”
Was asked to:
“A colleague invited me to share classroom observations with him. He has been
interested in finding ways to document his good teaching and I am always
interested in improving my teaching and in sharing my expertise in the area of
math education with others so I eagerly accepted his invitation.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-26
Question 12: Are there any barriers that inhibit you from teaching in ways most beneficial for
student learning? N = 262; n = 256; missing = 6
Frequency Percent
Yes 147 57.4
No 109 42.6
If yes, please describe the barriers. n = 147
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 33 22.4
4 yr STEM 89 60.5
2 yr Ed 1 0.7
4 yr Ed 24 16.3
# Answer types Not enough time – (39) (7:24:1:7)
(# of each type): Large class sizes – (25) (6:17:0:2)
Lack of materials/equipment – (24) (5:15:0:4)
Lack of technology – (18) (4:12:0:1)
Content-driven format – (16) (2:13:0:1)
Inadequate preparation of students – (16) (5:10:0:1)
Rigid course syllabus/articulation requirements – (16) (7:7:0:2)
Lack/inflexibility of facilities – (15) (5:9:0:1)
Lack of money – (13) (3:7:0:3)
Lack of collegial interest/involvement – (11) (1:7:0:3)
Lack of support/rewards/models – (9) (0:5:0:4)
New methods resisted by students – (6) (0:3:0:3)
Heavy teaching load/other duties – (5) (1:3:0:1)
Not enough emphasis on teaching by PTR – (5) (1:4:0:0)
N/A – (4) (0:2:0:2)
Lecture works – (3) (1:1:0:1)
Too many outside/emotional issues for students – (3) (1:2:0:0)
Student course evaluations – (3) (0:1:0:2)
Don’t know the best ways – (3) (0:3:0)0)
Resistance to institutionalization – (2) (1:1:0:0)
Student attitudes from previous experiences – (1) (0:1:0:1)
Scheduling – (1) (1:1:0:0)
Lack of assistance, e.g., TAs, graders – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Labs & lectures not integrated – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Lack of faculty professional development – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Pressure from external exams, e.g., MCAT – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Pressure from external accreditors – (1) (1:0:0:0)
State testing – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Staffing – (1) (0:1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-27
Continued: Table E2. Question 12
Representative Not enough time:
quotes: “There is always a time crunch—either in time to prepare or in time to cover too
many topics.”
Large class sizes:
“I also wish for smaller lecture classes. The norm is 80 in a lecture hall.”
Lack of materials/equipment:
“Lack of materials in the college prevents implementation of hands-on
experiences. The department has not kept the NSF materials in good order nor
have they replenished them. As an adjunct, I need to bring materials with me to use
with my students.”
Lack of technology:
“Lack of computer access on the part of the students.”
Content-driven format:
“Department culture – graduate school preparatory curriculum model.”
Inadequate preparation of students:
“Time that should be spent on new material but gets spent on reviewing material
that should have been learned from previous classes.”
Rigid course syllabus/articulation requirements:
“Perhaps the most significant is a requirement to teach a community college
district-based set of competencies.”
Lack/inflexibility of facilities:
“2. inadequate laboratory facilities, supplies and equipment. 3. classroom design—
fixed seating, large lecture halls….”
Lack of money:
“The administration pushes for simplistic field base models for teacher preparation
that pay lip service to the idea, but do not provide support and additional resources
to conduct them properly. I choose to teach something else.”
Lack of collegial interest/involvement:
“Older faculty in my department are very resistant to curriculum reform. As we
teach multiple sections with common lab sections, I have to cover the same topics
in similar levels of detail (i.e., fact memorization) rather than updating my courses
to focus more on higher skill levels.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-28
Question 13: In the past few years have you received money, or other resources (such as released
time), for course development or reform? N = 262; n = 261; missing = 1
Frequency Percent
Yes 168 64.4
No 93 35.6
If yes, what were the sources and the amounts of money or other support provided?
n = 169
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 32 18.9
4 yr STEM 108 63.9
2 yr Ed 1 0.6
4 yr Ed 28 16.6
Sources:
# Answer types CETP – (67) (14:41:0:12)
(# of each type): Institutional/Departmental – (65) (14:41:0:10)
Other grants – (58) (12:40:0:6)
State – (11) (0:9:0:2)
No source listed – (10) (1:6:1:2)
Fellowships – (2) (2:0:0:0)
Endowed professorships – (2) (0:0:0:2)
School districts – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Other collaboratives – (1) (0:1:0:0)
No – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Types:
Money – (102) (21:66:1:14)
Released time/course download – (42) (11:24:0:7)
Salary/per diem/summer – (21) (1:13:0:7)
Workshop/meeting attendance – (10) (0:6:0:4)
Technology, e.g., laptop – (7) (1:6:0:0)
Not given/Not clear – (6) (2:4:0:0)
Paid leave – (2) (0:2:0:0)
TA support – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Curriculum development – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Amounts of released time:
1-2 courses or 3-6 hrs /semester – (17) (3:11:0:3)
Not given or $$ equivalent mentioned – (13) (4:7:0:2)
Half-time/1 semester – (2) – (0:2:0:0)
20% - (2) (1:1:0:0)
40% - (2) (2:0:0:0)
6 hrs/semester – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Quarter-time – (1) (0:0:0:1)
3-4 courses/semester – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Three quarters-time for 5 yrs – (1) (0:1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-29
Continued: Table E2. Question 13
Amounts of money:
# Answer types $1-10K – (40) (9:25:0:6)
(# of each type): Not given – (31) (5:20:1:5)
$101-500K – (11) (3:8:0:0)
$51 – 75K – (4) (0:4:0:0)
$501 – 999K – (4) (1:3:0:0)
Under $999 – (3) (1:1:0:1)
$11 – 20K – (3) (1:0:0:2)
$21 – 30K – (3) (1:2:0:0)
$76 – 100K – (3) (1:2:0:0)
>$5 million – (2) (0:2:0:0)
$41 – 50K – (1) (0:1:0:0)
$1 – 5 million – (1) (0:1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-30
Question 33: Have your courses influenced changes in other courses in your institution?
