MSP2 Evaluation Report 2009-2010

Miami University 408 McGuffey Hall Oxford, OH 45056

Phone: 513-529-1686 Fax: 513-529-2110 Website: http://ohioeval.muohio.edu

Evaluation of Middle School Portal 2:

Math & Science Pathways (MSP2)

Annual Report 2009-2010

Evaluation of MSP2 ii

Please cite as follows: Woodruff, S. B., Morio, K. L., & Li, Y. (2010). Evaluation of middle school portal 2: Math & science pathways (MSP2) Annual report 2009-2010. Oxford, OH: Miami University, Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education. Distributed by Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education Sarah B. Woodruff, Director 408 McGuffey Hall Miami University Oxford, Ohio 45056

Evaluation of MSP2 iii

Middle School Portal 2: Math & Science Pathways (MSP2)

Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education

Miami University Oxford, Ohio

Sarah B. Woodruff Principal Investigator Kristen Morio Project Director Yue Li Senior Statistician

Evaluation of MSP2 iv

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. iv

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................vii

List of Figures .....................................................................................................................viii

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Project Description ............................................................................................................ 1

Evaluation............................................................................................................................. 2

Participants ....................................................................................................................... 2

Instruments ...................................................................................................................... 2

Profile Questions Survey ................................................................................................ 2

MSP2 Website Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 3

MSP2 Educator Questionnaire......................................................................................... 3

MSP2 Youth Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 3

MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol......................................................................... 3

Web-based Resource Review Rubric................................................................................ 3

MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric ...................................................................................... 3

MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric ....................................................................... 3

Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 4

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 4

Findings................................................................................................................................ 6

Goals and Timeline ............................................................................................................ 6

Profile Questions Survey .................................................................................................. 10

MSP2 Website Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 12

MSP2 Educator Questionnaire........................................................................................... 14

MSP2 Youth Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 15

Webmetrics..................................................................................................................... 15

MSP2 Ning Social Networking Website........................................................................... 16

New and Returning Visitors Comparison .................................................................... 16

Number of Visits .................................................................................................. 16

Average Page Views per Visit................................................................................ 17

Average Time Spent on MSP2 Ning ....................................................................... 18

MSP2 Wiki Pages ......................................................................................................... 21

Teacher Leader Interviews ............................................................................................... 22

Evaluation of MSP2 v

Teacher Leader Demographics...................................................................................... 22

Teacher Leader Responsibilities .................................................................................... 22

Comparisons of Social Networks ................................................................................... 23

Participation ................................................................................................................ 23

MSP2 Ning Features..................................................................................................... 23

Improvements............................................................................................................. 24

Face-to-Face vs. Web-based Professional Development .................................................. 24

Member Problems or Concerns ..................................................................................... 24

Document Review............................................................................................................ 25

Resource Guides.......................................................................................................... 25

Blogs .......................................................................................................................... 26

Thematic Website Review ................................................................................................ 27

Dissemination.................................................................................................................. 29

Presentations at Local and National Conferences and Meetings ....................................... 29

Promotional Materials Distributed at Conferences and Meetings ...................................... 29

Webinars .................................................................................................................... 30

Webinar 1: Interactive Notebooks............................................................................. 30

Webinar 2: Moodle for Middle School ........................................................................ 30

Webinar 3: Digital Storytelling .................................................................................. 30

Webinar 5: Interactive Whiteboards .......................................................................... 31

Webinar 7: Diigo: Social Bookmarking....................................................................... 31

Webinar 8: UDL PDQ ............................................................................................... 31

Webinar 9: Laboratory Safety ................................................................................... 32

Webinar 14: Digital Tools and Math .......................................................................... 32

Tapped - In Events ...................................................................................................... 32

External Advisory Board Meeting................................................................................... 33

Continuing Evaluation Activities ............................................................................................ 34

Summary and Recommendations.......................................................................................... 35

References.......................................................................................................................... 37

Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A: Profile Questions Survey.................................................................................... 39

Appendix B: MSP2 Website Questionnaire ............................................................................. 40

Appendix C: MSP2 Educator Questionnaire ............................................................................ 45

Appendix D: MSP2 Youth Questionnaire ................................................................................ 48

Appendix E: MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol ............................................................ 58

Appendix F: Web-Based Resource Review Rubric ................................................................... 60

Evaluation of MSP2 vi

Appendix G: MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric ......................................................................... 61

Appendix H: MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric ......................................................... 62

Appendix I: MSP2 Educator Questionnaire Analysis ................................................................ 63

Appendix J: MSP2 Youth Questionnaire Analysis .................................................................... 74

Appendix K: MSP2 Web Resource Score Sheet: Resource Guides ............................................ 91

Appendix L: MSP2 Web Resource Score Sheet: Blogs ............................................................. 98

Appendix M: Webinar Analyses............................................................................................105

Evaluation of MSP2 vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Year 2 Proposed Tasks and Progress Crosswalk ............................................................6

Table 2. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Gender, Spring 2010 ........................................... 10

Table 3. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Position or Title, Spring 2010...............................11

Table 4. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Years of Teaching Experience, Spring 2010 .......... 11

Table 5. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Grade Level Assignment, Spring 2010 ..................11

Table 6. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Subject Area, Spring 2010 ................................... 12

Table 7. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Gender by Participation Rank ........................12

Table 8. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Title by Participation Rank.............................13

Table 9. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Teaching Experience by Participation Rank....................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 10. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Subject Area by Participation Rank...............14

Table 11. MSP2 Ning Visits, May 2009 - January 2010................................................................16

Table 12. Connecting News to the National Science Education Standards Blog Visits, May 2009 -January 2010.......................................................................................................... 20

Table 13. Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science Blog, May 2009 - January 2010 ..........................................................................................................................21

Table 14. MSP2 Wiki Page Visits, May 2009 - January 2010 ........................................................22

Table 15. Resource Review Average Scores for Science and Mathematics MSP2 Resource Guides, Spring 2010 ................................................................................................................25

Table 16. Resource Review Average Scores for Science and Mathematics Blog Entries, Spring 2010 ............................................................................................................................26

Table 17. Discussion Forum Topics and Replies, August 2009 and March 2010.............................28

Table 18. MSP2 Blog Activity, August 2009 and November 2009. ................................................28

Table 19. Diigo Group Members, Bookmarks and Visits, August 2009 and February 2010..............29

Evaluation of MSP2 viii

List of Figures Figure 1. Comparison of number of visits of new and returning visitors to MSP2 Ning, May 2009 – April 2010. ...................................................................................................................17 Figure 2. Comparison of average page views per visit of new and returning visitors to MSP2 Ning, May 2009 – April 2010. ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3. Comparison of average time spent by new and returning visitors on MSP2 Ning, May 2009 – April 2010. ............................................................................................................19

Evaluation of MSP2 1

Introduction

Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education (E & A Center) is the external evaluator for the Middle School Portal 2: Math & Science Pathways (MSP2) Project. Dr. Sarah B. Woodruff, Miami University, is the Principal Investigator for the evaluation, and Kristen Morio, Research Associate, is the Project Director. Yue Li is the Senior Researcher and Statistician for the project. Dr. Woodruff and Mrs. Morio oversee all aspects of the evaluation. This report is divided into four sections. Section I provides background information about the MSP2 project and its goals. Section II provides information about Year 2 evaluation activities. Section III provides information on future evaluation plans and ongoing evaluation activities. Section IV summarizes the Year 2 evaluation and provides recommendations to the Project Team. Project Description The Middle School Portal 2: Math & Science Pathways (MSP2) Project is a collaboration among Ohio State University College of Education (OSU), National Middle School Association (NMSA), and the Education Development Center (EDC). The Middle School Portal 2: Math & Science Pathways project (MSP2) supports middle grades educators and youth with powerful connections to people and high-quality resources, and through knowledge sharing and creation within and beyond the MSP2 community.The project also will add a youth component to the website1. The five goals of the project are to:

• Goal 1: Select, organize, develop, and contextualize quality learning resources in the areas of science and mathematics, 21st century skills, STEM careers, and middle-school education.

• Goal 2: Design a portal that provides access to content, interactive opportunities, and virtual support for educators and youth, and facilitates the creation of a virtual professional learning community (VPLC) of middle school mathematics and science educators.

• Goal 3: Promote resource discovery and usage through search engine optimization, training and workshops, and dissemination.

• Goal 4: Collaborate with multiple organizations to sustain project resources and continue to meet the needs of the middle school mathematics and science community after funding ends.

• Goal 5: Evaluate the impact of project deliverables on educators and youth, and determine how developers of digital resources and collections can best support the educational use of Web 2.0 tools and services.

1 The youth component or Virtual Learning Experiences (VLE) will be added to the MSP2 Ning in Year 3.


Evaluation

Overarching evaluation efforts focus on monitoring project implementation and assessing progress toward project goals.

During the Year 1 evaluation, E & A Center staff worked with the Project Team on the development and refinement of the evaluation matrix. Year 1 evaluation activities included monitoring communication and dissemination methods (e.g., wiki activity, meetings, webinars), collecting and analyzing website statistics (webmetrics), and tracking progress on proposed project tasks.

One focus of the Year 2 evaluation was to identify a profile of participation for users. Along with continuation of Year 1 evaluation activities, the Year 2 evaluation included quantitative and qualitative analyses of user participation in the Middle School Portal 2 (MSP2) Ning social network. Teacher Leader interviews and member surveys provided data for these analyses. Expert reviews of learning resources available via the MSP2 portal also were conducted.

Participants The Middle School Portal 2: Math & Science Pathways (MSP2) project focuses on mathematics, science, and technology for middle school educators. Therefore, individuals involved with middle school education (teachers, administrators, teacher educators) who joined the MSP2 Ning social network to take part in project activities were participants in the Year 2 evaluation. Teacher Leaders (TL) were recruited by the Project Team to serve as model participants in the social network and to recruit and encourage member participation in the MSP2 Ning. The first TL cohort consisted of four middle school educators. They were recruited in March 2009. Two TLs were recruited September 2009 and one more in February 2010 to make up Cohort 2. TLs were interviewed in March 2010. The Education Development Center (EDC) collected data from educators and students of Grades 5-8. These data were collected with two online instruments. Respondents were recruited through partner websites (i.e., NMSA website, MSP2 Ning) as well as on their own networks, such as the ITEST Learning Resource Center (http://itestlrc.edc.org/). The EDC also collected data from 10 students, between the ages of 11 and 14, designated as the MSP2 Virtual Learning Experience (VLE) Design Team. The EDC conducted several Design Team focus groups. Data from these focus groups were used to develop the VLE template design. Instruments Year 2 evaluation data were collected from seven sources: (a) a member profile survey, (b) an online MSP2 member questionnaire, (c) Teacher Leader (TL) interviews, (d) resource reviews, (e) participation assessments, (f) an Education Development Center (EDC) questionnaire administered to educators, and (g) an EDC questionnaire administered to youth.

Profile Questions Survey A Profile Questions Survey was created by the Project Team to collect data on website visitors who signed up for membership to the MSP2 Ning community. The online survey was composed of six multiple-choice items and one open-response item. The Profile Questions Survey can be found in Appendix A.


MSP2 Website Questionnaire The MSP2 Website Questionnaire was an online questionnaire developed by the Evaluation Team It consisted of five open-response items collecting data on respondents’ MSP2 Ning experiences. A link to the online questionnaire was emailed to all Ning members on December 10, 2009. The MSP2 Website Questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

MSP2 Educator Questionnaire The MSP2 Educator Questionnaire was an online questionnaire developed by the Project Team to collect data on the use of technology by educators and their students. Data collected from this questionnaire, from the MSP2 Youth Questionnaire, and from Design Team focus groups will be used to develop the youth component of the project. The questionnaire consisted of nine open-response items, three multiple-choice items, and one multi-part item rated on a 4-point rating scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4). This rating scale had no neutral or undecided response choice. The MSP2 Educator Questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.

MSP2 Youth Questionnaire The MSP2 Youth Questionnaire was an online questionnaire developed by the Project Team to collect data on personal and educational use of technology by middle school students. Data collected from this questionnaire, from the MSP2 Educator Questionnaire, and from Design Team focus groups will be used to develop the youth component of the project. The questionnaire consisted of 41 items. Eight Likert-type items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). The remaining items included 17 multiple-choice items and 16 open-response items. The MSP2 Youth Questionnaire can be found in Appendix D.

MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol The MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol was created by the Evaluation Team and consisted of 14 items. The protocol collected data on Teacher Leaders’ experiences with the MSP2 Ning and social networking in general. The MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol can be found in Appendix E.

Web-based Resource Review Rubric The Web-based Resource Review Rubric was created by the Evaluation Team and was a modified version of the Ohio Resource Center ORC Resource Review Rubric (Ohio Resource Center, n.d.). Using the rubric, MSP2 Ning resource materials were rated on characteristics such as relevance, adaptability, accuracy, and appeal. The Web-based Resource Review Rubric can be found in Appendix F.

MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric The MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric was created by the Evaluation Team to assist in the development of participation profiles for various levels of use of the MSP2 Ning. The rubric consisted of ratings ranging from no participation (0) to extensive user (4) and assessed activities such as “Personalization,” “Blogs/Discussions,” “Group Membership,” “Comments,” “Events,” and discussion initiation activities. The MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric can be found in Appendix G.

MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric The MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric was created by the Evaluation Team and was a modified version of an E & A Center rubric used to evaluate online learning communities. Using the rubric, MSP2 Ning group discussions, forum discussions, and blog posts were evaluated for conversation quality based upon number of responses, number of participants, and relevance,


depth, and thoughtfulness of responses. The MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric can be found in Appendix H.

Data Collection

Data were collected from MSP2 Ning members. When users selected the “Sign Up” link on the main page of the MSP2 Ning website (http://www.msteacher2.org), they were directed to create a username and password. New members then were asked to complete the Profile Questions Survey.2 Data collected from this survey were compiled by the Project Team and analyzed by the Evaluation Team.

The MSP2 Website Questionnaire was developed as an online questionnaire. The link to the questionnaire was distributed to a list of MSP2 member email addresses. Data were downloaded for analyses on March 9, 2010.

An Evaluation Team member conducted MSP2 Teacher Leader interviews by phone in March 2010. Interviews were transcribed for content analysis.

EDC administered two online questionnaires simultaneously (MSP2 Educator Questionnaire and MSP2 Youth Questionnaire) to middle school educators and students between April 30 and June 15, 2009. Data were collected by the EDC and reported to the Evaluation Team.

MSP2 web-based resources were reviewed by middle school education experts in the fields of mathematics and science. New MSP2 Resource Guides3 and blog posts (developed after September 2008) were reviewed using the Web-based Resource Review Rubric. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected.

The second MSP2 external advisory board meeting was held online via the Elluminate Live! 4 interface on July 15, 2009. An Evaluation Team member observed the meeting.

Website statistics (webmetrics) were collected by the Project Team through Google Analytics5 between May 2009 and April 2010. The Project Team also provided dissemination lists and webinar data to the Evaluation Team.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed in order to develop profiles of user participation. Instruments collected demographic data as well as data describing experiences with digital tools (i.e., MSP2 Ning, other social networks, blogs, wikis). Using demographic data from the Profile Questions Survey, respondents to the MSP2 Website Questionnaire were rated on their level of MSP2 Ning participation. An Evaluation Team member used the MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric, designed specifically for this task, to give members a participation rating between no participation (0) and extensive user (4). Participation rank (PR) scores were used to categorize MSP2 Ning members and make comparisons between levels of participation and attitudes toward digital tools.

Qualitative analysis software, NVivo, was used to perform theory-driven content analysis on interview transcripts and open-response items from the MSP2 Website Questionnaire.

Thematic website reviews were performed monthly from August 2009 to March 2010 to collect data on quality and quantity of participation. Number of groups, topics and responses within groups, forums, topics and responses within forums, and Diigo group members, bookmarks, and

2 Completing the Profile Questions Survey is optional and does not effect membership. 3 MSP2 Resource Guides were originally developed for the NSDL Middle School Portal project and were referred to as Explore in Depth publications for that project and for the Year 1 MSP2 Evaluation Report. 4 Elluminate Live! is a web conferencing program that includes video, audio, and participation tools for a fully interactive web-based seminar environment. 5 Google Analytics is a web-based tool through which website statistics can be collected and analyzed.


visits were counted. Group and forum discussions were randomly selected and assessed for quality of conversation using the MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric.

Web-based resource reviews were conducted in February 2010. Two middle-school educators reviewed MSP2 web-based resources using the Web-based Resource Review Rubric created by the Evaluation Team specifically for this project. All new MSP2 Resource Guides and at least 10% of new posts for each blog (Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science and Connecting News with National Science Education Standards) were reviewed.6 Blog posts were randomly selected for review. Blog posts and Resource Guides were separated and reviewed independently for mathematics and science.

Webmetrics were analyzed for trends in website usage.

6 Resource items dated September 2008 or later are considered new for this project.


Findings

Quantitative and qualitative data were used to evaluate the progress of the project toward project goals. The Goals and Timeline Crosswalk displayed progress on proposed tasks for Year 2. A profile of participation was created using the Profile Questions Survey and the MSP2 Website Questionnaire. Educational Development Center (EDC) data collected from the MSP2 Educator Questionnaire and MSP2 Youth Questionnaire were used to analyze student and educator use of web tools and will be added to focus group data collected for the development of the youth component (Virtual Learning Experiences [VLE]). Webmetrics data, Teacher Leader interviews, and thematic website reviews showed educator use of the MSP2 Ning and its components. Document reviews were conducted to analyze quality of learning resources and dissemination activities were listed and evaluated for impact.

Goals and Timeline

Table 1 shows proposed tasks to be completed in Year 2 and progress on each task in relation to each project goal as reported by the Project Team.

Table 1. Year 2 Proposed Tasks and Progress Crosswalk

Goal Proposed Year 2 Tasks Progress Update remaining math/science EIDs (now referred to as MSP2 Resource Guides)

All existing EIDs were updated and cataloged in the NSDL cataloging system.

Write six new Resource Guides 10 new Resource Guides were created/launched (three in Math; seven in Science).

Goal 1 - Select, organize, develop, contextualize quality learning resources in sci, math, 21st cent. skills, STEM careers, and ml education

Create “on-demand” resource lists Resource lists are continuously generated through MSP2 blogs (51 new blog posts; Webinar Archive page; Student and Teacher Opportunities pages; Tech Tool page).


Goal Proposed Year 2 Tasks Progress

Expand MSP2 collection Blog posts (37 for Expert Voices Middle School Math and Science; 14 for Expert Voices Connecting News and National Science Standards). The metadata from 2,404 MSP2 catalog records was transferred from OSU to the NSDL Cataloging Database (NCS) in August 2009. Since that time, an additional 747 records have been added and 539 deaccessioned. The NCS Search Service was integrated into the MSP2 social network so the collection can be searched.

Goal 1 - Select, organize, develop, contextualize quality learning resources in sci, math, 21st cent. skills, STEM careers, and ml education

Create/refine tutorials/promotional materials/informational tools based on feedback

Bookmark; Oceans Resource Guide (print and online versions; totes to be used as an incentive for membership).

Goal 2 - Design portal that provides access to content, interaction, virtual support for educators and students, facilitate VPLs

Refine MSP1 and MSP2 based on feedback

NSDL Middle School Portal (MSP1) – site was updated to look like the MSP2 social network. Each page includes a link to “Connect to Colleagues” that takes MSP1 users to MSP2; new content from blogs are added via RSS; new wiki-based resource guide added as available. MSP2 Ning continues to be updated–added: a feature that allows users to search the MSP2 collection by keyword and also to conduct canned searches; a polling feature; RSS feeds from external blogs; Groups continue to grow as well as membership.



Continue use of networking and collaboration sites (e.g., Curriki, Tapped In, FaceBook)

MSP2 content continues to be added to the Curriki website Twitter account (54 members); Diigo groups active; continue to have TappedIn monthly chats and content continues to be added; content is being added to Slideshare, Issuu.com, bit.ly, and LearnCentral.

Recruit/train Cohort 2 of Teacher Leaders

Two new Teacher Leaders joined in Summer, 2009 Four other teachers who had been recommended by colleagues were invited. They subsequently declined Invitation/announcement about TL were framed as professional development opportunities. One applicant joined.

Cohort 1 Teacher Leaders (TL) facilitates/recruits/presents/publishes

Four TL have been directly involved in leading three webinars (Sept 2009-March 2010); three TLs presented sessions at the NMSA Annual Conference; Continue to recruit welcome and mentor members of the MSP2 Ning.

Digital story workshop at NMSA meeting

Content topic of summer 2010 workshop to be held at OSU.

Goal 2 - Design portal that provides access to content, interaction, virtual support for educators and students, facilitate VPLs

Continue to design youth VLEs Youth and educator surveys designed and administered (445 youth; 631 educators). Design Team recruited and utilized. VLE template designed and finalizing Drupal implementation.



Develop new face-to-face workshops Continue to develop these – will occur during Summer 2010.

Pilot MSP2 with OSU middle school preservice cohort

A number of OSU preservice teachers became MSP2 members.

Continue to present and exhibit 4 webinars, monthly Tapped In, Second Life events

Two webinars in July, three in August, two in September, three in October, one in November, two in February, two in March, three in April; Second Life events will occur in Year 3.

Continue to publish and share information

Two Journal Articles in Middle Ground Journal; ads in NMSA conference book; ads in Middle School Journal.

Goal 3 - Promote resource discovery and usage through seo, trainings, dissemination

Implement a series of Year 2 online ‘launch’ activities associated with new EIDs, new VLEs, and new MSP2 site features.

Broadcasts, blast emails, middle-E connections announcements; announcements on NMSA home page; OSU EHE biweekly newsletter; EDC listservs and project networks; MSP2 biweekly newsletter; Twitter tweets.

Goal 4 - Collaborate for sustainability

Continue research of sponsorship opportunities, talk with potential sponsors

MSP2 is a finalist along with Curriki in the MacArthur/HASTAC 2010 competition. Exploring various NSF proposals solicitations, while considering foundation grants (e.g., Pepsico Foundation, Xprize foundation). Held conversations with organizations interested in partnering with MSP2 on the current NSDL RFP, including the NSF ITEST Learning Resource Center, the Southern Regional Education Board, and EDC’s Center for Children and Technology.



Pilot/evaluate e-commerce opportunities (surveys, interviews, focus groups)7

MSP2 publications will be able to ‘print on demand’ through MagCloud.

Goal 4 - Collaborate for sustainability

Continue semi-annual advisory board Web conferences

Advisory board meeting July 2009; next meeting – June 3, 2010; continue to send updates.

Continue evaluation efforts (online surveys, focus groups, interviews, web metrics, uptake of content across locations) of deliverables and applications of Web 2.0 tools

Launched “Help Us Help You!” poll; TL interviews; Webmetrics continue; Online Survey.

Goal 5 - Evaluate impact

Share preliminary information

Profile Questions Survey As of March 31, 2010, 835 MSP2 Ning members responded to the Profile Questions Survey developed by the Project Team. A majority of respondents were female (72%, Table 2). Respondents were asked to provide their age and were, on average, 44 years old, with the youngest respondent indicating 15 years old and the oldest indicating 75 years old (data not displayed).

Table 2. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Gender, Spring 2010

Gender n %

Female 576 72 Male 227 28 Total 803 100

A majority of Profile Questions Survey respondents (59%) indicated that they were classroom teachers (Table 3).

7 Because of unforeseen organizational and financial events, NMSA had to postpone all activities related to developing an e-commerce model during FY 2009-2010. Key personnel at NMSA are currently (Spring 2010) engaged in research to develop e-commerce plan.


Table 3. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Position or Title, Spring 2010

Position or Title n % Classroom Teacher (preK-12) 480 59 IT Support Person/Technology Integration Specialist

47 6

College Faculty 43 5 Student 33 4 Pre-service Teacher 37 5 Curriculum Coordinator 21 3 Researcher 20 3 Principal/Assistant Principal 14 2 Informal/Home School Educator 13 2 Librarian/Media Specialist 9 1 Agency/Association Professional 7 1 Other 96 12 Total 820 100

Most respondents (40%) had more than 15 years of teaching experience (Table 4).

Table 4. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Years of Teaching Experience, Spring 2010

Years of Teaching Experience n %

0-1 18 3 2-5 92 18 6-10 105 21 11-15 90 18 15+ 200 40 Total 505 100

Tables 5 and 6 display information about respondents’ classrooms. A majority of respondents (79%) indicated that they taught Grades 6-8. Most respondents (78%) either taught science or mathematics only, or in combination with another subject (66%). Table 5. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Grade Level Assignment, Spring 2010

Grade n % Preschool 10 2

Primary (K-2) 19 3 Elementary (3-5) 59 10 Middle (6-8) 484 79 High (9-12) 44 6 Total 616 100

Note. Respondents could choose more than one option.


Table 6. Profile Questions Survey: Respondent Subject Area, Spring 2010

Discipline Taught Only this

Subject

Taught Subject in Combination with

Other Subjects Science 206 370 Mathematics 119 274 Technology 14 64 English Language Arts 7 56 Social Studies 0 36 Foreign Language 1 5 Enrichment 2 13 Special Education 3 15 Music & Physical Education

0 7

Other 78 133 Total 430 973

Note. Respondents could choose more than one option.

MSP2 Website Questionnaire MSP2 Ning members who responded to the MSP2 Website Questionnaire (n = 59) were categorized using a rubric created by the E & A Center Evaluation Team. Members were given a participation rank (PR) based on their level of activity and participation on the Ning, from no participation (0) to extensive participation (4). MSP2 Website Questionnaire data and Profile Questions Survey data then were analyzed to make comparisons between members at various participation levels.

As shown in Table 7, females comprised groups with higher levels of participation.

Table 7. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Gender by Participation Rank

Participant Rank

n Male Female

% % 0 17 47 53 1 14 29 71 2 17 12 88 3 or 4 11 9 91

A majority of respondents (58%) identified themselves as PreK-12 classroom teachers. Ninety-one percent of classroom teacher respondent’s indicated that they taught Grades 6-8. Table 8 displays respondents’ position or title for each PR group. Classroom teachers tended to participate at higher levels than did other respondents.


