ERIC ED399178: Evaluation of Project Symbiosis: An Interdisciplinary Science Education Project.

5 Pages·1993·0.11 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 399 178
SE 058 885
AUTHOR
Altschuld, James W.
Evaluation of Project Symbiosis: An Interdisciplinary
TITLE
Science Education Project.
PUB DATE
93
NOTE
4p.
PUB TYPE Descriptive (141)
Reports
Journal Articles (080)
JOURNAL CIT
Cognosos; v2 n3 p4-5 Sum 1993
EDRS PRICE
MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS *Agricultural Education; Change Strategies;
*Educational Change; *Evaluation Methods;
*Interdisciplinary Approach; Science Curriculum;
Science Programs; Secondary Education; Team
Teaching
ABSTRACT
The goal of this report is to provide a summary of
the evaluation of Project Symbiosis which focused on enhancing the
teaching of science principles in high school agriculture courses.
The project initially involved 15 teams of science and agriculture
teachers and was characterized by an extensive evaluation component
consisting of six formal elements and one informal element. Data
collected for evaluative purposes included preparticipation
information, workshop evaluations, post-workshop telephone
interviews, teacher generated products, and on-site interviews.
Preliminary implications of Project Symbiosis suggest that evaluation
methods must be multifaceted, the interdisciplinary teacher teaming
requires extended periods of time, and structures within schools
should be altered to assist teams. (DDR)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
EVALUATION OF PROJECT SYMBIOSIS:
An Interdisciplinary Science Education Project
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
U.8. DEPARTtlffieT OF EDUCATION
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
'Office of Educational Research and
Improvement
HASJ EEN GJR4NT,ED BY
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced
as
ived from the person or organization
originating it
Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
o Points Of view or opinions stated in this docu-
J
ment do not necessarily represent official
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
OERI position or policy.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
4
Evaluation of Project Symbiosis:
An Interdisciplinary Science Education Project
Based on a presentation by James W. Altschuld for the panel entitled "The Changing Role of Evaluation in
Reforming Science Education" at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association
Overview of the Project and
Evaluation Coordinator planned the five
data were submitted to the Kellogg
workshop programs recognizing that
Foundation in 1992. Since that time we
Evaluation Considerations
various science disciplines and different
have constructed a data base system that
In 1990, three faculty members
interests in agriculture were represented
facilitates in-depth probing related to
(Rosemarie Rossetti, Project Director;
questions about the nature of interdisci-
in the sample of participants. The
N.L. McCaslin; and Wesley Budke) in
plinary teaming. In this manner,
presenters were from agribusiness and
the Department of Agricultural Educa-
industry, the university, government,
insights should be gained for the
tion at The Ohio State University and
development of subsequent projects of
school systems, and science organiza-
James Altschuld, Evaluation Coordina-
tions. Topics included water quality, the this type based upon better understand-
tor at NCSTL began to design a project to
ing of the interdisciplinary teaming
properties of the egg, advances in plant
form interdisciplinary teams of second-
process.
science, animal genetics and breeding,
ary science and agriculture teachers.
Now, let us focus on the multifaceted
biotechnology, environmental manage-
[Note: It must be emphasized that the
ment, ideas for team work, and the
considerations that go into designing an
project was a team effort of the four
evaluation of a teamwork project such
evaluation of the project.
individuals identified above and two
As was expected most of the teachers as this one. A description of selected
Graduate Research Associates, Carol
major results will also be given.
were from smaller, more rural schools.
Bezek and Inyoung Kim, of the NCSTL
The project paid for: substitutes while
who constructed and analyzed the data
Evaluation Design
the teachers attended the workshops:
base.] The main purpose was to
Considerations
transportation to and from workshops;
enhance the teaching of science
First, the question arises as to what is
and per diem expenses. In addition, a
principles in high school agriculture
meant by the concept of interdisciplinary
nominal amount of support was
courses. Agricultural education was
teaming and what should be the end
provided for teacher activities in schools.
chosen due to the fact that knowledge
result or outcome? What is the nature
Originally, a somewhat extensive
and application of varied science
of the criterion in this project both in
evaluation was proposed for the project.