N = 262; n = 245; missing = 17
Frequency Percent
Yes 97 39.6
No 148 60.4
If yes, please describe how the courses have affected other courses. n = 98
Frequency Percent
2 yr STEM 23 23.5
4 yr STEM 60 61.2
2 yr Ed 1 1.0
4 yr Ed 14 14.3
# Answer types Spread of innovative technique – (55) (13:34:0:8)
(# of each type): Piqued interest/discussion – (17) (5:8:0:4)
I am trying new things – (13) (3:8:0:2)
Team/collaborative work w/ colleagues – (11) (3:6:0:2)
Have given presentations/workshops – (6) (0:6:0:0)
No answer – (6) (1:3:0:2)
Teaching teacher prep courses affected STEM courses – (3) (0:2:0:1)
Intro course techniques spread to upper division courses – (3) (0:2:0:1)
Now required component/Used universally – (3) (0:2:0:1)
New courses – (3) (1:2:0:0)
Increase in pedagogical content knowledge – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Have Web site – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Exchange teaching – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Spread to other institutions – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Small influence – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Don’t know – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Am facilitating technique in others’ courses – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Senior faculty making changes – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Mentoring new faculty – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Capstone course influenced feeder courses – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Representative Spread of innovative technique:
quotes: “Peer led team learning began in my chemistry course and quickly spread to other
chemistry, biology, and physics courses.”
Piqued interest/discussion:
“When others see that inquiry-based learning is effective, it helps them better
understand the tenets of standards-based teaching/learning and they are more
willing to try to implement different levels of inquiry-based learning themselves.”
I am trying new things:
“My presentations in large lectures for biology non-majors contain more
technology related activities.”
Team/collaborative work w/ colleagues:
“In general, all of us who have engaged in curriculum reform have supported and
learned from each other. From this, each of us has influenced others. Additionally,
most of us, including myself, are now sought as leaders for particular course
development activities.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-31
Table E3. Dean/Department Chair Survey
Note. Because some individual answers may include several comments, the number of respondents may
not equal the number of responses. Following each question is the number of respondents, N, and where
appropriate the percent who responded “yes” to the question. After each category of answer types are the
number, in parentheses, of respondents who included that category in their open-ended response followed
by four numbers separated by colons. These four numbers stand for the number of respondents who are
two year STEM: four year STEM: two year education: four year education. Any identifiers have been
replaced by generic terms in brackets.
Question 2: Do any of your promotion/tenure or merit criteria include work on instructional
improvement projects? N = 43; Yes = 81.4%
2a: If yes, have these changed recently?
2b: If yes, what caused the change? N=17
# Answer types New guidelines/criteria as a result of institution - (5) (0:3:0:2)
(# of each type): New interpretation of guidelines/criteria - (3) (0:3:0:0)
More technology- (2) (0:2:0:0)
Union negotiations/contract - (2) (2:0:0:0)
Differential workloads – (2) (0:1:0:1)
CETP valued - (1) (0:1:0:0)
More attention to teaching – (1) (0:1:0:0)
New guidelines/criteria as a result of the state – (1) (0:1:0:0)
No answer – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Representative New guidelines/criteria as a result of the institution:
quotes: “We have adopted a new set of guidelines on teaching to better reflect a) teaching
performance in clinical settings as well as the classroom, and b) to give candidates
guidelines on how to both improve and evaluate their teaching performance.”
New guidelines/criteria as a result of a new interpretation:
“We are interpreting existing guidelines to include work on instructional
improvement projects—such work is not required—and it also does not substitute
for publications—but it is counted.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-32
Question 3: Do you see any barriers to having excellent teaching in your college or department? N
= 43; Yes = 37.2%
If yes, please describe. N = 16
# Answer types Increased work load from more classes/preps – (4) (0:3:0:1)
(# of each type): Increased responsibilities other than teaching – (4) (0:3:0:1)
Unwillingness of tenured/entrenched faculty – (3) (0:3:0:0)
Tenure criteria – (3) (0:3:0:0:0)
Resources – (3) (0:2:0:1)
Increased work load from larger class sizes – (2) (0:1:0:1)
Recruitment of well-qualified faculty – (2) (1:0:0:1)
Representative Not enough time because of more classes/preps:
quotes: “time—we are so swamped with excessive course loads and office hours that
quality suffers.”
Not enough time because of increased responsibilities:
“The main barrier to having excellent teaching in our college is the enormous
amount of work (unrelated to teaching) required of faculty. While it is probably
worthwhile, much of the assessment we do requires a large time commitment but
does not give the faculty member any ideas on how to improve his or her
teaching.”