Table 8. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Title by Participation Rank

Participation Rank n

Cla

ssro

om

Teac

her

Lib

rari

an/M

edia

S

peci

alis

t

Cu

rric

ulu

m

Coo

rdin

ator

Tech

nol

ogy

Spe

cial

ist

Col

lege

Fac

ult

y

Res

earc

her

Stu

den

t

Info

rmal

Ed

uca

tor

“Oth

er”

% % % % % % % % %

0 17 53 0 6 0 12 0 6 0 24

1 14 71 0 7 7 7 0 0 0 7

2 17 76 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 6

3 or 4 11 73 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

As shown in Table 9, teachers who participated at higher levels typically had more years of teaching experience.

Table 9. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Teaching Experience by Participation Rank

PR n Teaching

Experience

0 9 10.6 years

1 9 13.7 years

2 9 16.0 years

3 or 4 7 17.4 years Forty-five percent of mathematics teachers were categorized as non-participating, while only 15% of science teachers were rated as non-participants. Forty-percent of those who taught both science and mathematics participated at high levels (Table 10).


Table 10. MSP2 Website Questionnaire: Respondent Subject Area by Participation Rank

PR n Mathematics

Mathematics and

Technology Science and Mathematics Science Other

0 8 4 (45%) 1 (100%) 0 2 (15%) 1 (25%) 1 9 2 (22%) 0 2 (40%) 4 (31%) 1 (25%) 2 8 1 (11%) 0 1 (20%) 4 (31%) 2 (50%) 3 or 4 7 2 (22%) 0 2 (40%) 3 (23%) 0 Total 32 9 1 5 13 4

Content analysis was performed on open-response items for all respondents to make comparisons between levels of participation and attitudes towards web tools. Respondents with a PR of 0 or 1 were more likely to state that they were new to the MSP2 Ning social network. One respondent with a PR of 1 stated, “I haven’t been a member long. Many things I have not explored.” A majority of all respondents (63%) indicated that resources were one feature of the website that they found most helpful and used most often. A participant with a PR of 2 stated, “The resources feature is where I continue to go to when searching for curriculum related to Math and Science.” Blogs were identified most often (26%) as the least helpful and least used feature. Features indicated as most and least helpful were common among all respondents. Half of the respondents with a PR of 0 indicated that they had little to no previous experience with online social networking whereas only 18% of respondents with a PR of 3 or 4 expressed this lack of experience. “Time” was indicated most often as the reason for not participating actively on the MSP2 Ning and for not participating in online social networking in general. Other reasons given for lack of participation included fear of “sounding unprofessional,” lack of technical expertise, and “grave concerns about personal privacy and Big Brother.” MSP2 Educator Questionnaire The MSP2 Educator Questionnaire was developed by Project Team members from the Educational Development Center (EDC) and made available online between April 30 and June 15, 2009. The EDC distributed the questionnaire link via partner websites (NMSA website, MSP2 Ning) as well as on their own networks such as the ITEST Learning Resource Center.8 A total of 617 respondents completed the questionnaire. A summary of the findings is provided here with the EDC’s analysis available in Appendix I.

A majority of respondents (70%) were middle school educators in science or mathematics. When asked about technology use, a majority of the respondents (75%) indicated use of a computer in the classroom, while 37% of the respondents had used a SMARTBoard (or similar) in their classroom. Websites used with students included Brainpop,9 Discovery,10 and NASA.11 Respondents indicated that they found websites through search engines (56%) or from colleague, parent, or youth recommendations (27%). Respondents (18%) indicated a lack of available computers as an obstacle to using technology in their classrooms.

8 ITEST Learning Resource Center: http://itestlrc.edc.org/ 9 Brainpop: http://www.brainpop.com 10 Discovery: http://discovery.com 11 NASA: http://www.nasa.gov


The search engine, Google,12 was the website respondents indicated was preferred by students for educational or academic help. Others included Brainpop, Ask,13 Funbrain,14 and Wikipedia.15 Respondents indicated that website features most engaging to students included games (29%) and youth-regulated pacing (25%). When asked how their use of technology in the classroom impacted their students, most respondents indicated that the use of technology engaged and motivated students (19%) and provided another way of learning (12%). MSP2 Youth Questionnaire The MSP2 Youth Questionnaire was developed by the Project Team and was made available online between April 30 and June 15, 2009. The questionnaire was distributed to students by participating middle school educators who accessed the link through partner websites (i.e., NMSA website, MSP2 Ning) as well as the EDC’s own networks such as the ITEST Learning Resource Center. A total of 440 student respondents completed the questionnaire. A summary of the findings is provided with the EDC’s analysis available in Appendix J.

A majority of respondents were male (49%) and identified themselves as White (52%). Respondents were relatively evenly distributed among Grades 6, 7, and 8. Most respondents indicated that they had computer access (68%) and an Internet connection (65%) in their homes. Students indicated playing online games most often as a reason for using computers for entertainment and basic computer applications, such as word processing and email, as their most frequent educational use. Of those respondents who indicated using social networking sites (43%), more than half (58%) indicated logging on at least once a day.

For educational purposes, student respondents indicated using computers for science courses monthly (35%) or weekly (28%), whereas for mathematics courses hardly ever (39%) or never (24%). Students indicated using Google most often for science or math schoolwork.

Respondents indicated ease of navigation most often as both a characteristic of their favorite website as well as a characteristic that defined youth-oriented websites.

Respondents indicated being comfortable using technology for many tasks (e.g., to organize information, to solve everyday problems, to communicate with other people). Many respondents (27%) agreed with the statement, “For the most part, I believe the information found on the Internet.” Webmetrics While different components of the portal16 were active for varying lengths of time prior to project funding, the MSP2 Ning social network was launched in January 2009. Active components prior to project funding included Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science Blog (February 28, 2008) and Connecting News with National Science Education Standards Blog (September 5, 2007). Webmetrics included in this evaluation report were collected between May 2009 and April 2010. Webmetrics reports included the number of visits to the site, how visitors found the website (traffic sources), and the average number of pages viewed during each visit. These data are described for each component including the Ning and were reported by quarter for Year 2.

12 Google: http://www.google.com 13 Ask: http://www.ask.com 14 Funbrain: http://www.funbrain.com 15 Wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.com 16 http://msteacher2.org


MSP2 Ning Social Networking Website Webmetrics have been collected for the MSP2 Ning since its launch on January 1, 2009. Data analyzed for the Year 2 evaluation were collected between May 2009 and April 2010. The number of new visitors between May 2009 and April 2010 increased by 210% (Table 11). Direct traffic17 to the website decreased from the first quarter to the fourth quarter (from 34% to 26%). Visitors from referral sites also decreased during this time (from 38% to 25%). However, visitors referred by search engines increased significantly (from 27% to 49%) during the same time period. Average page views decreased from 3.9 pages to 2.5 pages between the first and fourth quarters. Table 11. MSP2 Ning Visits, May 2009 - January 2010

First Quarter (May – Jul 2009)

Second Quarter (Aug – Oct 2009)

Third Quarter (Nov 2009 – Jan

2010)

Fourth Quarter (Feb – Apr 2010)

Total Visits 5646 14114 12602 14131

New Visits 3331 9597 9073 10316

% of Visits from Direct Traffic

34% 29% 22% 26%

% of Visits from Referring Sites

38% 33% 24% 25%

% of Visits from Search Engines

27% 39% 54% 49%

Average Pages Viewed per Visit

3.9 3.0 2.4 2.5

New and Returning Visitors Comparison

Webmetrics data were analyzed for differences in MSP2 Ning site usage between new and returning visitors to help describe a profile of participation. Monthly usage trends were analyzed for number of visits, average page views per visit, and average time spent on the website. Figures 1 through 3 show these comparisons and indicate trends.

Number of Visits

As shown in Figure 1, the number of visits increased for both new and returning visitors until August 2009. Then the number of visits for returning visitors leveled off while the number of visits for new visitors continued to increase until October 2009. The trend for the two groups was similar for the time period with somewhat more fluctuation for new visitors.

17 Direct traffic refers to website visits that were a result of going straight to the URL as opposed to being linked to the website through another website or search engine.


Figure 1. Comparison of number of visits of new and returning visitors to MSP2 Ning, May 2009 – April 2010. Average Page Views per Visit

Returning visitors, on average, visited twice as many pages per visit than did new visitors between May 2009 and April 2010. However, there was a decrease of about 40% in page views for both groups during this time (Figure 2).


Figure 2. Comparison of average page views per visit of new and returning visitors to MSP2 Ning, May 2009 – April 2010. Average Time Spent on MSP2 Ning

The average time spent on MSP2 Ning (Figure 3) was about 60% higher for returning members than for new visitors from May 2009 to April 2010. However, returning visitors average time on the site decreased (by 4:14 minutes) more than the average time for new visitors decreased (by 1:03 minutes). Average time on MSP2 Ning increased for both groups following winter academic breaks.


Figure 3. Comparison of average time spent by new and returning visitors on MSP2 Ning, May 2009 – April 2010.

Connecting News with National Science Education Standards Blog The Connecting News to the National Science Education Standards Blog18 was created for the first NSDL Middle School Portal project as a communication forum for middle school educators to disseminate and discuss current events and other related information as teaching opportunities. Since September 1, 2008, the MSP2 project has hosted the Connecting News with National Science Education Standards blog and periodically posted new topics based on current science news and events. Topics have included current events such as climate change and alternative energy and their connection to Grades 5-8 National Science Education Standards, as well as, suggestions for middle school inquiry lessons. The first blog entry was on September 5, 2007. As shown in Table 12, the total number of visitors to the Connecting News with National Science Education Standards Blog during Year 2 increased 42% from the first quarter to the second quarter, decreased 10% from the second to the third quarter, and then increased (8%) from the third to fourth quarter. These trends appeared to follow summer and winter academic breaks. The majority of visits to the blog were from new visitors. Traffic sources (i.e., visits from direct traffic, from referring sites, and from search engines) remained relatively consistent across the four quarters. Average pages viewed during each visit also changed very little.

18 http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/connectingnews


Table 12. Connecting News to the National Science Education Standards Blog Visits, May 2009 -January 2010

First Quarter

(May – Jul 2009) Second Quarter

(Aug – Oct 2009)

Third Quarter (Nov 2009 –

Jan 2010)


Total Visits 4294 6098 5497 5911

New Visits 3950 5671 5112 5379


7% 4% 4% 5%

% of Visits from Referring Sites 20% 15% 16% 19%


73% 82% 80% 76%


1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7

Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science Blog

The Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science Blog19 was launched as part of the NSDL Middle School Portal project. The Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science Blog has been hosted by the MSP2 project since September 1, 2008 to help middle school mathematics and science teachers find online resources for use in the classroom. The first blog entry was February 28, 2008. Table 13 shows that the total number of visitors to the Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science Blog increased 69% from the first quarter to the second quarter, decreased 24% from the second to the third quarter, and increased again (6%) from the third to the fourth quarter. These trends appeared to follow summer and winter academic breaks. The majority of visits were from new visitors. Traffic sources remained relatively consistent across the four quarters. Over 83% of the visits were from search engines. Average pages viewed during each visit were consistent (2.3 pages) across the four quarters.

19 http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/middle-school-math-science


Table 13. Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science Blog, May 2009 -January 2010

First Quarter

(May – Jul 2009) Second Quarter

(Aug – Oct 2009)


Jan 2010)


Total Visits 12007 20278 15376 16300

New Visits 10806 18250 13838 14507


4% 4% 4% 5%


11% 8% 9% 12%


85% 88% 87% 83%


2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

MSP2 Wiki Pages As part of the MSP2 project, content originally created for the NSDL Middle School Portal project, and available online in static form, was migrated to a wiki and linked to the MSP2 Ning. This allowed MSP2 Ning members to modify resources from the NSDL website and to create new content. The MSP2 wikis were launched February 1, 2009. Webmetrics collected from May 2009 to April 2010 showed a dramatic increase in the total number of visits from the first quarter to the fourth quarter (from 1,574 to 19,621, Table 14). The number of new visits also increased from the first quarter to the third quarter proportionally (from 1,101 to 17,463). While visits from referring sites and direct traffic decreased from the first quarter to the fourth quarter, visits from search engines significantly increased (from 7% to 78%). Average pages viewed during each visit decreased from the first quarter to the fourth quarter (from 4.0 to 1.8 pages.)


