Dear IDEAS program, Below is the final report for our "Astronomy Camp-Ins" IDEAS program. Note that I have already submitted this report directly into the Grant Management System, as requested by Lena Johnson-Bey. Many more details about our project are contained on our project website: http://sol.stsci.edu/~mutchler/IDEAS/ The final report from our educational evaluator, Caren Oberg, is the only pending addition to our project website. She submitted a preliminary report to us in August 2000. Max Mutchler ----------------------------------------------- Grant number HST-ED-90209.0-A > I. Principal Investigator: Alex Storrs > II. Institution: Space Telescope Science Institute > III. Project Title: Using astronomy camp-ins for pre-service teacher development Submitter: Max Mutchler > IV. Summary of Project Activities Our team conducted one 4-hour teacher training workshop and 12 "Camp-Ins" at the Maryland Science Center between March 11 and May 12, 2000. A total of 13 teachers attended our training workshop: 4 pre-service teachers, and 9 Baltimore City public school teachers. Another 3 pre-service teachers joined our program (and received training) later, so a total of 16 teachers were engaged in our program. All 7 pre-service teachers and 2 public school teachers participated (for about 3 hours each evening) in ~3 of the 12 Camp-Ins. We conducted a workshop at Maryland's annual service-learning conference on March 23, 2000, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). We also intend to report on our project at a future AAS meeting which has an IDEAS (or similar) session. > 1. Describe the primary objectives and scope of the project. We trained 7 pre-service teachers and 9 Baltimore City Public School teachers to engage elementary school students in hands-on learning experiences at the Maryland Science Center (MSC). They received training in informal teaching techniques, service-learning, and in general astronomy with an emphasis on Hubble Space Telescope (HST) research and results. The teachers received training in the use of the new interactive astronomy exhibits at MSC: the Hubble Space Telescope National Visitor Center, and the SpaceLink update center. The teachers received training by our group in an innovative educational reform philosophy called "service-learning", which has been pioneered in Maryland. The pre-service teachers then got direct experience in interactive science teaching with elementary school children during weekly overnight "camp-ins" at MSC. By participating in our program, they modeled a high-quality example of the type of activity that their future students will need to perform to satisfy Maryland's service-learning graduation requirement. The pre-service teachers will be better prepared to incorporate high-quality science related service-learning projects in their classes, once they have experienced it themselves. Our primary goal is to transmit our enthusiasm for the scientific process to pre-service teachers at the beginning of their careers, so that they will have a base of knowledge, experience, and enthusiasm to transmit to their peers and future students. > 2. Describe the partnerships established for the project. This project was a collaboration between a science museum, some graduate schools of education, a public school district, and a scientific research institute. > 3. Describe the evaluation component of the project. > a. Briefly describe the type of evaluation that was conducted. > b. Briefly describe the data collection procedures used in the project. Three different types of evaluation were used. Component 1 was process oriented. We sought to evaluate the participants comfort level with discussing topics of astronomy with elementary, middle, and high school students, their familiarity with inquiry-based teaching methods, and their familiarity with the Service-Learning philosophy. Results of the questionnaire found that of the 14 teachers and pre-service teachers who took part in the training: 14 of the 14 participants felt their comfort levels with discussing astronomy improved, as long as they were teaching their most comfortable grade level (elementary, middle, or high school). However, these teachers were not later tracked to determine how they used their new knowledge once they returned to their classrooms (as this was not the focus of the program evaluation). 9 of the 14 participants had already had experience with Inquiry Based methodology and could give examples. 12 of the 14 participants could define Service Learning. 8 of those 14 associated Service Learning with the student experience. 1 of the 14 associated Service Learning specifically to high school students. Initially, the questionnaire was to serve as a benchmark to compare the experiences of those pre-service teachers who were going to take part in the camp-ins later on. However, it was found that although 7 questionnaires were filled out by pre-service teachers, only four pre-service teachers actually attended camp-ins. Three additional pre-service teachers would join the program later and attend a separate training that was not evaluated. It was also found that the training was discussed during the in-depth interviews with the four pre-service teachers. Component 2 was outcome oriented. Using in-depth interviews, all six of the pre-service teachers who participated in the camp-ins were asked to discuss their experiences. The discussion focused on their use of inquiry methodology with the campers, use of astronomy and comfort levels with astronomy and the SpaceLink facility, and the impact of the Service Learning approach. Due to the small numbers, this was a qualitative study. A full-scale evaluation report has been given to MdSCI staff. Component 3 is impact oriented. To be conducted in 6 months (early 2001), this component will also consist of in-depth interviews. Each of the 6 pre-service teachers will be contacted and asked to reflect further on their experience and how they have applied their experience to their classrooms. An appendix with these results will be posted on our project website when completed. > c. Were the data collection procedures effective in measuring the project's objectives? Component 1: The questionnaire was not as successful as it could have been. As explained above, its original purpose was to serve as a benchmark tool. Had it remained as such, it would have been a successful tool. However, since it later became a tool merely to measure what participants took away from the training, it could have been considerably shorter. Component 1 questions: 1. BEFORE THIS TRAINING how comfortable were you in discussing the following space/astronomy topics with the following age groups: Hubble Space Telescope, Space Shuttle Equipment, Stars 2. AFTER THIS TRAINING how comfortable are you in discussing these topics? 3. Are you familiar with inquiry based teaching (i.e.: teaching through facilitated learning/questioning) 4. Have you used inquiry based teaching with students before today? 