Unwillingness of faculty:
“There is very little the department can do to encourage Tenured Full Professors to
improve their teaching. We have a few professors who are so notorious for their
poor teaching that when they are assigned to a course there is a 0.75 (or larger)
probability that the course will be cancelled.”
Tenure criteria:
“The need to balance teaching, research and community involvement both on and
off campus has produced greater stress on faculty in the last fifteen years. A record
of peer reviewed publications continues to be a key tenure and promotion criteria,
therefore, newer faculty rightly select those activities most important to their career
and research objectives.”
Resources:
“…the fact that faculty evaluations are moot since no raises are available in this
state…”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-33
Question 4: Does your college or department provide institutional funds (or other resources such
as released time) for course development or improvement? N = 43; Yes = 79.1%
If yes, please describe the amount of money or other support that your college or department provided
last year for course development or improvement N = 35
# Answer types Released time- (13) (1:8:0:4) Zero – (1) (1:0:0:0)
(# of each type): Leaves and professional development $100 – 1000 – (1) (0:1:0:0)
– (6) (1:5:0:0) $1000 – 10,000 – (4) (1:3:0:0)
Grants – (2) (1:1:0:0) $10K – 20K – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Equipment – (1) (0:1:0:0) $20K – 30K – (3) (1:1:0:1)
Merit evaluation – (1) (0:1:0:0) $50K – 100K - (2) (0:1:0:1)
Stipends – (1) (1:0:0:0) $100K – 200K – (2) (1:1:0:0)
$200K – 300K – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Don’t know – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Representative Released time:
quotes: “At times the university will give release time for the development of new
courses.”
Leaves and professional development:
“We provide many faculty with 1500 summer money for development – often
course development.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-34
Question 6: Does your college or department offer any special programs designed to increase the
ethnic and gender diversity of students who study in your area?
If yes, what year were these programs put in place? N = 43; Yes = 51.2%
6a: If yes, what year were these programs put in place?
6b: What caused your college or department to put them in place? N = 24
# Answer types Year – none given
(# of each type): Causes:
Desire to increase #s – (7) (1:4:0:2)
Match demographics of area – (6) (1:3:0:2)
Already high diversity – (4) (2:0:0:2)
Desire to improve opportunities/success – (4) (2:2:0:0)
Specific program(s) – (3) (1:1:0:1)
Interested faculty (1) (0:1:0:0)
General perceived need – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Institutional focus – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Grant(s) – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Retention – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Representative Desire to increase #s:
quotes: “The need to increase the supply of minorities entering the disciplines within the
sciences.”
Match demographics of area:
“Realization that the university needed a population of students that reflected more
closely the population of the city and state in which we reside.”
Already high diversity:
“We are a Hispanic ‘minority majority’ institution.”
Desire to improve opportunities/success:
“Most of our students are from underrepresented groups. We strive to make them
successful in science and math.”
Specific programs:
“…we have culturally specific programs to attract, retain and transfer more
Hispanic/Latino, African American and Asian students.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-35
Question 7: In the past few years has there been any change in the way the faculty in your college
or department teach or perceive their responsibilities as teachers?
N = 43; Yes = 69.8%
7a: If yes, please describe the nature of the change. N=30
# Answer types Infusion of technology – (7) (2:3:0:2)
(# of each type): More group work/active involvement – (6) (3:3:0:0)
More attention to student needs in general – (5) (1:4:0:0)
Increased willingness to try new things – (4) (1:3:0:0)
Greater emphasis on field work – (2) (0:0:2:0)
More participation in innovative teaching programs – (2) (0:2:0:0)
More emphasis on teaching in tenure & promotion – (2) (0:2:0:0)
More curricular workshops – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Increased focus on decision-making – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Increased focus on preparing elementary teachers in STEM subjects – (1) (0:0:0:1)
More focus on writing – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Partnership with K-12 – (1) (0:0:0:1)
More emphasis on entering students – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Partnership of Arts & Sciences with College of Ed. – (1) (0:1:0:0)
More emphasis on research for newly hired faculty in tenure & promotion – (1)
(0:1:0:0)
Second language issues – (1) (0:0:0:1)
More attention to peer reviews & coaching – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Representative Infusion of technology:
quotes: “We have added more technology competencies in each course.”
Group work:
“There is an increasing emphasis on group work and active student involvement,
with less lecturing.”
Student needs:
“…a much greater emphasis on our (i.e., the instructors’) responsibility to educate
OUR students—not pretend they are better prepared mathematically.”
Increased willingness to try new things:
“Science faculty are more willing to consider and to use alternative teaching
methods than five years ago.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-36
7b: If yes, state what caused the change in the way the faculty in your college or department teach or
perceive their responsibilities as teachers. N=28
# Answer types Institutional commitment – (7) (2:4:0:1)
(# of each type): CETP – (6) (4:1:0:1)
Grants – (5) (3:1:0:1)
Response to current educational research – (5) (1:4:0:0)
Individual faculty – (4) (1:0:0:3)
Administrative leadership/mission – (4) (1:2:0:1)
Teaching initiatives/workshops – (4) (1:3:0:0)
Certification regulations – (2) (0:0:0:2)
General need – (2) (0:1:0:1)
Faculty interest – (2) (2:0:0:0)
State mandates/reform movements – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Student evaluations – (1) (0:0:0:1)
National call for change – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Dropping student achievement – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Don’t know – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Representative Institutional commitment:
quotes: “The University is even more supportive of meeting the needs of our students…”
CETP:
“Both our CETP effort and our campus Institute for Teaching and Learning
program funded most of it.”