Table 14. MSP2 Wiki Page Visits, May 2009 - January 2010

First Quarter (May – Jul 2009)

Second Quarter (Aug – Oct 2009)


Jan 2010)


Total Visits 1574 14155 16970 19621

New Visits 1101 12456 15103 17463


32% 9% 10% 6%


61% 24% 16% 16%


7% 67% 74% 78%


4.0 2.0 1.8 1.8

Teacher Leader Interviews MSP2 Teacher Leaders (TL) were interviewed in March 2010. An Evaluation Team member conducted four interviews by phone using the MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol developed specifically for this project. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using NVivo for topic driven content analysis. Teacher Leader Demographics Four Teacher Leaders (two male and two female) have teaching experience in science, mathematics, or technology between 9 and 26 years. All had extensive experience with both personal and professional Web 2.0 tools, including social networks. One TL recalled early use of educational technology stating, “I was one of the pioneers of using Internet in my classroom back in the very early 1990s when nobody could have an account unless it was attached to a university or the government.” Two TLs had participated in this project for 6 months, while the remaining two had participated for a full year. Teacher Leader Responsibilities Interview transcripts revealed that Teacher Leaders saw their main responsibilities as recruiting, increasing participation, generating discussion, and presenting webinars for the MSP2 Ning. One TL discussed recruitment of new members stating, “I also [spent]… a lot of the time at the National Middle School Conference giving out stuff about MSP2, talking about MSP2, wearing my button and that kind of thing, trying to get more interest.” All four TLs spoke extensively about the responsibility of encouraging members to become active participants. Ways in which this was done are discussed in greater detail in this section under Participation. TLs reported generating discussion among members by sharing their own experiences and ideas used in the classroom. A TL described his aim for discussion prompts stating, “…the things I focus on are things that are readily available to teachers specifically, like shareware and freeware and things of that nature.” When asked about responsibilities of the position, one TL mentioned that he was scheduled to present a webinar shortly after the interview.


Comparisons of Social Networks Teacher Leaders were asked to compare the MSP2 Ning with other social networks in which they had participated. Two TLs indicated that MSP2 Ning members were less active on the site when compared to members of other social networks. One TL framed the need to increase member participation as the next phase saying, “…we’ve got the numbers now we need to try to get enough topics flowing to keep the interest that are getting people comfortable enough to chat more, they’re still kind of shy in a lot of respects.” Another TL indicated that the MSP2 Ning was less active than other sites he was involved with because MSP2 Ning membership was much smaller than the others. One TL compared the MSP2 Ning to other social networks in terms of available resources. She stated:

…the difference I noticed to this Ning as opposed to the other Nings, the other Nings, all the resources are what they have, where our Ning, becomes a link to other resources, so it actually channels in more information than just what’s on the Ning itself, so the resources go beyond just what the people themselves bring because there’s the connection to the digital library….

Participation Teacher Leaders were asked to characterize MSP2 Ning member participation. All four TLs indicated that member participation had “…a long way to go before it’s what we all envisioned….” One TL characterized member participation as voyeuristic stating, “…I would suggest that probably most of them just kind of go around and more or less lurk and kind of check things out….” The TLs indicated that they saw increased member participation over the course of their MSP2 Ning experience. One TL observed, “When I first started there wasn’t as much discussion, but I’ve seen more and more discussion….”

TLs mentioned targeted emails and webinars, as well as welcome messaging, as effective strategies they used to motivate members to be more active on the Ning. One TL explained the welcome message strategy stating, “…the first step is getting them to feel like ‘I can play here,’ you know, so [we] welcome them right off the bat saying ‘hi’….”

MSP2 Ning Features Interview transcripts revealed that Teacher Leaders felt that the features most helpful to members included those that connected to the resources, such as digital library, webinars, and discussion forums. One TL mentioned peer discussions in which teachers expressed their appreciation for the MSP2 Ning Resource Guides. Three TLs mentioned discussion forums as a helpful resource. One TL explained how these worked and why they were helpful, stating:

…from my perspective, the message boards, I know that as a teacher myself that’s the part that’s most helpful to me…I said, in the beginning of the school year, here’s the free and shareware that I use in my classroom, and then I talked a little about each piece, I’d go, ‘what do you use’ and I was able to get several new tools for my classroom just because I started the ball rolling but then others contributed…I can think of three specific pieces of software that I used this year that was directly impacted by what I got from our community.

Two TLs mentioned the webinars as helpful features. One TL explained why she thought webinars were helpful, stating, “…the free webinars…I think that they are just tremendous resources and anybody who knows anything about webinars know that they are tremendously expensive generally, and for us to be able to offer these for free, I think is just terrific.” The other TL recalled webinars he hosted that had between 12 and 50 people attending.


Improvements All four TL agreed that increased participation would make the MSP2 Ning community better. One TL described the site as “young and new” stating that, “…when the numbers improve, which they have steadily grown, I think the community will become more and more strong.” One TL noted that adding more content and events may “draw them in.”

Face-to-Face vs. Web-based Professional Development TLs mentioned time, collegiality, anonymity, sharing, and technological barriers as factors to be considered when providing professional development through a web-based format.

Time was seen as both a disadvantage and an advantage. One TL thought conveying information via web-based communication took more time than face-to-face interactions. He explained this view stating:

You can’t automatically address every specific question a teacher has…you just have to kind of take your time and chip away at it, like there’s been some times where we’ve helped out folks where if I was there I could have helped them over the course of 10 minutes, but because we’ve had to keep going back and forth to be more clear, more specific about a situation that 10 minute conversation may turn into 40 minutes worth of postings back and forth….

Two TLs saw time as an advantage. One TL felt “…the time it takes to just drive to the college and find a parking space, I thought, how much time am I wasting just doing that when I can do so much of my college work online, and that becomes one of the considerations of the 21st century.” Another TL considered teachers’ schedules stating, “…if somebody’s got a problem at 3 in the morning and they send it out, if there’s somebody on it then, they might get an answer at 3 in the morning whereas they certainly wouldn’t get an answer until tomorrow otherwise….”

One TL regarded the decrease of collegiality within the school setting as a disadvantage of web-based professional development stating, “…you’re very collegial with the people you are connecting with socially online, but you don’t see them as closely… I’m not going down the hall to talk to the other teachers as much as I would’ve in the past to get ideas and things like that….”

One TL mentioned technology as a disadvantage of web-based professional development. She discussed the balance between catering to members with more experience with Web 2.0 tools and those new to technology, stating, “…if you offer more tools for the more advanced learner, it becomes overwhelming and it frustrates the ones who are less familiar, and so it becomes a difficult balance.” She later added, “I don’t know if there is a way to make the Ning less intimidating, you can reduce tools but then that limits for other people.”

TLs mentioned anonymity and sharing as advantages of web-based professional development. One TL stated, “…you don’t have that fear of failure…the anonymity tries to allev[iate] some of that.” Another TL discussed the sharing of ideas from different perspectives, “…I can start to see the innovative ideas that other states are doing, it’s like, why don’t we do that out here in [omitted], I can start to bring out ideas from other places that are a little bit different from what we’ve all heard and done over and over again, so, I like the fact that by having something that’s online you can connect to people from farther distances.” She later added that a member from Italy had attended a webinar event she hosted.

Member Problems or Concerns Teacher Leaders were asked about problems or concerns they may have addressed for MSP2 Ning members. The only concern expressed to one TL was regarding a lost password. The TLs


could not remember any other instances in which they needed to address a problem or concern regarding use of MSP2 Ning. Document Review

Two middle-school educators reviewed MSP2 web-based resources using the Web-based Resource Review Rubric created by the Evaluation Team specifically for this project. All new MSP2 Resource Guides and at least 10% of new posts for each blog (Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science and Connecting News with National Science Education Standards) were reviewed.20 Blog posts were randomly selected for review. Blog posts and Resource Guides were separated and reviewed independently for mathematics and science.

Resource Guides

MSP2 Resource Guides were developed for this MSP2 project in September 2008, hence all MSP2 Resource Guides dated September 2008 or later were reviewed for this evaluation. Reviewers assessed the Resource Guides within their discipline, using the Web-based Resource Review Rubric, for connection to standards, relevance, adaptability, accuracy, currency, coverage, navigability, and appeal (Table 15). A middle-school science educator reviewed eight science Resource Guides and gave an average score of 3.66 (A-) to the resources. Navigability received the lowest score. Several links were noted as missing or broken. A middle-school mathematics educator reviewed the five mathematics Resource Guides and awarded an average score of 3.77 (A-). Research/Readings received the lowest score although the reviewer indicated that the category did not apply to some of the publications. Full reviews for each RESOURCE GUIDES can be found in Appendix K. Table 15. Resource Review Average Scores for Science and Mathematics MSP2 Resource Guides, Spring 2010

Criteria Science Mathematics

Standards A-

(3.83) A-

(3.83)

Relevance A-

(3.67) A-

(3.83)

Adaptability A-

(3.83) A-

(3.67)

Accuracy A-

(3.83) A

(4.0)

Research/Readings A-

(3.67) B-

(2.60)

Currency A-

(3.83) A

(4.0)

Coverage A-

(3.67) A

(4.0)

20 Resource items dated September 2008 or later are considered new for this project.



Navigability B-

(2.83) A

(4.0)

Appeal A-

(3.75) A

(4.0)

Mean A- (3.66)

A- (3.77)

Blogs Two blogs were linked to MSP2 Ning. The Exemplary Resources for Middle School Math and Science blog has been hosted by the MSP2 Project since September 1, 2008. Fifty-two (21 science, 27 mathematics, and 5 technology) blog entries were posted between September 1, 2008 and January 13, 2010. The Connecting News to the National Science Education Standards blog also has been hosted by the MSP2 Project since September 1, 2008 although the first entry was not posted until October 8, 2008. Thirty-nine science themed blogs were created between this date and December 16, 2009. Reviewers randomly chose 10% of the blog entries within their discipline and using the Web-based Resource Review Rubric, assessed them for connection to standards, relevance, adaptability, accuracy, currency, coverage, navigability, and appeal (Table 16). Full reviews for each of the science and mathematics blogs can be found in Appendix L. Six science blog entries scored an average of 3.71 (A-). Reviewer comments revealed missed opportunities such as, “downgraded only due to the recent earthquake news omitted due to the lack of updating of site.” The reviewer also suggested discussing controversies tied to some of the themes in the blog entries such as “Origin of Species” and “Polar Bears and Climate Change” adding further comments such as, “a lack of response to the blogger who commented about the cold winter in Ohio indicating that global warming could therefore not be happening.” Seven mathematics blog entries were reviewed and scored an average of 3.31 (B+). Two categories received low scores: Research/readings and coverage. Comments indicated most of the blog entries reviewed did not mention research addressing the topic. The reviewer offered suggestions such as, “may want to show research showing the benefits of visual thinking in mathematics.” One suggestion regarding coverage stated, “as the blog posts expand in topic and frequency, it would be a good idea to connect to previous/future posts….” Table 16. Resource Review Average Scores for Science and Mathematics Blog Entries, Spring 2010


Standards A-

(3.67) B

(3.07)

Relevance A-

(3.67) A-

(3.67)

Adaptability A-

(3.67) A-

(3.57)

Accuracy A-

(3.67) A-

(3.57)

Research/Readings A-

(3.50) C+

(2.14)



Currency A-

(3.67) A-

(3.83)

Coverage A-

(3.67) C+

(2.21)

Navigability A-

(3.83) A-

(3.71)

Appeal A

(4.0) A

(4.0)

Mean A- (3.71)

B+ (3.31)

Thematic Website Review Beginning in August 2009, a monthly thematic website review was conducted on the MSP2 Ning to collect data describing quantity and quality of participation. Therefore, quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed. In March 2010, the MSP2 Ning had 735 members, almost twice as many as in August 2009 (370). Members represented 23 countries, including the United States (681), Canada (10), and the United Kingdom (11), but also the Philippines (4), Bhutan (2), and Sudan (1).

Between August 2009 and March 2010, four new Groups21 were added, making the total 11, with the membership of each group ranging from 4 to 63 members. The new groups were Working with English Speakers of Other Languages, Middle Childhood Science Methods, MSP2 Book Club, and Educational and Action Research. One of the original discussion groups, Integrating Technology, had the largest membership (63). Within this group, there were nine discussion topics, five of which were threaded.22 Topics with the most responses included What Kind of Freeware/Shareware do you use? (15 responses) and iPods (10 responses).

Seven group discussions were randomly chosen and evaluated for quality of conversation using the MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric. Posts from Project Team members initiated three of the seven discussions. Project Team members, including Teacher Leaders, were very active participants in these discussions. Ning member participation, and therefore conversation quality, was low for all except one discussion in the Math Group called Math is the bomb! This discussion, regarding student “’hatred’ and fear” of math and how they are “reinforced by parents who don’t expect their kids to be good at math because they were never good at math,” was posted by a Ning member and involved 10 responses from seven participants. The participants shared opinions and suggestions for reducing the “stigma of math” creating a high- quality conversation.

The number of forums did not change much between August 2009 and March 2010. One new forum was added, NMSA Conference Sessions. However, as shown in Table 17, the number of topics and responses within each forum increased during this time period.

21 MSP2 Groups are composed of MSP2 Ning members, who have formed a group around a common experience (e.g., Science, Math Teacher Education, At the District Level). 22 For the purposes of this evaluation, a threaded discussion is one in which there is more than one response to the main post.