principles are required for successful
terms of process and product? What are
Upon review of the proposal the sponsor
farming as well as other agriculturally
likely expectations given the less than
requested that the evaluation be
related business and industry endeavors.
one year time frame? What would
expanded and accordingly the evalua-
It was also felt that the teaching of
demonstrate that the project has had an
tion structure contained six formal
science in agriculture needed to be
impact and what type of impact should
elements and one informal one. The
improved in light of the necessity to
it be? Project staff frequently discussed
formal elements were: (1) collection of
teach many diverse issues and topics in
outcomes including changes in teacher
pre-participation information regarding
agriculture.
behavior, concrete evidence that the
background variables, expectations and
The key features of the project were
interdisciplinary work has affected
perceptions of the concept of interdisci-
as follows:
course content and instruction, en-
plinary teaming; (2) evaluations of each
a) recruitment via established
hanced teacher perceptions and under-
workshop via closed and open-ended
agricultural education networks of
standings regarding the substantive
questions; (3) telephone interviews with
agricultural teachers from throughout
content of the workshops, conceptual
half of the team members after the first
the State of Ohio to participate with
changes in how teachers view teaching,
workshop and similar interviews with
their personally identified science
effects on others within the school
the other half after the second work-
teaching counterpart;
setting, effects on student learning, clear
shop; (4) teacher maintained monthly
b) the development of five, day-long
evidence of an interdisciplinary out-
log sheets of activities; (5) collection and
workshops to be implemented on a
come, and sustainability of the team
analysis of teacher generated products;
monthly basis starting in the Fall of 1991
beyond the conclusion of the project.
and (6) on-site interviews conducted
with the last one taking place in
Many possibilities exist with each one
with six of the teams in April and May.
February of 1992;
having unique implications for evalua-
The informal element consisted of
c) the requirement that teachers
tion design and implementation.
evaluator and faculty observations made
make a commitment to take part in a
The questions just examined reflect
during the course of events such as
large set of evaluation procedures
different perspectives of the goals of the
noting the comments of teachers. The
designed for the project and that they
project. The position adopted in this
evaluation philosophy expressed to
develop and, if possible, try out assign-
evaluation is that the goal was to
teachers at the initial workshop was that
ments, demonstrations, team teaching,
enhance interdisciplinary teaming. In
the project was developmental in nature
or other results of their interdisciplinary
other words, the teacher is the main
and their feedback and ideas were
teaming.
recipient of project services and that's
welcomed. They were encouraged to be
In line with these features 15 teams
where the emphasis of the evaluation
open and frank in their comments.
were elected or chosen to be involved
should be. The other position would be
Given the scope of the evaluation,
during the summer of 1991. The faculty
that the students are the ultimate
results from a preliminary analysis of the
from Agricultural Education and the
5
Systemic problems were noted
limited prior team work experience and
beneficiaries and the evaluation should
throughout the evaluation process.
especially in regard to serious attempts
ascertain their views, feelings and
Many of the teachers did not have
at interdisciplinary teaming. The
knowledge changes.
common free periods in which to discuss
literature also contained few examples
Second, another concern is to what
teaming activities and large blocks of
of or studies related to interdisciplinary
extent is it possible to describe the
planning/meeting time were not in
teaming at the secondary level.
process of interdisciplinary teaming in
evidence. Teachers did not share the
Another finding was that most
the schools. (Description of the process
same students nor, as a general rule,
teachers who participated were highly
was important for purposes of generali-
were they located in physical proximity
experienced (more than 12 years on the
zation.) The 15 teams were spread
to each other. Meetings were generally
average) possibly indicating that one had
throughout the state and limited
of short (under 20 minutes) duration.
to feel fairly comfortable in the teaching
evaluation dollars and time were
Most teachers were familiar with but
role before embarking on a teaming
available to support on-site visits. Also it
had not observed their teammate
approach. Another related interpreta-
is unclear as to what should be observed
teaching a class. Schools do not have
tion might be that with experienced
during site visits especially if teachers
formal provisions for observing and
teachers it may be more difficult to
were in an early discussion, idea
exchanging ideas about teaching. The
change or alter established teaching
generating, planning mode. Under such
agriculture teacher, as anticipated,
routines.