Grants:
“Several grants: [our CETP], TICG, Teacher Quality Enhancement.”
Current educational research:
“Faculty keeping abreast of current literature on teaching and learning…”
Individual faculty:
“…also the hires of exciting new faculty with backgrounds that utilize
technology.”
Administrative leadership/mission:
“Mostly a change in administrative personnel.”
Teaching initiatives/workshops:
“Workshops and other teaching initiatives at the college and in my field.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-37
Question 8: Do Members of your faculty interact with faculty from other institutions of higher
education about improving education? N = 43; Yes = 88.4%
8a: If yes, have there been changes in recent years in the way members of your college or
department interact with faculty from other institutions? N = 38; Yes = 55.3%
8b: If yes, describe the nature of the change. N = 22
# Answer types CETP – (5) (1:3:0:1)
(# of each type): Workshops, teaching initiatives – (4) (1:3:0:0)
Grants – (3) (1:1:0:1)
Increasing interactions with community colleges – (3) (1:2:0:0)
Faculty initiatives/contacts – (3) (0:3:0:0)
State initiatives – (3) (0:2:0:1)
Professional organizations and meetings – (2) (1:1:0:0)
STEM-Ed groups meeting – (1) (0:0:0:1)
STEM groups meeting on curriculum – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Increased amount – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Yearly STEM-Ed statewide meeting – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Formal partnerships – (1) (1:0:0:0)
On-line interactions – (1) (0:1:0:0)
AAC&U initiative – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Representative CETP:
quotes: “[Our CETP] greatly increased the amount of collaboration.”
Workshops, etc.:
“Physics and chemistry have on-campus workshops for other community college
instructors in the area.”
Increased interactions with community colleges:
“Through our CETP effort, some of our faculty have worked closely with
Community College faculty to design new courses or improve articulation efforts.”
Faculty initiatives:
“We have a more diverse faculty base that has a broader range of experience, this
has produced more external communication.”
State initiatives:
“[Our state] Council for the Education of Teachers have become a place for
dialogue…”
Professional organizations and meetings:
“…more faculty have participated in AERA and other professional
settings/organizations than was true of the campus historically.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-38
8c: If yes, state what caused the chang e in the way members of your department interact with faculty
from other institutions. N = 20
# Answer types CETP – (7) (1:4:0:2)
(# of each type): Institution – (5) (0:4:0:1)
State funding/initiatives – (4) (0:3:0:1)
Individual faculty – (4) (1:2:0:1:0:0)
Administrative leadership – (2) (1:1:0:0)
Grants – (2) (1:0:0:1)
General public – (1) (0:0:0:1)
Electronic technology – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Representative CETP:
quotes: “Our CETP really catalyzed this. I cannot say it was the root cause, because there
are many causal threads that impact our university and state, but [our CETP] drew
people together and developed a collegiality and trust that is unprecedented.”
State:
“Funding for these programs from state; awareness of reform efforts through
projects to reform PK-12 education.”
Individual faculty:
“New hires of young faculty have rejuvenated some departments.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-39
Question 9: Do members of your faculty have any formalized interaction with K-12 schools? N =
43; Yes = 83.7%
9a: If yes, describe the nature of the interactions. N = 35
# Answer types Field-based programs – (11) (0:7:0:4)
(# of each type): Professional development programs/projects – (10) (0:7:1:0:2)
Partnerships – (7) (0:3:0:4)
Supervision of student teachers – (6) (0:3:0:3)
Grants – (5) (0:4:0:1)
Recruitment/outreach – (4) (1:3:0:0)
Visits/presentations – (5) (0:5:0:0)
Professional development schools – (3) (0:0:0:3)
Committees – (3) (0:2:0:1)
Teach courses in schools – (3) (1:1:0:1)
Science Fairs – (2) (0:2:0:0)
Action research – (2) (0:1:0:1)
Policy-level teams – (2) (0:0:0:2)
Field trips – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Dual enrollment students – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Summer workshops – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Equipment – (1) (0:1:0:0)
Provide student tutors – (1) (1:0:0:0)
Representative Field-based programs:
quotes: “Most of our teacher preparation courses are taught in the schools.”
Professional development:
“Grant money provides funding for our faculty in math, the sciences, and language
arts to hold workshops for teachers for content and technology.”
Partnerships:
“We have a partnership with a K-12 public school…”
Supervision of student teachers:
“We are consistently in the schools as colleagues, supervisors of teaching interns
and practicum students…”
Grants:
“…collaborative work on LSI projects.”
Recruitment:
“We provide many on-campus activities for urban youth in our communities.”
Visits:
“Classroom visits, assemblies…”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-40
Table E4. K-12 Teacher Survey
Note. Because some answers may include several issues, the number of respondents may not equal the
number of responses. Following each question is the number of respondents, N. After each category of
answer types are the number, in parentheses, of respondents who included that category in their open-
ended response followed by six numbers separated by colons. These six numbers stand for the number of
respondents who are elementary CETP: elementary nonCETP: middle or junior high CETP: middle or
junior high nonCETP: high school CETP: high school nonCETP. Any identif iers have been replaced by
generic terms in brackets.