Table 17. Discussion Forum Topics and Replies, August 2009 and March 2010

Category Topics August 2009

Topics March 2010*

Responses August 2009

Responses March 2010*

Integrating Technology 6 18 37 75 Teaching Science 1 5 1 27 Teaching Mathematics 2 9 23 55 Uncategorized 5 12 11 40 NMSA Conference Sessions

- 17

- 10

*Cumulative totals. Eleven forum discussions were randomly chosen and evaluated for quality of conversation using the MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric. Project Team members, including Teacher Leaders, posted 5 of the 11 discussion topics, 2 of which were notes and observations from conference meetings. Three of the 11 discussion topics (Social networking sites in the middle school classroom, Science fair ideas, and Need help on a transition unit for 5th graders moving to middle school!) were posted by participants and elicited high-quality, active conversations.

MSP2 Ning blogs were removed in November 2009 due to illicit use but were added back to the website in February 2010 after stricter security processes were put in place. Number of blog posts, number of comments, and quality of comments were collected from August 2009 to November 2009 (Table 18). Twenty additional blog posts were added to the MSP2 blog in this 3-month time period. Although the number of blog posts with responses increased, the percentage of those with more than two responses decreased from 80% to 46%. This decrease indicated that although blog posts were being responded to, the posts were not eliciting online conversation. The most popular blog posts, based upon number of responses, were Problem based learning meets needs? (22 responses) and So, I’m starting a STEM course… (13 comments). Table 18. MSP2 Blog Activity, August 2009 and November 2009.

Activity August 2009 November 2009* Number of Posts 61 81 Number of Posts with Responses 20 39 Number of Posts with More Than Two Responses

16 18

*Cumulative totals. Between August and November 2009, six blog posts23 were evaluated using the MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric. Three of the posts were brief descriptions of webinars that had been held. These posts did not elicit quality conversation. Two of the posts So I’m starting a STEM course… and Technology for discussion, elicited medium-quality conversations involving Project Team members along with MSP2 Ning members. The blog post, Problem based learning meets needs? elicited high-quality conversation including robust sharing of classroom teacher participant experiences with the topic. Project Team members, including Teacher Leaders, were very active in all online conversations (group discussions, discussion forums, and blogs). Not only did they post the majority of the topics, their responses were quick, detailed, and many were geared toward eliciting further conversation. Member participation was low except for specific individual topics that seemed to 23 Only blogs that included more than two responses were evaluated.


elicit high-quality conversation. Many resources are shared in discussions where participants and Project Team members share books and online applications that they have used in their classrooms. As shown in Table 19, Diigo24 members, bookmarks, and visits increased for each category (i.e., Math, Science, and Professional Resources) between August 2009 and February 2010.25 Math Diigo groups went from least to most popular during this time period.

Table 19. Diigo Group Members, Bookmarks and Visits, August 2009 and February 2010

Group Members August 2009

Members February

2010*

Bookmarks August 2009

Bookmarks February

2010*

Visits August 2009

Visits February

2010*

Math 9 19 93 106 91 155 Science 11 17 39 43 59 95 Professional Resources

12 13

108 109

61 71

*Cumulative totals. Dissemination Project Team members disseminated MSP2 project information at the following conferences, meetings, and online events: Presentations at Local and National Conferences and Meetings

• ITSCO/TechColumbus Education Innovation Mixer (Columbus, OH) (5/6/09) • School Library Journal Annual Meeting (Washington, DC) (10/1/09) • National Middle School Association (NMSA) Annual Conference (Indianapolis, IN)

(11/4-11/7/09) • National Science Digital Library (NSDL) Annual Meeting (Washington, DC)

(11/17-11/19/09) • Climate Literacy Digital Network Conference Call (1/26/10) • National Science Education Leadership Association Annual (NSELA) Meeting

(Philadelphia, PA) (3/17/10) • Society for Informational Technology & Teacher Education (SITE) International

Conference (San Diego, CA) (3/29-4/2/10) • National Girls Collaborative Project (Hartford, CT) (4/5/10) • Collegiate Middle Level Association Annual Meeting (Westerville, OH) (4/17/10)

Promotional Materials Distributed at Conferences and Meetings

• Center of Science and Industry (COSI) Teacher Fair (Columbus, OH) (8/4/09) • National Middle School Association (NMSA) Annual Conference (Indianapolis, IN)

(11/4-11/7/09) • Science Education Council of Ohio (SECO) Conference (Columbus, OH) (2/25-2/26/10)

24 Diigo is a social bookmarking website through which members can share favorite website links for similar topics. 25 Diigo group information was removed from the MSP2 Ning in February 2010.


Webinars Project Team members presented a total of 14 webinars during Year 2 using the Elluminate Live! interface. Webinars were advertised through the MSP2 Ning, as well as the National Middle School Association (NMSA) website (www.nmsa.org), the Middle E-Connections electronic newsletter, and the What’s New from the NMSA electronic newsletter. At the conclusion of the webinars, participants were asked to complete a 7-item questionnaire evaluating their experience. Data from eight webinars were available and a summary is included in this report.26 Webinar evaluation reports provided by the Project Team are included in Appendix M.

Webinar 1: Interactive Notebooks The first webinar of Year 2, Interactive Notebooks, was presented by Teacher Leader Todd Williamson on July 29, 2009. Although 19 participants attended the webinar, only four responded to the questionnaire. Of the four respondents, two indicated their roles as library, resource, or technology coordinator, one indicated teacher/classroom educator, and one indicated other. Two respondents indicated that they primarily worked in Grades 5-8. All four respondents indicated that the examples and illustrations were a beneficial aspect of the session; three respondents indicated that the presentation of the session was beneficial; and two respondents indicated the Q & A section was helpful. All four respondents rated the quality of the webinar as excellent. Respondents indicated that the examples of ways to use specific digital tools was the most useful information attained from the webinar. One respondent indicated having technical difficulties during the session. Other topics requested by respondents included Interactive Whiteboards, Twitter in the classroom, and Voicethreads.

Webinar 2: Moodle for Middle School On August 5, 2009 a second Year 2 webinar session, Moodle for Middle School, was presented by Teacher Leader Tom Jenkins and involved 52 participants; 11 respondents completed the evaluation questionnaire. Most of the respondents (73%) indicated their primary role as teacher/classroom educator, while 27% of the respondents indicated library, resource, or technology coordinator. Examples and illustrations was chosen most often (73%) as the most beneficial aspect of the session, followed by a tie between presentation and Q & A (27%). A majority of respondents (55%) rated the session as excellent, while 36% indicated a very good rating. One respondent rated the session as good. One respondent relayed “confidence to try Moodle” while another felt “encouraged” to use Moodle with middle school students as outcomes of the webinar. One respondent had experience with Moodle but was happy to learn “…some other ways of doing things.” Other respondents mentioned appreciation for links, resources, new information, and examples for trying Moodle in their classrooms. Most respondents (91%) did not have any technical difficulties during the session, but one respondent indicated otherwise. Respondents indicated that they would like to see more information on Web 2.0 tools in the classroom in future webinars.

Webinar 3: Digital Storytelling Digital Storytelling was the topic of the third Year 2 webinar. The webinar was presented by Project Team member Jessica Fries-Gaither on August 12, 2009. Fourteen participants joined the session of which half completed the evaluation. Most respondents (57%) were teachers/classroom educators. One respondent indicated researcher and two respondents indicated other as their role in education. Two respondents indicated they primarily worked in Grades 5-8, while the rest of the respondents (72%) indicated other. Examples and illustrations

26 No data were collected for Webinars 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12. Only one participant responded to the evaluation for Webinar 13.


was chosen frequently (71%) as the most beneficial aspect of the session, followed by presentation (57%), Q & A (43%), and other (29%). A majority of the respondents (71%) rated the webinar as excellent, while one respondent indicated very good, and another indicated good. Links for teacher support, start up tips, practical ideas, and steps in developing digital stories were noted as helpful information from the session. None of the respondents indicated having technical problems during the webinar. Opportunities to share struggles and successes with digital storytelling, a session on Voicethread, and digital storytelling tools for visually handicapped students were indicated as ideas for future webinars.

Webinar 5: Interactive Whiteboards Fifteen participants attended the Interactive Whiteboards webinar presented by Teacher Leader Todd Williamson on September 16, 2009. Four participants completed the webinar evaluation. Half of the respondents indicated their primary role as library, resource, or technology coordinator, while the other half indicated either teacher/classroom educator or other. Each respondent indicated a different work environment (elementary grades (preK-4), Grades 5-8, school district, and other). All respondents indicated examples and illustrations as the most beneficial aspect of the session. Other beneficial aspects noted were presentation (67%) and Q & A (33%). Two respondents rated the session as very good and one respondent rated it excellent. One respondent indicated having technical difficulties during the webinar. One participant was “glad to see there are others out there who think the same as we do” and was glad to have “great resources.” Another participant was appreciative of “sites to visit for more information.” Using Google Apps in the classroom was suggested as a topic for a future webinar.

Webinar 7: Diigo: Social Bookmarking External Advisory Board member, David Hayward, presented the seventh Year 2 webinar on October 7, 2009. Of 18 participants, 6 completed the webinar evaluation questionnaire. A majority of respondents (67%) indicated their primary role as library, resource, or technology coordinator. The remaining respondents indicated other. Most respondents (67%) indicated other as the primary work setting, while one indicated Grades 5-8 and another indicated Grades 9-12. All respondents indicated presentation as the most valuable aspect of the webinar, while many indicated examples and illustrations (67%) or Q & A (50%). Respondents rated the webinar excellent (83%) or very good (17%). Respondents indicated that helpful aspects of the session included differences between Diigo and Delicious27, how to show students how to use Diigo for research, and how to use Diigo tools. None of the respondents indicated having technical difficulties. A follow-up session on how to use Diigo in the classroom was suggested as a topic for a future webinar event.

Webinar 8: UDL PDQ External Advisory Board member, Mindy Johnson, presented the eighth webinar on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) on October 21, 2009. Eleven participants attended and six completed the evaluation questionnaire. Half of the respondents indicated their primary role as administrator. One respondent indicated teacher/classroom educator and two indicated other. A majority of the respondents (83%) indicated their primary work setting as other, while one respondent indicated Grades 5-8, and another respondent indicated Grades 9-12. All respondents indicated presentation as the most valuable aspect of the webinar, while many also indicated examples and illustrations (67%). Half of the respondents gave the webinar a quality rating of excellent and the other half indicated very good. Respondents indicated that learning about free UDL tools available through the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST),28 detailed information on UDL, and suggestions for getting additional help on the topic were the most

27 Diigo and Delicious are two examples of social networking tools. 28 CAST: http://www.cast.org/about/index.html


helpful aspects of the webinar. Half of the participants experienced technical difficulties during the webinar. Algebra software was the only suggestion listed for future webinars.

Webinar 9: Laboratory Safety National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) Science Safety Consultant, Ken Roy, presented the ninth webinar titled Laboratory Safety on November 12, 2009. Twelve participants attended and six completed the evaluation questionnaire. Half of the respondents indicated their primary role as teacher/classroom educator and one-third indicated student. A majority of the respondents (67%) indicated their primary work setting as Grades 5-8 while one indicated elementary grades (preK-4). Half of the respondents gave the webinar a quality rating of excellent and the other half indicated very good. Respondents indicated that misconceptions about laboratory safety were clarified and new safety procedures were learned from the webinar. One respondent “appreciated the pictures” that could be used to identify hazards. One-third of the participants experienced technical difficulties during the webinar. Respondents suggested possible topics for future webinars such as ways of integrating Project Wild and Project Wet into state science standards and examples of lessons and hands-on activities to use in the classroom.

Webinar 14: Digital Tools and Math Twenty participants attended the Digital Tools and Math webinar presented by Teacher Leaders Tom Jenkins and Eric Beiderbeck on March 23, 2010. All participants completed the webinar evaluation. Most of the respondents (40%) indicated their primary role as teacher/classroom educator while 25% indicated library, resource, or technology coordinator. Half of the respondents indicated other as their primary work environment with the remaining respondents distributed relatively evenly amongst Grades 5-8, Grades 9-12, and school district. Most of the respondents (65%) indicated examples and illustrations as the most beneficial aspect of the session. Other beneficial aspects noted were presentation (50%) and Q & A (5%). Over half of the respondents (58%) gave the webinar a quality rating of excellent, 37% indicated very good, while one respondent rated the webinar quality as good. One respondent indicated having technical difficulties during the webinar. Fourteen participants indicated that they learned about multiple new digital applications and tools that can be used in the mathematics classroom. One participant indicated this by stating, “Very interesting applications I was not aware of, I would like to try to incorporate it in my learning environments. I would also like to try and introduce it to my children’s teachers.” Suggestions for future webinar topics included connecting classrooms across borders and more specific math tool usage instructions.

Tapped - In Events MSP2 Project PI, Kimberly Lightle, hosted two online chats utilizing Tapped In29 meeting space. On June 8, 2009, six participants joined a chat that focused on the wiki-based resource guides from the MSP2 Ning and on August 10, 2009, four participants joined a chat about the MSP2 Ning social network.

