; Elementary School Science Grant Proposal Samples - PowerPoint
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Elementary School Science Grant Proposal Samples - PowerPoint

VIEWS: 171 PAGES: 18

Elementary School Science Grant Proposal Samples document sample

More Info
  • pg 1
									     Building a Successful
Professional Development Model


Presented by:
 Howard Landman
 Project Director
 “Eastern Connecticut Elementary
 Science Coaching Consortium”
 Contact: HLL333@AOL.COM
         Getting Started
Evaluate the five key components of
 effective professional development
 in an MSP Grant
        Efficacy starting point

        Content starting point

        The individual district’s needs

        The role of the I. H. E.

        Blueprint for tomorrow
   Establishing the Base Line - 1

Efficacy pre-test
 - Ask the tough questions about
  confidence in presenting the content
  (subject competency)
 - Ask about confidence in allowing
  experimentation and exploration – “are the
  participants afraid of what questions
  might be asked by students” (process
  competency)
 Establishing the Base Line - 2
Content pre-test
- Look at your state licensing exams
  for secondary teachers
- Look at your state student “mastery”
  tests for the next level up
- Look at content expectations for the
  next level up
  (elementary middle  high)
  Establishing the Base Line – 3
Project Design and organization
- Meet with all administrative
  representatives to review the Base Line
  Data
- Meet with the I.H.E. to develop the content
  presentations
- Meet with partners to develop the “content
  vs. standards” needs
- Develop a calendar of events to ensure
  success
     Think Outside the Box
Who are the best presenters?
 - Guest lecturers vs. I.H.E. staff
 - External providers vs. Partner staff

Participants in grants need special attention
  - They could see their own staff every day
  - Participants need to see that their efforts
    are truly recognized and rewarded
   The State Standards -1
- Never assume that staff knows the
  standards or how to handle them
- Never assume that staff knows how
  to best incorporate the standards
  into effective lesson planning
- Never assume that help will be seen
  as criticism
The State Standards - 2
- “Guided Group Workshops” on how to
  address standards should be considered
- Experts who can show innovative ways to
  present lessons within the frameworks of
  the standards are an exceptional addition
  to any professional development
  presentation
- Modeling coupled with a “hands on”
  experience is key to effective professional
  development for teachers
    Overcoming the Fears
- Have the I.H.E. place the participants in
  the role of students as often as possible
- The I.H.E. must be confident and
  competent in their understanding of new
  methods of addressing curriculum as well
  as content
- By assuming the role of the student,
  teachers will feel more comfortable with
  their own students in the same setting
  Checklist for Tomorrow
- Are we aware of our teacher needs?
- Are we aware of our district needs?
- Is our “presentation team” well
  versed in all aspects of our training?
- Do we need to do some additional
  “homework?” (P.D. staff training)
- Where will we go after the music
  stops?
      Evidence of Success
Participation in the ATLAST teacher evaluation by
  Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC.
ATLAST = Assessing Teacher Learning About
 Science Teaching (funding source = NSF)
Purpose of the Evaluation
To determine the increase in content knowledge
To hopefully show an improvement in efficacy
To hopefully show an increased awareness of the
  use of the Inquiry Method for instruction.
       Evidence of Success
Results showed growth in content knowledge in all
  three areas of science.
Results showed statistically significant growth in
  content knowledge in life science, the grant’s
  main area of concentration.
Pre: min(36); max(75); mean(50.12)
Post: min(42); max(76); mean(54.82)
Results showed increases in efficacy.
Results showed increases in use of the Inquiry
  Method.
All districts will be using the TLC’s to further their
  PD in the year after the grant funding has run out
 Evidence of Impact-Teachers
Impact on Teachers(from CCSAR):
A paired-samples t test was conducted to measure
  growth in content knowledge of TLCs in the Windham
  Elementary Science grant. The results indicated that
  the mean posttest score (M = .77, SD = .08) was not
  significantly greater than the mean pretest score (M =
  .80, SD = .09), t(16) = 1.30, p<.01. The standardized
  effect size index, d, was .31, which is considered a
  small effect. The 95% confidence interval for the
  mean difference between the two scores was -.03 to
  .09. TLCs’ content knowledge did not change.
Why did this happen? Let’s look at the test.
  Evidence of Impact-Students
Impact on Students:
**NOTE REGARDING THE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS:
  # 13 was deleted (poor question). Paired-samples t tests
  were conducted on the mean scores of the pretest and
  posttest, with and without number 13. The results indicate
  that the pretest scores without number 13 (M = .61, SD =
  .24) were significantly greater than the pretest scores with
  number 13 (M = .62, SD = .24), t(1129) = -23.05, p < .01. The
  standardized effect size, d, was .69. This is considered a
  medium effect size. The results also indicate that the
  posttest scores without number 13 (M = .64, SD = .29) were
  significantly greater than the posttest scores with number
  13 (M = .63, SD = .28), t(1129) = -21.51, p < .01. The
  standardized effect size, d, was .64. This is also considered
  a medium effect size. Students’ scores were significantly
  higher on both the pretest and posttest when number 13
  was deleted.
     Evidence of Impact-Other
Other Impacts: Change in Coaches and Teachers'
  Sense of Efficacy: Windham Elementary School
  Science:A paired-samples t test was conducted
  to measure change in efficacy of TLCs in the
  Windham Elementary School Science grant. The
  results indicated that the mean posttest score (M
  = 4.10, SD = .40) was significantly greater than the
  mean pretest score (M = 3.63, SD = .49), t(15) = -
  5.41, p<.01. The standardized effect size index, d,
  was 1.35, which is considered a large effect. The
  95% confidence interval for the mean difference
  between the two scores was -.67 to -.29. TLCs’
  sense of efficacy was significantly greater after
  the training.
   Evidence of Impact-Partners
Impact on Districts:
With respect to the districts, each of the 5 districts completing
  the grant entered into the grant with the expectation of
  realizing a teacher leader coach in science who could
  confidently and competently lead the professional
  development of teaching the inquiry method of science
  within the respective district. To this extent, the grant has
  been eminently successful. Each of the districts has at
  least one TLC who will be spearheading Professional Staff
  Science Development for the elementary teachers within
  the district next year. In the 2007-2008 school year, it is
  expected that the professional development will center on
  grade level and faculty presentations, each regularly
  scheduled throughout the school year.
    Evidence of Impact-I.H.E.
The work of the I.H.E. has led to
  considerable interest in extending
  interactions with the K-12 participants in a
  number of ways. New connections have
  been made that will lead to additional
  classroom visits and whole new projects
  have been developed to extend and
  strengthen the relationships. UConn has
  generated three new grant proposals that
  would greatly extend the work that was
  initiated as part of this MSP proposal.
            Disclaimer

The instructional practices and
  assessments discussed or shown in these
  presentations are not intended as an
  endorsement by the U.S. Department of
  Education.

								
To top