conditions and with the recognition that
almost always had more flexible space
Not unexpectedly teachers consis-
monitoring of the process was desirable,
and physical arrangements than did the
tently showed the highest preferences
proxy measures were used in place of
science teacher. While administrative
for workshop presentations that
direct observation and investigation.
facilitation was not present to a major
explained the basic theoretical, concep-
Phone interviews, teacher logs, and
degree, administrative hindrance also
tual underpinnings for a principle
informal discussions and observations at
was not there.
followed by hands-on opportunities that
the workshops were the main sources of
could be applied to their classrooms.
data.
Preliminary Implications of
From an analysis of written comments
Third, how much data can realisti-
Project Symbiosis
and scaled items, teachers were satisfied
cally be collected from busy full time
Evaluation must be multifaceted.
with the content chosen for the work-
teachers without becoming a resented
Single instruments or approaches to
shops and the quality of presenters.
imposition. Overtime, it is likely that
evaluation will not provide the quality
Notably lower preferences were
the completion of forms and logs would
and depth of information necessary for
expressed for those parts of the work-
become perfunctory. What is the
understanding what is taking place.
shops that dealt with teaming strategies
quality of logs if they were produced
Interdisciplinary teaming re-
and issues. This may reflect the quality
'after-the-fact' and represented retro-
quires an extended period of time.
of the presentation, underlying teacher
spective recall more than data immedi-
If we learned one thing, it is that this
needs and expectations, and/or a
ately written at the occurrence of an
teaming process requires a great deal of
combination of both of these factors.
event? Thus the reliability and validity
time for teachers to get acquainted, to
A portion of the teams did achieve
of the information collected in general,
conceptualize, to develop, and to
a measure of interdisciplinary activity
and teacher logs, in particular, are
implement ideas. Allot two years or
whereas others demonstrated limited
vulnerable to question in this regard.
more.
achievement in this regard. Several
Fourth, it may be difficult to
Interdisciplinary teams need
teams dropped out citing not the basic
combine information from multiple
facilitation. Teams don't occur by
premises of the project but severe time
sources of data into a meaningful,
themselves. A project base or central
constraints affecting their ability to
coherent picture. The data generated
facilitation mechanism has to be there.
attend workshops, to meet as a team
comes from a teacher characteristics
Administrators need to be
and to complete assignments.
form (n=30 teachers from 15 teams), pre
involved in interdisciplinary
workshop questionnaires (n=30) which
teaming. The involvement should
established a baseline of teacher
We're Listening!
relate to appreciating the process and its
perceptions and expectations, five fairly
value, developing teacher schedules to
in-depth workshop questionnaires with
accomodate teaming, and reinforcing
We make it easy for you to talk to us.
an average completion rate of more
the process in any way possible.
than 85 percent, 30 telephone inter-
You can reach the NCSTL by
Structures within schools should
views completed over a two month
Phone:
(6141292-3339
be altered to assist teams. Planning a
period, more than seventy five log
year in advance is desirable for establish-
sheets submitted by teams or individual
[phone]
FAX:
ing time (free periods) for teachers to
team members over four separate time
e-mail:
work together, for scheduling groups of
periods, teacher produced products and
NICSTL©mognus.acs.ohio-
students common to teachers, as well as
plans, and six on-site interviews with
state.edu ISTI. on Ed-Line)
for making other provisions to enhance
teacher teams that lasted about one and
the team performance.
or just write us at:
one half hours. This rich base contains
extensive qualitative and quantitative
NCSTL
information.
1929
Kenny Road
Initial funding of this effort by the
Columbus, OH 43210-1015
Kellogg Foundation is gratefully
Selected Findings from
acknowledged and another proposal for
Project Symbiosis
continuing and expanding it is
One interesting and somewhat
currently pending.
surprising finding was that there was
4
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ERIC
Office of Educational Research and improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release
(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all
or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,
does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to
reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may
be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release
form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
(9/92)