29 Tapped In: http://www.tappedin.org


External Advisory Board Meeting The second MSP2 External Advisory Board (EAB) meeting was held on July 15, 2009. The virtual meeting was hosted through the Elluminate Live! interface. Eleven EAB members and eight Project Team members attended the online event. Project Team members presented progress reports for each of the project goals. Project PI, Kimberly Lightle, moderated the session and began by reviewing the five project goals. She then updated participants on navigational and content modifications to the site (Goal 1), followed by an update on participation and activity in the MSP2 Ning social community (Goal 2). Project Team member Mary Henton described the Teacher Leader activities for promoting MSP2 Ning participation. Sarita Pillai of the EDC spoke on progress made with development of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). She described youth and educator focus group data, Design Team members and activities, and displayed examples of work and video of the Design Team work sessions. The Goal 3 report included a description of conferences, partnerships, publications and online events and that was followed by a brief discussion of sustainability (Goal 4). A few evaluation activities (Goal 5) and findings were addressed to conclude the presentation. External Advisory Board members offered their thoughts and suggestions. One member advised creating a “best practices” document and provided suggestions for how to encourage Ning members to become “organizers of conversations.” Another EAB member advised endorsing the site at the district level. He suggested identifying a district or two to introduce the site so that school-based leaders could act as promoters of the website. Another EAB member suggested that organizing resources by topic might be a way to make district-level participation more accessible. A Project Team member noted that survey data could be used to find topics that could serve as district-wide topics. Finally, the topic of sustainability was addressed by an EAB member. She suggested identifying aspects of the project on which to focus, “what aspects do you want to sustain and why?”


Continuing Evaluation Activities

Ohio State University project personnel will continue to develop, modify, and catalogue quality learning resources for the MSP2 project. Usage statistics for the portal components will be collected on a quarterly basis and posted to the project wiki for continuous, formative evaluation of the project. Resources will be reviewed by external experts utilizing tools and protocols developed in Year 2. The National Middle School Association (NMSA) will continue to host monthly webinars that promote the MSP2 project. Reports, including registration and survey data, will be posted to the wiki for team member and evaluator review. NMSA project personnel also will continue to recruit and train Teacher Leader candidates. A randomly selected subsample of Teacher Leaders will be interviewed annually. The Education Development Center (EDC) will finalize youth Virtual Learning Experiences (VLEs) and post the completed product to the MSP2 Ning. The products will be reviewed by external experts and formative feedback will be provided to the Project Team in Year 3. All Project Team members will finalize sponsorship and e-commerce avenues so as to sustain the MSP2 Ning after the final year of funding. Semi-annual External Advisory Board meetings will continue to support this goal. The next step in the evaluation process for the E & A Center is to investigate impact of the MSP2 Ning on members. Follow-up Teacher Leader interviews will be conducted to gain an internal perspective on the changes in Ning participation and activity. Members of various participation ranks will be interviewed to collect data on impact of varying levels of use of the MSP2 Ning. VLEs will be reviewed for appeal and access to middle-school students. All data will be synthesized to provide periodic and summative feedback to the Project Team.


Summary and Recommendations

Upon review of several sources of project data, findings of the Year 2 evaluation for the Middle School Portal 2: Math & Science Pathways (MSP2) Project are as follows:

• Learning resources have been developed, selected and modified, organized and contextualized into the MSP2 Ning. The resources are available to visitors and members via the MSP2 Ning through components of the Ning such as blogs, wikis, and resource links. The development of new content for the Ning has exceeded the goal for Year 2 and the NCS Search Service has been integrated so that the resource collection can be searched. Resource lists, blog posts, and wiki pages appear to be effective means for contextualizing learning resources for middle-school educators. Experts in the fields of science and mathematics middle-school education found the resources to be relevant, accurate, and appealing. (Goal 1)

• The MSP2 Ning continues to provide access to content and interactive opportunities through blogs, wikis, discussion forums, and resource links. Resources can now be searched through the MSP2 Ning. Virtual support for educators is being provided through the Ning by a growing number of Teacher Leaders. Quality and quantity of virtual interactions will be evaluated further during Year 3. While the VLE templates have been finalized and implementation is scheduled to occur soon, the Ning does not offer activities for youths at this time. (Goal 2)

• Resource discovery and usage have been promoted through MSP2 dissemination activities, including 13 webinar presentations that impacted 306 participants. Launch activities for new resources and online events through digital tools such as e-newsletters and Twitter have been utilized. Search engine data, monitored through webmetrics, showed that the MSP2 Ning and components continue to be located by users. Profile data indicated that the target audience has been reached. (Goal 3)

• A second Advisory Board Meeting was held to discuss project progress on tasks and goals. Collaboration and cooperation has continued although numerous monthly conference calls have been canceled and the project wiki has become so large that information can be difficult to find and organize. The Project Team has pursued ideas related to marketing, branding and sustainability. Project partners continue to work diligently on their assigned tasks and to communicate progress or obstacles. (Goal 4)

• Focus group data and questionnaire data from educators and youth, and youth Design Team data have been used to develop the VLE template. A profile of participation has been identified from data collected during Year 2. Questionnaires and interview protocols are being developed to collect impact data from teachers and students during Year 3. Impact data also will be collected by monitoring the VLEs to assess the quantity and quality of virtual interactions among users. (Goal 5)

• Extensive users of the MSP2 Ning tend to be female science teachers with more than 10 years of teaching experience, as well as, previous experience with social networking. Teachers tend to use the Ning to find resources for use in the classroom. Teachers use the Ning more often during the academic school year, although they tend to spend more time and view more pages when visiting the website during the summer academic break. (Goal 5)


Based upon evaluation data and findings to date, the Evaluation Team makes the following observations:

• The MSP2 Project Team should continue to purposefully and thoughtfully develop and/or modify and migrate products and resource materials to the site. Most resources have been judged by participating teachers and external experts to be high-quality, relevant, and important resources for teaching mathematics and science. Time and effort should be invested in developing and making accessible those resources that are most needed and used by the target audience. Project components that cannot be maintained without considerable allocation of resources (e.g., blog posts) should be carefully assessed for the value they add to the site.

• While resources have been well-received and frequently accessed via the MSP2 Ning, the interactive components of the site are less so. The Project Team should continue to collect and explore data regarding the Ning user profiles and use these data to determine marketing strategies that are most appropriate to meet project goals. The Project Team should determine which of the following is a priority: (a) attracting and retaining the most active users of the site, (b) attracting and engaging users who are currently not active on the site, or (c) a combination of both approaches. Ideally, the project would engage and retain the active participation of many types of users but as project resources diminish it may not be possible to do so. Discussions about sustainability should focus on the goal of determining the priority audience and applying targeted strategies to reach and increase the participation of these individuals and groups in order to promote a site that meets project expectations for interactivity and user knowledge-sharing.


References

Ohio Resource Center for Mathematics, Science, and Reading. (n.d.). ORC resource review rubric. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from: http://www.ohiorc.org/about/rubric.aspx


Appendices

Appendix A: Profile Questions Survey.................................................................................... 39

Appendix B: MSP2 Website Questionnaire ............................................................................. 40

Appendix C: MSP2 Educator Questionnaire ............................................................................ 45

Appendix D: MSP2 Youth Questionnaire ................................................................................ 48

Appendix E: MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol ............................................................ 58

Appendix F: Web-Based Resource Review Rubric ................................................................... 60

Appendix G: MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric ......................................................................... 61

Appendix H: MSP2 Social Network Conversation Rubric ......................................................... 62

Appendix I: MSP2 Educator Questionnaire Analysis ................................................................ 63

Appendix J: MSP2 Youth Questionnaire Analysis .................................................................... 74

Appendix K: MSP2 Web Resource Score Sheet: Resource Guides ............................................ 91

Appendix L: MSP2 Web Resource Score Sheet: Blogs ............................................................. 98

Appendix M: Webinar Analyses............................................................................................105


Appendix A

Evaluation of MSP2MSP2 Website Questionnaire

Fall, 2009

Dear Participant: We want to thank you for your participation in the MSP2 Website Questionnaire. This online questionnaire is designed to obtain information about your knowledge and use of the MSP2 Social Network website. Although you will not receive immediate benefit from completing this questionnaire, the information obtained will be useful for improving this website. The questionnaire takes no more than 15 minutes to complete. Although we have asked for identification information in order to link your responses across the points of data collection, you will never be identified in any reports or summaries of the data. After individual responses are entered into the database, access to your responses is strictly limited. Your participation is completely voluntary; you may refuse to answer certain questions or withdraw from the evaluation at any point. All the questionnaire data will be confidential. Failure to participate will not affect you in any way, but it will weaken the overall study because your important ideas and opinions will not be represented. By clicking to the next page, you indicate your consent to participate in this portion of the evaluation. If you have questions about the questionnaire or evaluation, please contact me at 513-529-1686. If you have questions about participant rights, please contact the Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship at Miami University, 513-529-3600. Thank you again for your participation. Sincerely, Sarah B. Woodruff, Director Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education

Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. www.muohio.edu. 513.529.1686

Next >>

Page 1 of 1MSP2 Website Questionnaire

5/26/2010https://survey.muohio.edu/Checkbox/Survey.aspx?s=8897533e97cf4490a31df6850a4a9f5b


Appendix B


Fall, 2009

Instructions: This questionnaire contains five demographic items and six open-ended items. Please provide responses that best describe your opinions and activities.

Please DO NOT click the "Finalize the Questionnaire" button until your responses are really finalized. Clicking "Finalize the Questionnaire" will submit your report and you will no longer be able to access it. If you have any questions about using this online survey system, please contact Yue Li ([email protected]).


*1. The first letter of your FIRST name is:

*2. The first letter of your LAST name is:

*3. Your date of birth is: (Format: MM/DD/YYYY)

4. Are you a member of the MSP2 project team or advisory board?

Yes No

5. Are you an MSP2 teacher leader?

Yes No

<< Back Next >>


5/26/2010https://survey.muohio.edu/Checkbox/Survey.aspx?s=8897533e97cf4490a31df6850a4a9f5b



Fall, 2009

1. How did you find the MSP2 website?

2. What features of the MSP2 website attracted you and prompted your decision to joiMSP2 social network?

3. What features of the MSP2 website were helpful to you and did you use most frequeafter joining (e.g., resources, blog, wiki)?


5/26/2010https://survey.muohio.edu/Checkbox/Survey.aspx?s=8897533e97cf4490a31df6850a4a9f5bEvaluation of MSP2 42


4. What features of the MSP2 website were not helpful to you and did you not use aftejoining (e.g., resources, blog, wiki)?

5. What has been your previous experience with personal or professional social networking? What are your reasons for choosing to engage in or not engage in social networking?

6. What suggestions do you have to improve the MSP2 website?

<< Back Next >>




Fall, 2009


7. If you are willing to be contacted by Ohio's Evaluation and Assessment Center, please provide your name and email address below:

<< Back Finalize the Questionnaire



(MSP)2 Educator Questionnaire Questions

[page 1] Required

Welcome to the (MSP)2 Survey!

If you’ve reached this page, then that means you have been asked you to fill out a survey. By filling out this survey, you will help us learn about middle school youth and how they use the Internet. The questions on this survey are about: what youth think about science and math, whether or not you use computers and the Internet in your classrooms or programs, how youth use the Internet, and what youth look at when they go online. We are trying to design a Website for middle school youth, and we hope you’ll help us. If you take the time to fill out this survey, your answers will help us design our Website based on your feedback, and we will better understand what middle schoolers like and dislike on the Internet. It won’t cost you anything to take the survey—it’s free! Also, we will have a drawing in June 2009 and 10 participants will get a $50 Amazon.com gift certificate as a way of thanking you for the time you give us if you participate. If you fill out your contact information at the end of the survey, we’ll enter you in the drawing and send you your $50 Amazon.com gift certificate if you are picked. We will do everything we can to keep the information you tell us in the survey private. The information you give us will only be seen by project staff at Education Development Center, Inc., and we will never use your name or anything that could give away who you are. We will keep all our records confidential. Additionally, this survey is completely voluntary: you are in no way obligated to complete the survey once you have started. Questions about the (MSP)2 survey should be directed to Sarita Pillai, at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2164 ([email protected]). If you have any questions regarding your rights as a participant in this survey, you can contact EDC’s Human Protection Administrator at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2971 or [email protected].

STATEMENT OF CONSENT I have read the summary of this survey above. By clicking on the “Take the Survey!” button below, I am saying that I would like to participate in the (MSP)2 survey.

[Click here to start the (MSP)2 survey] [page 2] Both questions required. What subjects do you currently teach or does your program currently address? Check all that apply. Science: _______________ Math: _________________ Other: ________________


Appendix C


What grade level(s) do you currently work with? Check all that apply. 5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade [page 3] All questions optional. What technologies (e.g., computer, digital camera/camcorder, smart board) do you use with your youth? Open-ended, paragraph What Websites do you use with your youth? Open-ended, paragraph How do you usually find these sites? Open-ended paragraph Do your students have any Website preferences for educational/academic help? Check one. Yes No Please list these Websites here: Open-ended, list up to 5 Indicate how each of the following describes the ways your youth learn.

a. Youth group projects often involve technology usage. Check one. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

b. Youth develop their own “technology learning environment” by engaging their educator, fellow youth, and experts outside of the classroom. Check one. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

[page 4] All questions optional. In your experience thus far, what have you found to be most valuable in terms of using the computer/Internet with your youth? For instance, have you found that certain kinds of Websites



engage your youth more than other kinds of Websites? Or perhaps you have found particular elements of certain Websites (games, colors and font, etc.) that your youth especially gravitate towards? Open-ended, paragraph In your experience thus far, what have you found to be the most frustrating, least useful about using technologies with your youth? Open-ended, paragraph As you look forward, what do you anticipate as the most likely obstacle(s) when using computers/Internet with your youth? Open-ended, paragraph Describe the impact of your work using computers/Internet with youth on your youths’ achievement in math or science. Open-ended, paragraph Please list some of the topics you use to teach science or math concepts (e.g., stock market, glaciers and global warming). Open-ended, list up to 5 [page 5] All questions optional.