5. Describe your experiences with inquiry-based teaching (size of class, topic discussed, planning...) 6. Describe a time when you had difficulty teaching a family member/friend to do an action or understand a concept. Did you use knowledge that both of you shared in order to help your family member/friend understand? Explain. 7. BEFORE THIS TRAINING how comfortable were you with using inquiry based teaching with the following age groups: 8. AFTER THIS TRAINING how comfortable are you with using inquiry based teaching with the following age groups: 9. Please define service-learning in your own words? 10. Give an example of how service-learning can be incorporated into the classroom? 11. How often since, but including, the 12th grade have you participated in a service-learning project? As the teacher/leader? As a student? 12. Discuss a service-learning project that you have been a part of. What did you gain from the experience? 13. BEFORE THIS TRAINING how comfortable were you with using service-learning? 14. AFTER THIS TRAINING how comfortable are you with using service-learning? 15. Why did you choose to participate in this program? 16. Please list three (3) goals you wish to meet during this program? 17. What is your specialty? (Science, History, ESL...) 18. What grade levels do you teach or intend to teach? 19. What grade levels are you most comfortable teaching? Component 2: The in-depth interviews were very successful. Lasting almost 20 minutes in length per interview, the open-ended questions allowed the pre-service teachers to tell their entire experience plus any additional information they wanted to discuss. In depth interviews are far more successful than questionnaires, especially with a very small group, because the interviewer can probe for additional information. Component 2 questions: 1. How did you get involoved with the SLS-Camp-in Program? 2. What were your objectives? Program Objective 1: Use of Inquiry-Based Teaching Methods 3. Describe your camp in experience. 4. If you attended more than one camp-in, describes changes from camp-in to camp-in. 5. Describe examples of inquiry based teaching used during the camp-ins. 6. Speculate how you will use inquiry based methodology in your classroom. Program Objective 2: Use of astronomy to teach other areas of science 7. Describe discussions between students and yourself during camp-ins 8. Describe your comfort level with astronomy before and after the training session 9. Describe how used your astronomy knoweldge to assist students during the camp-ins 10. Speculate how you will use astronomy in your classroom, next year, to teach other types of science (or other subjects) Program Objective 3: Service-Learning 11. Can you define Service-Learning? 12. How do camp-ins reflect the Service Learning philosophy? 13. How will you use Service Learning in your classroom next year? General Questions 14. How do you plan to use the camp-in experience in the future? 15. What would you change logistically? 16. Would you recommend this program to next year's class? Why or why not? Component 3: As above. Additionally, in depth interviews ensure a higher rate of return than mailing a questionnaire. > 4. Briefly describe how NASA source data was used in the project. Our primary facility, the SpaceLink exhibit, incorporates many types of NASA information and data, and provides almost unlimited access to sources of information on the Hubble Space Telescope, Mars missions, Space Station, etc. We made use of may NASA data sources during our both our training workshop and the 12 Camp-ins. > 5. Describe the project's findings. > a. Describe the goals accomplished. We accomplished our primary goals as stated above. > b. Describe the lessons learned. The number of students present in SpaceLink during Camp-Ins was highly variable, and generally lower than we expected. In hindsight, we should have made sure that a visit to SpaceLink was specifically incorporated into the evening schedule for campers. > c. Describe the implications for future education and/or astronomy projects. Our project is an excellent example of collaboration among a wide variety of institutions with a stake in science education. > 6. Approximately how many people were served by this project? > > K-12 Students _500_ Educators _9_ > > Undergrad/Grad Students _7_ General Public _0_ > > Of these, how many were from underserved/underrepresented populations: > > K-12 Students _100_ Educators _9_ > > Undergrad/Grad Students _2_ General Public _0_ > > 7. Are there plans to continue the project after the IDEA funding cycle ends? No -- additional comments below. However, many of the project team members have continued to collaborate on similar educational efforts. > 8. Briefly describe the dissemination of project findings. Our project website is the most complete and accessible source of information: http://sol.stsci.edu/~mutchler/IDEAS/ We also hosted a workshop at Maryland's Service-Learning Conference on March 22, 2000, at UMBC. > 9. What products resulted from the program? We did not produce any specific products -- that wasn't a goal. However, we did provide our teachers with high quality resources that can help them in the future: booklets about hands-on space science and service-learning activities for the classroom. > 10. Suggestions and additional comments: The IDEAS proposal review panel's determination that our administrative PI was "ineligible" wasn't directly supported by your own Call for Proposals. The subsequent addition of a "figurehead" PI was artificial, and created an awkward and distracting administrative strain throughout our project. Volunteer-driven projects don't have much capacity to overcome such burdens, which divert attention and energy at critical times. The delay this introduced alone nearly rendered the project impossible, given our school-year-based project timeline. We strongly urge the IDEAS program to reconsider specifically excluding PI's who are non-PhD NASA researchers -- this is a bad and unnecessary precedent. The proposal review process already provides ample opportunity to reject unqualified proposers for any reason, without the need to specifically exempt a large demographic group of experienced NASA researchers which happens to be disproportionately (compared to PhD researchers) engaged in educational outreach activities. We feel our project and team, as originally proposed (and conducted, in reality), strongly reflected the spirit of the IDEAS program. We should not have had to endure such adminstrative complications, nor be exempted from full participation in the IDEAS program in the future. We would be happy to provide the IDEAS program with more detailed arguments is support of this perspective. If interested, send e-mail to Max Mutchler (mutchler@stsci.edu). > IDEAS GRANT PROGRAM > Performance and Evaluation Report > > IDEAS Proposal Number: O0238 Reporting Period > Final Report From:_2/00_ To:_11/00_