Question 4. Teaching certification/licensure
4a: Teaching certification/licensure: Elementary – general N = 41
4b: Teaching certification/licensure: Elementary – specialist N = 8
Frequency Area
3 Mathematics
1 Mathematics/Spanish
1 Reading
1 Early childhood
1 Special education
1 Not given
4c: Teaching certification/licensure: Secondary – middle school/junior high N = 21
Frequency Area
18 Mathematics
11 Science
4 Other
7 See table below
# Answer types Social studies – (3) (0:1:0:2:0:0)
(# of each type): Computer science – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Economics – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Middle School endorsement – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Reading – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Composite – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Special Education – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-41
Continued: Table E4. Question 4
4d: Teaching certification/licensure: Secondary – high school N = 24
Frequency Area
22 Mathematics
13 Science
3 Other
6 See table below
# Answer types Biology – (3) (0:0:0:2:0:1)
(# of each type): Computer science – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
English – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
Social Studies – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Chemistry – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Industrial Arts – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-42
Question 7: Have you attended any professional meetings that focused on reformed pedagogy in
mathematics and science in the last three years? N = 86, n = 84, missing = 2
Frequency Percent
Yes 54 64.3
No 30 35.7
If yes, please give examples. n = 44 (3:13:1:13:6:8)
# Answer types Content workshop – (14) (1:6:1:2:1:3)
(# of each type): District professional development – (11) (1:3:0:5:2:0)
Academic courses – (6) (1:1:0:2:0:2)
Technology workshop – (6) (0:3:0:2:0:1)
State conference – (4) (0:0:0:1:2:1)
Re standardized testing – (3) (0:0:0:0:1:2)
SSI workshop – (3) (0:1:0:0:2:0)
Re integrating mathematics and science – (2) (0:0:0:1:1:0)
General meetings (not math or sci) – (2) (0:0:0:0:0:2)
Re curriculum – (2) (0:0:0:1:0:1)
Unknown acronym – (2) (0:1:0:1:0:0)
Title II workshop – (1) (1:0:0:0:0:0)
Standards training – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
National conference – (1) (1:0:0:0:0:0)
Re gifted/talented – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Re Advanced Placement – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Teacher organization meeting(s) – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Representative Content workshop:
quotes: “Hands-on equations, applying geometry.”
District professional development:
“District math conference. Focusing on a variety of math strategies.”
Academic courses:
“Masters program.”
Technology workshop:
“T3 workshop” [T3 probably is the graphing calculator]
State conference:
“[State] TM”
Re standardized testing:
“GEE workshop”
SSI workshop:
“[State SSI]”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-43
Question 8: Within the last three years, have you held any professional educational leadership
positions that focused on reformed pedagogy, e.g., lead math teacher, science committee chair? N =
86, n = 85, missing = 1
Frequency Percent
Yes 12 14.1
No 73 85.9
If yes, please give examples. n = 12 (2:1:0:2:2:5)
# Answer types Department-level position – (4) (0:0:0:1:0:3)
(# of each type): Grade-level position – (2) (1:0:0:0:0:1)
State professional organization – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
Chaired school event – (1) (1:0:0:0:0:0)
School district-level position – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
School-level (administrative) – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
Coach – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Led workshop/summer institute – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
School-level position (representative) – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
State-level position – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
Federal-level position – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
Unrelated answer – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-44
Question 9: In what ways is your school administration supportive of excellence in science and/or
mathematics teaching, e.g., monetary resources, physical resources, emotional/psychological
support? N = 86; n = 63 (2:22:4:16:8:11)
# Answer types Monetary – (19) (0:5:0:7:3:4)
(# of each type): Professional development opportunities – (18) (0:5:2:5:2:4)
Physical resources/materials – (14) (1:6:0:1:2:4)
General support – (9) (0:1:0:3:3:2)
Emotional/psychological support – (6) (0:1:0:1:0:4)
No/limited money – (5) (0:2:0:1:2:0)
Encouragement for innovative teaching – (4) (0:1:0:1:0:2)
Team support/collaboration – (4) (0:2:0:2:0:0)
No support – (4) (0:2:0:1:1:0)
Special education courses/facilities/teachers – (4) (0:3:0:1:0:0)
Support for grant writing – (3) (0:0:1:0:1:1)
Encouragement for further education – (3) (0:0:0:1:0:2)
Minimal support – (3) (1:2:0:0:0:0)
Encouragement for high(er) test scores – (3) (0:0:1:1:0:1)
Curriculum – (3) (0:2:0:1:0:0)
Personnel – (3) (1:1:0:0:1:0)
Support for students, e.g., tutoring – (2) (0:0:1:1:0:0)
Disciplinary policy – (2) (0:0:0:0:0:2)
Facilities – (2) (0:2:0:0:0:0)
Planning time – (2) (0:0:0:1:0:1)
Technology – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
Mentor – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
Communication of upcoming events – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Summer school/academy for students – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Representative Monetary:
quotes: “Monetary resources when we need supplies/materials—it is rarely not attainable.”
Professional development opportunities:
“They could do a lot more, but we are provided and encouraged to attend
professional development.”
Physical resources/materials:
“District Science kits.”