Thank you for taking the (MSP)2 survey! If you would like to enter yourself in the drawing for a $50 Amazon.com gift certificate, please enter your contact information in the lines below. This information will only be used if you are one of the 10 participants to win a $50 Amazon.com gift certificate. We will use this information to let you know that you’ve won and send your $50 Amazon.com gift certificate to you. Phone: Open-ended, one line Email: Open-ended, one line Questions about the (MSP)2 survey should be directed to Sarita Pillai, at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2164 ([email protected]). If you have any questions regarding your rights as a participant in this survey, you can contact EDC’s Human Protection Administrator at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2971 or [email protected].


Youth Questionnaire Questions

[page 1] Required

Welcome to the (MSP)2 Survey!

If you’ve reached this page, then that means your educator or mentor has asked you to fill out a survey. Why should I fill out this survey? By filling out this survey, you will help us learn about middle schoolers (such as yourself) and how they use the Internet. The questions on this survey are about: what you think about science and math, whether or not you use computers and the Internet, how you use the Internet, and what you look at when you go online. We are trying to design a Website for middle school youth like you, and we hope you’ll help us. If you take the time to fill out this survey, your answers will help us design our Website based on your feedback, and we will better understand what middle schoolers like and dislike on the Internet. How much does it cost? Do I get anything? It won’t cost you anything to take the survey—it’s free! Also, we will have a drawing in June 2009 and 10 participants will get a $25 Amazon.com gift certificate as a way of thanking you for the time you give us if you participate. If you fill out your contact information at the end of the survey, we’ll enter you in the drawing and send you your $25 Amazon.com gift certificate if you are picked! We’ll be sure to keep your contact information separate from your survey, so that we are sure to use that information only to contact you if you’ve won the raffle. It’s completely up to you! We also want you to know that if you agree to fill out the survey and then you change your mind later, that’s okay. Nothing bad will happen to you if you decide not to participate or you change your mind later. It’s your choice. CONFIDENTIALITY: We will do everything we can to keep the information you tell us in the survey private. The information you give us will only be seen by us (the people who made the survey), and we will never use your name or anything that could give away who you are. We will do a good job at keeping all our records secret by following the rules that the U.S. government has made for researchers. Do you have any questions? Questions about the (MSP)2 survey should be directed to Sarita Pillai, at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2164 ([email protected]). If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this survey, you can contact EDC’s Human Protection Administrator at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2971 or [email protected].

STATEMENT OF ASSENT I have read the summary of this survey above. By clicking on the “Take the Survey!” button below, I am saying that I would like to participate in the (MSP)2 survey.

[Click here to start the (MSP)2 survey]


Appendix D


[page 2] All questions optional. First, we want to know how you feel about using computers and the Internet to complete tasks. Pick the answer that best represents your agreement or disagreement with each statement. I am good at collecting information using technology (e.g., Internet, search engines). Check one. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I am good at using technology to organize information (spread sheets, word processing). Check one. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I know how to use technology to solve everyday problems. Check one. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I avoid using technology because I am not very good at using it. Check one. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I am good at using technology to better understand ideas that I learned in school. Check one. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I am good at using technology to communicate with other people. Check one. Strongly agree Agree



Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree If I could use the technologies that scientists and engineers use when they do their work, it would be easier for me to learn. Check one. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree [page 3] All questions optional. Next, we have some questions about the kinds of jobs you’re interested in. List one job you think you’d like to have as an adult. Open-ended; one line Do you think you will need to use science, math, or technology to do this job? Check one. Yes No Not sure List up to five different jobs you aware of that involve science, math, technology, or engineering. Open-ended; list up to 5 What are some of your favorite science topics to learn about? Open-ended; list up to 3 What are some of your favorite math topics to learn about? Open-ended; list up to 3 Outside of school, how often did you visit museums, science centers, colleges, or do other activities (such as community service/volunteering or special programs) that present science, math, or technology? Check one. Never 1-2 times 3-5 times More than 5 times per year List some of these places below. Open-ended; list up to 5



List five of your favorite things to do for fun. Open-ended; list up to 5 [page 4] All questions optional. The next set of questions are about how you use the computer and what you do online. Where do you most often use a computer? Check one. Home School Library Other: _____________ Does your school have computers available for students to use? Check one. Yes No How often do you use computers in the following school courses?

a. Science Check one. Never Hardly ever About monthly Weekly About daily

b. Math Check one. Never Hardly ever About monthly Weekly About daily

Do you think more of your classes could be taught using the Internet? Check one. Yes No Not sure How comfortable are you using computers? Check one. Not at all comfortable A little comfortable Comfortable Very comfortable Do you have a computer at home? Check one.



Yes No

If above is yes: Do you have Internet access at home? Check one. Yes No

[page 5] All answers optional. We’re interested in knowing how you use computers and the Internet when you’re doing something for school and when you’re doing something for fun. If you only do an activity for school, just check the “For School” box. If you only do an activity for fun, just check the “For Fun” box. If you do an activity for school and for fun, check both boxes. Check all that apply. For

School For Fun Don’t Do

Create or work on my own page on social networking Websites (ex. MySpace, Facebook)

Create my own characters/avatars and do things in virtual worlds (ex. Second Life, WOW, Gaia, or Habbo Hotel)

Send or receive instant messages Talk to people in “chat rooms” Download or share music/video files Create or work on webpages Write computer programs Use software packages to create animations Use a digital camera of digital camcorder to capture images or video and upload them online

Share something online that you created yourself, such as your own artwork, photos, music, stories or videos

Take material you find online or that you’ve created—like songs, text or images—and remix it into your own artistic creation

Using search engines to find useful information on the Internet

Use large databases to find or analyze information Use computers to analyze data Use basic computer applications to write, research, and communicate (ex., Word, spreadsheets, email, presentations, Internet)

Create or work on an online journal or blog Contribute to online forums, online dialogs, wikis Download a podcast so you can listen to it or view it at a later time

Develop video games



Play online games Use simulations Use integrated learning labs (“Tech labs”) What are the different ways you use social networking Websites (for example, Facebook or MySpace)? Do you ever use those Websites to… Check all that apply. Make new friends Stay in touch with friends you see a lot Stay in touch with friends you rarely see in person Flirt with someone Make plans with your friends Don’t use Other: ____________

If anything but “Don’t use” is checked: We’d like to know the specific ways you communicate with your friends using social networking Websites (for example, Facebook or MySpace). Do you ever… Check all that apply. Post messages to a friend's page or wall Send a bulletin or group message to all of your friends Send private messages to a friend within the social networking system Wink, poke, give "e-props" or kudos to your friends Post comments to a friend's blog Other: __________________

About how often do you visit social networking Websites (for example, Facebook or MySpace)? Check one. Several times a day About once a day 3-5 days a week 1-2 days a week Every few weeks Less often Not sure

Do you ever use any of the following to play games, whether or not you personally have one? Check all that apply. A game console like an Xbox, a Playstation or a Wii A portable gaming device like P-S-P, D-S or Gameboy A desktop or laptop computer A cell phone or handheld organizer Don’t use

If anything but “Don’t use” is checked: Do you play Massive Multiplayer Online Games, such as World of Warcraft? Check one. Yes No



Not sure

Do you play console games that utilize online multiplayer functions, such as Xbox Live? Check one. Yes No Not sure

What are your current top three favorite games? Open-ended; list up to 3

[page 6] All answers optional. What Websites do you like to visit for fun? (URL or name of site) Open-ended; list up to 3 What Websites do you visit for school? (URL or name of site) Open-ended; list up to 3 What Websites do you visit when you want to find something on your own (not school related)? (URL or name of site) Open-ended; list up to 3 From all these Websites you visit which ones do you enjoy the most? (URL or name of site) Open-ended; list up to 3 [page 7] Are your favorite Websites…? Check all that apply. Easy to navigate Easy to find info Visuallly appealing Pleasant to interact with/interactive Youth oriented Other: ___________________ What does the description “youth oriented” mean to you? Check all that apply. Website that allows interactive content Website that is flashy Website that has a lot of images Website that is very colorful Website that is easy to navigate Other: _____________________________



We’re interested in the kinds of things you do when you use the Internet. Not everyone has done these things. Please just tell me whether you ever do each one, or not. Do you ever... Check all that apply. Buy things online, such as books, clothing or music Look online for health, dieting, or physical fitness information Go online to get news or information about current events Go online to get information about a college, university or other school you are thinking about attending Go to Websites about movies, TV shows, music groups, or sports stars you are interested in Watch a video on a video-sharing Website like YouTube or GoogleVideo Read the online journals or blogs of others How do you determine if a Website is trustworthy and the information provided is correct? Open-ended; paragraph For the most part, I believe the information found on the Internet. Check one. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Do you visit Websites for science and math work? Check one. Yes No

If the above is yes: a. Which Websites?

Open-ended; list up to 3 b. Do you like these Websites? Check one. Yes No

If above is answered: Why or why not? c. How did you find out about these Websites? Open-ended; paragraph

[page 8] All answers optional. The last set of questions are questions about you. Current Grade Check one. 6 7 8 9



What year were you born? Open-ended; 1 line What is your gender? Open-ended; 1 line What is your race? Check all that apply. Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino American Indian White/Caucasian Other: _____________ What language do you speak at home? Open-ended; 1 line Is there anything else you would like to add about yourself or your interests? Open-ended; paragraph [page 8]

Thank you for taking the (MSP)2 survey! If you have questions about the (MSP)2 survey you just took, contact Sarita Pillai, at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2164 ([email protected]). If you have any questions regarding your rights as a participant in this survey, you can contact EDC’s Human Protection Administrator at 1-800-225-4276 ext. 2971 or [email protected]. If you would like to enter yourself in the drawing for a $25 Amazon.com gift certificate, please click on the link below and enter your phone number and email. This information will only be used if you are one of the 10 participants to win a $25 Amazon.com gift certificate. We will use this information to let you know that you’ve won and send your $25 Amazon.com gift certificate to you. [survey monkey link] [new survey] All answers optional.

Thank you for taking the (MSP)2 survey!



If you would like to enter yourself in the drawing for a $25 Amazon.com gift certificate, please enter your contact information in the lines below. This information will only be used if you are one of the 10 participants to win a $25 Amazon.com gift certificate. We will use this information to let you know that you’ve won and send your $25 Amazon.com gift certificate to you. Phone: Open-ended; 1 line Email: Open-ended; 1 line


MSP2 Teacher Leader Interview Protocol 2009-10 Evaluation “Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. The data that I collect from these interviews will be used in the evaluation of the MSP2 project. The interview should take no longer than 30 minutes to conduct. At any time you may skip a question or if needed, you can ask to terminate the interview. This interview will be recorded so that I can focus on our conversation while having an accurate record of what we discussed. Do I have your permission to use your answers as data for the MSP2 project evaluation? Do I have your permission to tape our interview?” How long, and in what capacity, have you been in education (grade level, subject, etc)? Approximately how many social networks are you, or have you been, a member of? How long have you been an MSP2 Teacher Leader? What prompted your decision to become an MSP2 Teacher Leader? What responsibilities do you have as an MSP2 Teacher Leader? Based upon your experience with digital learning tools and social networking, how does the MSP2 Ning compare with similar sites? How would you characterize participation by members of the MSP2 Ning? What features of the MSP2 Ning appear to be most helpful to teachers? In what ways can the MSP2 Ning be improved? In your opinion what is the most valuable aspect of the Ning and why? What strategies have you used to motivate members to be active participants?


Appendix EAppendix F

What have you learned as an MSP2 Teacher Leader? What are the advantages and disadvantages of providing support to teachers via the NING versus in face-‐to-‐face settings? What problems or concerns have teachers expressed regarding the MSP2 Ning?


Adapted from The Ohio Resource Center’s: ORC Resource Review Rubric retrieved March 2, 2010 from: http://www.ohiorc.org/about/rubric.aspx.

Web-‐based Resource Review Rubric

A B C D

Alignment with standards

The resource has a direct and explicit link to

content standards (state or national)

(Describe in comments)

The resource does not reference standards but would clearly contribute to student learning of one or more content

standard.

The resource is not well aligned with content

standards.

The resource is not of the nature that standards

would apply. (Explain in comments)

Relevance

The resource is clearly relevant to the target

audience. (e.g., middle school math teachers,

graduate students, etc)

Some of the resource is relevant to the target audience while other

parts may expand beyond.

The resource does not apply to the target

audience. Does not apply.

Adaptability

The resource is adaptable to a variety of

settings and there is discussion that helps teachers adapt the

resource to different settings.

The resource is adaptable to a variety of

learning settings but suggestions for

adaptation are largely absent.

