1 / 24

NH PNT2 Evaluation

NH PNT2 Evaluation. Year Three Findings and Next Steps. Sun Associates Jeff Sun 978-251-1600 ext. 204 jsun@sun-associates.com. PNT2 Evaluation Work. Started 3 years ago, with start of PNT2 Annual “GPRA” forms Quantitative measures of activity at IHE level

betrys
Download Presentation

NH PNT2 Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NH PNT2 Evaluation Year Three Findings and Next Steps

  2. Sun Associates • Jeff Sun • 978-251-1600 ext. 204 • jsun@sun-associates.com

  3. PNT2 Evaluation Work • Started 3 years ago, with start of PNT2 • Annual “GPRA” forms • Quantitative measures of activity at IHE level • Qualitative assessment of progress • Interviews • Focus groups • Surveys • Session evaluations • Leading to measurement of PNT2’s progress in meetings its program goals

  4. Surveys and Session Evaluations • Still collecting information on faculty and student surveys • 52 students (4 IHEs) and 23 faculty (5 IHEs) have responded • www.sun-associates.com/pnt/pdsurv.html • Good background info on what individual faculty find useful in terms of PD models

  5. Surveys • Faculty (n=23) PD Desirable Options • Traditional Delivery = Advanced Degree • Independent Delivery = 1-1 Tutorial • Innovative Delivery = Partnerships (e.g., K-12) • Collaborative Delivery = Mentor/Master Teacher

  6. Students (n=54) Incentives • Factors Attracting Students to Teaching • Desire to work with students (79%) • Desire to improve education (60%) • High variability -- 4 - 79% • Incentives for Choosing This Program • Location (36%) • Reputation (30%) • Low variability -- 9 - 36%

  7. Incentives to Stay in NH • Supportive community and parents (43%) • Availability of competitive salary (38%) • Low variability -- 15 - 43%

  8. Session evaluations • Positive feelings about PNT2 professional development • Each year, PD has come closer to meeting identified needs… • Or, needs/expectations have become more aligned with PD offerings • “At-IHE” sessions (Cyndy) have been very well received

  9. Focus on Exhibits • During Year Three (this year), PNT2 activity has become increasingly focused on NHLI exhibit building • Exhibit building has become the project for most participating IHEs and faculty • For most participants, this represents a strong shift -- or focusing of activity -- from previous years

  10. Exhibit creation -- DV creation in particular -- has become the professional development focus for participants • For those who have seen PNT2 as a professional development project, this has been a positive feature

  11. Working on the exhibit has been helpful in “raising the level of awareness of the faculty to this kind of tool…It is causing them to ask questions about how they can use the video camera” and other technologies “in their own teaching.” • “I think they are learning some invaluable skills, not just technology skills. Lesson plans are required that have forced them to look at New Hampshire state standards and create new benchmarks for the entire district. They are looking at assessment in a different way.”

  12. Focus Groups • Seek information on the broad array of PNT2 goals and indicators

  13. In General… • Definition of “technology integration” • Embedded in instruction • Not technology for technology’s sake • Availability of technology resources • More each year • Common technologies • Online instruction -- BB, WebCT, First Class -- is becoming quite common • Plus all of the expected stuff

  14. Students are entering somewhat more proficient and are increasing proficiency while in programs • Experience in the field varies, but in general, pre-service students rate their cooperating teachers/schools very low in terms of technologies available and technologies used.

  15. Students are mixed as to their assessment of how well technology is used/integrated in their preservice programs. • Most can credit some faculty with encouraging technology use • PowerPoint, BB, WWW, SPED applications are the most common applications • Trend still seems to be that technology is used and encouraged in “some courses” but not all.

  16. What Faculty Want • Varies widely by IHE • More “support and recognition” from their IHEs for the work that they are doing • More time for professional development • Professional development that is more tuned to specific faculty needs

  17. Scoring the Rubrics

  18. What We’ve Learned • …or been reminded of! • Each IHE is different • Change is slow • The process and products of change are impacted by individual context

  19. So while each IHE has grown, that growth is measured by looking at where each has come from • Overall, faculty are more technically literate and more technologies are being used within the instructional environment (some like BB are quite prevalent) • Some IHEs have gone far in the “curriculum mapping” task while others have just started the journey after establishing their knowledge base

  20. So What Happens Next? • If PNT2 were to continue, what would you want to see offered next? • What would be the primary goal? • What services offered? • What structures at the IHE level?

More Related