General support:
“They support anything if I come up with the money for it. They support most
things otherwise…”
Emotional/psychological support:
“[Our school’s] administration bends over backwards to … give moral and
emotional support to teacher efforts…”
No/limited money:
“Funds are very limited. Money is just not there for resources.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-45
Question 10: Are there any barriers that inhibit you from teaching in ways most beneficial for the
students? N = 86, n = 82, missing = 4
Frequency Percent
Yes 39 47.6
No 43 52.4
If yes, what are the barriers? N = 41 (4:15:4:8:6:4)
# Answer types Lack of materials/supplies/resources – (12) (1:6:1:2:1:1)
(# of each type): Lack of time – (11) (2:3:1:2:2:1)
Large class sizes – (5) (0:2:0:0:1:2)
Lack of money – (5) (0:2:0:1:1:1)
Student placement – (4) (0:3:0:1:0:0)
Inappropriate/lack of/weak curriculum – (4) (1:2:1:0:0:0)
Poor facilities – (4) (0:1:0:1:1:1)
Lack of training – (3) (0:2:0:1:0:0)
Too much material – (3) (1:1:0:1:0:0)
Lack of/old textbooks – (3) (1:1:0:0:1:0)
Too much testing/pressure for high scores – (3) (0:1:0:1:1:0)
Lack of student motivation – (2) (0:0:1:0:1:0)
Lack of field trips – (2) (0:0:0:1:0:1)
Poor student preparations – (2) (0:1:0:1:0:0)
Too many interruptions – (2) (0:1:0:1:0:0)
Scheduling – (2) (0:0:0:1 :1:0)
Lack of class assistants/personnel – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Lack of science & mathematics integration – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Students not accustomed to innovative teaching – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Student attendance issues – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Heavy teaching load – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
Grading policy – (1) (0:0:1:0:0:0)
Representative Lack of materials/supplies/resources:
quotes: “No supplies for math such as scales, manipulatives, rulers, math or science game,
and no supplies …for science.”
Lack of time:
“NO TIME!!! I teach 153 students. I teach 6 classes. I teach 4 DIFFERENT
classes.”
Large class sizes:
“…There are 33 students in two of my classes. That is too many for any subject
area!”
Lack of money:
“There are no funds available to pay for buses or substitutes to take students on
field trip; this is criminal when you consider the valuable loss of field work.”
Student placement:
“Inclusive math: gifted, average, struggling – all in one math class.”
Inappropriate/lack of/weak curriculum:
“…In addition, I don’t have [a] curriculum, which is hard in planning effective
lessons.”
Poor facilities:
“I don’t have my own room. I float between 5 rooms.”
Question 11: How often are you involved in collaborative meetings/activities taking place between
your school and institutions of higher education?
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-46
Question 12: If you do have meetings, please describe what happens at them.
n = 19 (2:3:2:6:2:4)
# Answer types Discuss curriculum – (6) (0:0:0:1:2:3)
(# of each type): Discuss issues and solutions/District information – (5) (0:1:1:3:0:0)
Discuss teaching strategies – (4) (0:0:2:1:0:1)
Exchange ideas/share – (4) (1:1:0:1:0:1)
Collaborate on projects – (3) (0:0:1:1:0:1)
Demonstration teaching/tutoring by HE students – (2) (1:1:0:0:0:0)
Discuss standards – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
Talk w/ no follow-through – (1) (1:0:0:0:0:0)
Discuss integration of technology – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Discuss how to improve test scores – (1) (0:0:0:1:0:0)
E-mail correspondence – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
Guest speakers – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
Teacher speaker – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Team meetings about articulation – (0:0:0:1:0:0)
Representative Discuss curriculum:
quotes: “We discuss how we can teach the same concept to different grade levels.”
Discuss issues and solutions/District information:
“We had departmental meetings which discusses teaching strategies and deficiency
patterns in students.”
Discuss teaching strategies:
“I am involved with a program at [a local HE institution] to improve hands-on
cooperative learning.”
Exchange ideas/share:
“Usually a teacher that gives examples of new ideas and resources.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-47
Question 34: Please add here anything else you’d like us to know. n = 20 (1:9:2:4:3:1)
# Answer types Would like to be teaching differently – (8) (0:5:1:1:1:0)
(# of each type): Explained own efforts – (5) (0:3:0:2:0:0)
Don’t have technology – (3) (0:1:1:1:0:0)
Professional development was helpful – (2) (1:0:0:0:1:0)
NSF scholarship money was helpful – (2) (1:0:0:0:1:0)
Need to limit class size – (2) (0:2:0:0:0:0)
Explained class makeup – (2) (0:0:0:2:0:0)
New teaching assignment – (2) (0:2:0:0:0:0)
Commented on survey(s) – (2) (0:2:0:0:0:0)
Need more opportunities for advanced students – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Need to teach students how to work together – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Teaching is hard work – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
District requires direct-teaching component – (1) (0:0:0:0:0:1)
Does not do lesson plans – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
Uses mostly direct instruction – (1) (0:0:0:0:1:0)
Explained district curriculum – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
State tests are a priority over innovative teaching – (1) (0:0:1:0:0:0)
Need textbooks rather than just kits – (1) (0:1:0:0:0:0)
Representative Would like to be teaching differently:
quotes: “I attended college in another state, where I also completed my student teaching. I
student taught in a sub-urban school where student population was 50% free lunch.
Now I teach in a title 1 school. My teaching style has to be less investigative than
how I began. I don’t feel my methods were supported by district standards/school
norms.”
Explained own efforts:
“As a 6th grade teacher, it’s my job to prepare students to be independent workers
for junior high. The science curriculum in my school doesn’t provide that for my
students and I personally don’t use it much. I do teach my students to think and
research, but in other subject areas.”
Don’t have technology:
“Please not that I do not have access to proper technology in my class. That is why
I answered never to the technology questions.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-48
Table E5. Principal Survey
Note. Because some answers may include several issues, the number of respondents may not equal the
number of responses. Following each question is the number of respondents, N. After each category of
answer types are the number, in parentheses, of respondents who included that category in their open-
ended response followed by and three other numbers in parentheses that stand for school grade level —
elementary: middle/junior: hig h school. Any identifiers have been replaced by generic terms in brackets.
Question 7: Are any of your teachers serving as leaders, either locally or otherwise, in terms of reforming
teaching in mathematics or science? N = 32
Frequency Percent
Yes 16 50.0
No 16 50.0
7a: If yes, have any of these teachers received their license in the past three years? n = 22
Frequency Percent
Yes 12 54.5
No 10 45.5
7b: If yes, for each of these teachers, list the name of the institution from which he/she graduated. (Please
use complete names of institutions, not initials.) n = 9
Frequency Percent
Elementary 2 22.2
Middle/Junior 4 44.4
High School 3 33.3
# Answer types University of Louisiana – Lafayette – (3) (0:0:3)
(# of each type): Arizona State University – (2) (0:0:2)
Temple University – (2) (1:1:0)
University of Phoenix – (1) (0:0:1)
Ottawa – (1) (0:0:1)
Louisiana State University – (1) (0:1:0)
Southern Louisiana State University – (1) (0:1:0)
SE Louisiana University – (1) (1:0:0)
Louisiana Technical University – (1) (1:0:0)
Northwestern State – (1) (1:0:0)
University of Houston – (1) (0:0:1)
Louisiana State University – Shreveport – (1) (0:1:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-49
Kutztown University – (1) (1:0:0)
Rider University – (1) (1:0:0)
West Caseter University – (1) (0:1:0)
University of Arizona – (1) (0:0:1)
Northern Arizona University – (1) (0:0:1)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-50
Question 9: List up to three of your school’s/district’s policies and procedures that support science and
mathematics education. N = 21
Frequency Percent
Elementary 7 33.3
Middle/Junior 4 19.0
High School 10 47.6
# Answer types Meeting/alignment with state standards – (11) (5:1:5)
(# of each type): District professional development – (7) (1:1:5)
AP classes/rigorous classes – (3) (0:0:3)
Raised standards/hours – (3) (2:0:1)
District curriculum – (3) (1:1:1)
Hiring certified personnel/supporting – (3) (1:0:2)
Grants – (2) (0:1:1)
Accountable goal settings/evaluation plan – (2) (0:1:1)
Special projects – (2) (0:1:1)
Challenge/enrichment activities – (2) (0:1:1)
Integration of math and science – (2) (0:1:1)
District technology report – (2) (0:0:2)
Money for equipment and supplies – (2) (0:1:1)
Student projects – (1) (0:0:1)
Standardized tests – (1) (0:0:1)
Teachers on district committee – (1:0:0)
Tuition exemption for science and math – (2) (0:0:1)
Support for basic skills – (1) (0:1:0)
Paid in-service/meeting time – (1) (0:1:0)
Listed numbers for district manual – (1) (1:0:0)
Representative Meeting/alignment with state standards:
quotes: “…all teachers must include standards and benchmarks in their lesson plans.”
District professional development:
“…attend in-services for math and science…”
AP classes/rigorous classes:
“…offer high level courses for college prep.”
Raised standards of math:
“…raised standards of math to be taken by Jr. and Sr. high students.”
District curriculum:
“Teachers required to provide experiments, hands-on activities,…”
Hiring certified personnel/supporting:
“Attempting to hire only certified personnel…”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-51
Question 11: Are there any barriers to achieving excellent science and mathematics education at
your school? N = 33
Frequency Percent
Yes 19 57.6
No 14 42.4
If yes, please describe. n = 18
Frequency Percent
Elementary 8 44.4
Middle/Junior 3 16.7
High School 7 38.9
# Answer types Not enough money – (4) (2:0:2)
(# of each type):Large class sizes – (3) (0:1:2)
Limited pool of teacher candidates – (3) (1:1:1)
Not enough technology – (2) (0:1:1)
Time – (2) (2:0:0)
Preparation for standardized tests – (2) (2:0:0)
Materials/equipment – (2) (1:1:0)
Poor student preparation – (2) (0:0:2)
Space – (2) (1:1:0)
Stability of teachers – (1) (0:1:0)
No – (1) (1:0:0)
Low salaries – (1) (0:0:1)
Student attitude – (1) (0:0:1)
Student absenteeism – (1) (0:0:1)
Language – (1) (0:1:0)
Stability of students – (1) (0:1:0)
Representative Not enough money:
quotes: “Lack of funding, low paying jobs.”
Large class sizes:
“Budgetary issues in the district dictates class sizes larger than desired.”
Limited pool of teacher candidates:
“…knowledge base – esp. science.”
Not enough technology:
“A computer lab specifically for math and science would boost student success!”
Time:
“Time. We need more time with students, each day, and a longer school year.”
Preparation for standardized tests:
“[State test], SAT-9 preparation.”
Materials/equipment:
“…materials and equipment…”
Poor student preparation:
“Students passed on who have not yet mastered middle school math and science
requirements.”
Space:
“Biggest obstacle is space and money.”
Question 12: Do you think teacher preparation programs make a difference in producing
compe tent mathematics and science teachers? N = 33
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-52
Frequency Percent
Yes 29 93.5
No 2 6.5
12a: If yes, what are the components and characteristics of high-quality teacher preparation programs
for teaching mathematics and science? n=23
Frequency Percent
Elementary 6 26.1
Middle/Junior 6 26.1
High School 11 47.8
# Answer types Strong pedagogical training/variety of strategies – (11) (4:1:6)
(# of each type): Strong content background – (10) (3:4:3)
More hands on experience/inquiry/discovery – (4) (1:3:0)
Clinical experience – (4) (2:0:2)
Integrating of subjects – (2) (0:1:1)
Money to support updated professional development – (2) (0:0:2)
Latest technology training – (2) (0:0:2)
Critical thinking skills – (1) (0:0:1)
Student centered teachers – (1) (0:0:1)
Literate teachers in quality education –(1) (0:0:1)
Student-centered teachers –(1) (0:0:1)
Caring teachers – (1) (0:0:1)
Mentorship – (1) (0:0:1)
Full immersion – (1) (0:0:1)
Passion – (1) (0:1:0)
Mastery of state standards – (0:0:1)
No answer – (1) (0:1:0)
Representative Strong pedagogical training/variety of strategies:
quotes: “Effective delivery of the content, Inquiry-based instruction, classroom
management (students and materials) and classroom discipline.”
Strong content background:
“Must include teaching teachers the content of science and math as well as
teaching methods.”
More hands on experience/inquiry/discovery:
“Methods classes that stress hands on learning…”
Clinical experience:
“MUST be a clinical approach, theory based, where teachers practice main
overviews.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-53
Continued: Table E5. Question 12
12b: Which teacher preparation programs do you think are the best? (List up to three. Please use
complete names of institutions.) n=13
Frequency Percent
Elementary 2 15.4
Middle/Junior 3 23.1
High School 8 61.5
# Answer types Louisiana State University – (5) (0:1:4)
(# of each type): Northern Arizona University – (3) (0:0:3)
University of Louisiana-Lafayette – (3) (0:0:3)
University of Arizona – (2) (0:0:2)
Southeastern LA University – (2) (1:0:1)
Northwestern State university – (2) (0:0:2)
Arizona State University – (1) (0:0:1)
Grand Canyon University – (1) (0:0:1)
Brigham Young University – (1) (0:0:1)
Any that produce good teachers – (1) (0:1:0)
Southern Louisiana University – (1) (0:1:0)
Nicholls State University – (1) (0:0:1)
McNeese State University – (1) (0:0:1)
Louisiana State University- Shreveport – (1) (0:1:0)
Centenary College – (1) (0:1:0)
Louisiana Teach University – (1) (0:1:0)
Arcadia University – (1) (1:0:0)
Temple University – (1) (1:0:0)
Holy Family College – (1) (1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-54
Question 13: Do your teachers or does your school have any ongoing relationships with institutions
of higher education? N = 32
Frequency Percent
Yes 17 53.1
No 15 46.9
13a: If yes, list the name of the institution with which you have the strongest relationship. (Please use
complete names of institutions, not initials.) n = 14
Frequency Percent
Elementary 3 21.4
Middle/Junior 5 35.7
High School 6 42.9
# Answer types Louisiana State University – (5) (1:2:2)
(# of each type): Northern Arizona University – (4) (0:1:3)
Southeastern Louisiana University – (3) (1:2:0)
Southern Louisiana University – (3) (0:2:1)
Northwestern State University – (2) (0:1:1)
USGS – (1) (0:0:1)
Arizona State University – (1) (0:0:1)
Chandler/Gilbert CC – (1) (0:0:1)
University of Massachusetts – (1) (1:0:0)
University of Louisiana-Lafayette – (1) (0:0:1)
Louisiana State University- Shreveport – (1) (0:1:0)
Temple University – (1) (1:0:0)
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-55
Continued: Table E5. Question 13
13b: Describe this relationship. n = 12
Frequency Percent
Elementary 2 16.7
Middle/Junior 4 33.3
High School 6 50.0
# Answer types Student teacher placement – (8) (1:2:5)
(# of each type): Coursework/Professional Development/Summer inst. – (4) (0:3:1)
Methods students – (3) (1:1:1)
Content competition for students – (1) (0:0:1)
Informal collegial network – (1) (1:0:0)
Consultants to school – (1) (1:0:0)
Grant recipient teams – (1) (0:1:0)
Field research – (1) (0:0:1)
Teacher observations – (1) (0:1:0)
Representative Student teacher placement:
quotes: “Provide opportunities for student teachers, etc.”
Coursework/Professional Development/Summer institutes:
“…college courses taught on middle schools campus.”
Methods students:
“Methods students…”
13c: Has this relationship changed substantially in the past five years? n = 17
Frequency Percent
Yes 3 17.6
No 14 82.4
13d: If yes, please explain how it changed. n=1
# Answer types Asking for K-12 input regarding teacher prep program – (1) (0:0:1)
(# of each type):
Representative “Higher (ed) institutions have attempted to provide quality teacher preparation
quote: programs, asking school districts for inputs.”
CETP Core Evaluation: 2001-02 Results E-56
Related docs