The resource has a narrow range of use.

Does not apply.

Accuracy

The content of the resource is accurate, no obvious factual or other

errors.

The content is not inaccurate, but may not include desirable details

or examples.

The content contains factual or other errors

Does not apply.

Research/Readings

The resource clearly includes references to research or additional readings that discuss

benefits of the content.

The resource reflects research that is widely known and generally

accepted.

The resource is antithetical to commonly

accepted research findings.

(Explain in comments)

The resource is not of the nature that research

would apply. (Explain in comments)

Currency The content is timely and up-to-date.

The content is slightly outdated.

The content is severely outdated.

The content is of the nature that currency does

not apply. (Explain in comments)

Coverage

The number of topics, depth of information and links to other information

is valuable and not overwhelming.

The content would benefit from additional

information or deeper discussion.

The resource does not go into detail or add depth to the discussion OR the

amount of topics and additional information could be considered

overwhelming.

Does not apply.

Navigability The resource is easy to

navigate and all links are active and up-to-date.

The resource is navigable without serious issue.

The resource presents some identifiable

navigation issues (e.g., inactive links, circular

navigation, etc.)

Does not apply.

Appeal

The resource is appealing to the target audience.

(e.g. saves time for teachers, appeals to

middle school students)

The resource is somewhat appealing to

the target audience.

The resource is not appealing to the target

audience. Does not apply.


Appendix F

MSP2 Participation Rank Rubric

No Participation

Little

Participation

Participates

Occasionally

Participates

Frequently

Extensive User

0

1

2

3

4

Activities

Participant has

done nothing but

joined the

website.

Participant has

done ONE of the

activities:

Participant does

2-‐3 of the listed

activities (m

ay be

all in one or in

multiple

categories):

Participant does

4-‐6 of the listed

activities (m

ay be

all in one or in

multiple

categories):

Participant does 7

or more of the

listed activities

(may be all in one

or in multiple

categories):

Personalization

Personalized “M

y Page”

Comments

Responded to original

welcoming message.

Group Mem

bership

Joined a “group.”

Blogs/Discussions

Added a comment to a

blog or group

discussion.

OR posted 1-‐2

thoughtful*

responses

OR posted 3-‐4

thoughtful*

responses

OR posted 5 or

more thoughtful*

responses

Events

Attended or “plans to”

attend an event

OR hosted an

event.

Discussion Initiator

OR started a

conversation by

posting an initial

and participating

in a blog or group

discussion

OR started 2-‐3

conversations by

posting an initial

and participating

in the blog or

group discussions

OR started 3 or

more

conversations by

posting an initial

and participating

in the blog or

group discussions

*For the purposes of this evaluation, a “thoughtful response” is defined as a contribution that expands on the conversation and

elicits further dialogue.


Appendix G

Evaluation of MSP2 Ning Social Network Conversation Rubric

High Medium Low

Quality of Responses

Responses are relevant, in-depth and well-thought-out. They expand on the conversation and elicit further discussion.

Responses are relevant but short. Some do not further the discussion.

Responses not always relevant. They are consistently short and do not further the conversation.

Number of Responses

Participants contribute many responses and develop deeply threaded dialogues.

Participants contribute several responses in several conversations.

Participants contribute few responses.

Participant involvement

Responses are well distributed among participants, and all are deeply engaged in the discussion.

Responses are distributed between participants and Project Team members (including Teacher Leaders)

Conversations dominated by Project Team members (including Teacher Leaders) and only a few participants.

Source: iDiscovery Learning Community Scoring Rubric


Appendix H

MSP2 Educator Questionnaire Analysis Between Thursday, April 30, 2009 and Monday, June 15, 2009, an online questionnaire for middle school educators was active. This survey, created and administered by Education Development Center, Inc. with help from the National Middle School Association and various partner networks was made available to middle school science and math educators across the nation. A total number of 631 educators attempted to respond to the questionnaire; of these 631 potential participants, 617 decided to go forward with and participate in the research study. The following is an analysis of the data collected via this questionnaire. Educator Demographics Participants primarily taught science or math, though a substantial percentage of participants taught both science and math. In addition, a handful of educators taught subjects other than science or math or were administrators. See Table 1. Table 1. Educator Demographics by Subject Taught

Subject N % Science 238 39% Math 247 40% Science and Math 93 15% Technology 4 <1% Science and Technology 2 <1% Other* 17 3% No Answer 16 3% TOTAL 617 100% *including Administrators, Gifted & Talented, Special Education, ESL, Art, Health, Social Studies, ELA, Library Science

Participants also taught across middle school grades, with most teaching 6th-8th grades. See Table 2. Table 2. Educator Demographics by Grade Taught

Grade N %* 5th Grade 45 7% 6th Grade 246 40% 7th Grade 307 50% 8th Grade 331 54% Missing 15 2% *sums to greater than 100% due to teaching multiple grades


Appendix I

Finally, five participants were Special Education educators, and three participants were Gifted and Talented educators. Technologies Used in the Classroom Participants were first asked about the technologies they used in their classrooms. Seventy-five percent of the participants used computers in their classrooms in some way. Large numbers of participants also employed SMARTBoards (or similar, such as Promethean Board, Mimio, InterWrite or ActivBoard), digital cameras/camcorders, and projectors/overheads. It seems that a small group of educators has also begun to incorporate the use of calculators, ELMOs, polling tools, tablets, and digital data collection tools as well. It should be noted that multiple variations in combinations of these technologies were given. See Table 3. Table 3. Technologies Used in the Classroom

Technology N %* Computer 463 75% SMARTBoard (or similar) 230 37% Digital Camera/Camcorder 179 29% Projector/Overhead 146 24% Calculator (4-fn, scientific, or graphing) 84 14% ELMO/SMARTCam 74 12% Polling Tool 44 7% Tablet 39 6% Data Collection Tool(s) 26 4% DVD 18 3% Digital Microscope 16 3% VCR 10 2% Scanner 9 1% GPS 8 1% TV 6 1% iPod 5 1% Webcam 4 1% Digital Sound Recording Instrument 3 <1% CD Player 2 <1% LaserDisc 1 <1% Phone 1 <1% Missing 119 19% *sums to greater than 100% due to use of multiple technologies


Websites Used with Youth Participants were next asked about the Websites they used with the youth they work with. An abundance of specific sites were named, from science/math exclusive sites to general learning sites to Web tools to educator’s own sites. In addition to specific Websites, other, general types of Websites were also mentioned (see Appendix A). The top five specific Websites mentioned were:

• BrainPop (73 mentions) • Discovery.com (49 mentions) • NASA (49 mentions) • United Streaming (31 mentions) • FunBrain (28 mentions)

It should be noted that a large number of textbook sites were utilized as well as sites/domains provided to educators by states, counties, districts, or schools. Additionally, the prevalent use of search sites, YouTube, and Wikipedia by educators is something to also note. In addition, participants were asked about the methods by which they have come to identify the sites they use with their youth. Over half of the participants mentioned taking the time to search for Websites themselves. Yet another large group of participants relied on sites recommendations from colleagues, parents, or even the youth they teach. See Table 4. Table 4. Methods of Finding Websites for Use With Youth

Method N %* Search 348 56% Recommendation by Colleagues, Parents, or Youth 165 27% Professional Development 73 12% Provided by State/County/District/School 40 6% Textbook Resource 30 5% Recommendation by Organization or other Website 9 1% Missing 145 24% *sums to greater than 100% due to use of multiple methods

Participants were then asked their thoughts on the most frustrating and least useful aspects of using technology in the classroom. The first and foremost frustration mentioned was the lack of computers/technology available to educators for whole class instructions (one computer for the whole class, one computer per student, multiple computers for students to share). Second to the availability of computers and technology was the fact that when technology was available, it was outdated, broken, or unable to connect to the Internet. See Table 5.


Table 5. Frustrating Aspects of Using Technology in the Classroom N %* Lack of Computers Available 113 18% Outdated/Broken Technology 87 14% Lack of Reliable Internet Access 78 13% Time to Start Up, Set Up 47 8% Non-User-Friendly 47 8% Time to ID Quality Sites 40 6% Potential Distractions 32 5% Laziness Spurred in Youth 30 5% General Access Issues for Youth (lack of access at home) 30 5% Blocking by School/District 30 5% Variation in Youth Tech Knowledge/Skill 27 4% Broken Links 23 4% Lack of Financial Support 12 2% Lack of Youth Media Literacy 11 2% Lack of Support by Administrators 10 2% Lack of Educator Tech Skills 9 1% Cheating/Difficult to Determine Cheating 8 1% Lack of Appropriate Online Behavior 4 1% Does Not Substitute for Actual Labs, Movement 2 <1% Unable to Keep up with Evolving Technology 1 <1% Does Not Add to Quality of Education 1 <1% Timed Logins Don't Accommodate Slow Readers 1 <1% Missing 186 30%

Finally, participants were asked to describe potential future obstacles they might encounter when using technology in their classrooms. Compared to the answers given regarding current frustrating aspects of technology in the classroom (Table 5), participants had dissimilar thoughts about future obstacles. The one consistent worry was the lack of computers/technology available to educators for whole class instructions (one computer for the whole class, one computer per student, multiple computers for students to share). Educators see general access issues for youth, their own lack of technology skills, lack of appropriate online behavior, lack of financial support, and inability to keep up with evolving technology as more future concerns than current concerns. In addition, they see their current frustration with outdated technology, unreliable Internet access, and variation in youth technology knowledge and skill as less frustrating in the future. See Table 6. Table 6. Likely Future Obstacles When Using Technology in the Classroom


N %* Lack of Computers Available 118 19% General Access Issues for Youth (lack of access at home) 73 12% Time to Start Up, Set Up 50 8% Potential Distractions 49 8% Outdated/Broken Technology 47 8% Lack of Reliable Internet Access 41 7% Time to ID Quality Sites 36 6% Lack of Educator Tech Skills 31 5% Lack of Appropriate Online Behavior 30 5% Lack of Financial Support 29 5% Blocking by School/District 23 4% Unable to Keep up with Evolving Technology 15 2% Laziness Spurred in Youth 14 2% Variation in Youth Tech Knowledge/Skill 13 2% Lack of Youth Media Literacy 13 2% Lack of Staff Support to Address Issues 5 1% Timed Logins Don't Accommodate Slow Readers 3 <1% Does Not Substitute for Actual Labs, Movement 3 <1% Cheating/Difficult to Determine Cheating 2 <1% Will Have to Incorporate Lessons on Online Etiquette 2 <1% Off-Hour Work 1 <1% Missing 189 31% *sums to greater than 100% due to mention of multiple obstacles

Youth Website Preferences Participants were asked if they noticed any particular Websites preferences among their youth for specifically educational or academic help. 158 participants did notice particular preferences in their youth while 341 participants did not noticed any particular preferences. Nonetheless, when asked about Websites they find their youth drawn to for educational or academic help, educators were able to name a substantial amount of Websites. Again, Websites mentioned ranged from specific science and math sites to general learning sites to educator’s own sites (see Appendix B). The top five specific Websites mentioned were:

• Google (26 mentions) • BrainPop (19 mentions) • Ask.com (16 mentions) • FunBrain (16 mentions) • Wikipedia (15 mentions)


Clearly, there are similarities and differences between the above sites and the ones mentioned in the “Websites Used with Youth” section above. While it seems that two of the top five specific sites intentionally used by educators as teaching tools with youth have seeped into youth usage, youth primarily rely on search sites (Google, Ask) or Wikipedia to identify educational or academic material online. Participants were also asked about particular Websites features they may have noticed that draw or engage youth more than other features. Two features in particular, inclusion of games and the ability for users to control their own pace as they go through the Website, stood out from the other features mentioned. See Table 7. Table 7. Features of Websites That Engage Youth

Feature N %* Games 176 29% Allows User to Go at Own Pace 155 25% Color 51 8% Images 46 7% Provides Correct, Relevant, Up-to-Date Content 35 6% Video 35 6% Provides Immediate Feedback 33 5% Animation 32 5% User-Friendly/Age Appropriate 25 4% Less to Read 19 3% Generally Engaging 17 3% Web 2.0 Features 14 2% Provides Easy Access to Information 13 2% Music/Sound 12 2% Easy to Read Font (large, black) 10 2% Social Networking 9 1% Search 3 <1% Layout 2 <1% Missing 194 31% *sums to greater than 100% due to mention of multiple features

Ways in Which Youth Learn Participants were asked to indicate whether their youth learn in two particular ways: the integration of technology into group projects and the development of “technology learning environments” by youth.


Over two-thirds of the participants indicated that technology was integrated into group projects; overwhelmingly, most educators do incorporate some type of technology into their curriculum. See Table 8. Table 8. Group Projects Involve Technology N % Strongly Agree 151 24% Agree 275 45% Disagree 71 12% Strongly Disagree 13 2% Missing 107 17% TOTAL 617 100%

While high numbers of educators do incorporate technology, fewer educators identified the next step in technology integration: a more cohesive learning environment that engages youth, educators, and those outside of the classroom via technology. While still over half of the participants responded positively to this item, a greater percentage of participants responded negatively to this item. See Table 9. Table 9. Youth Develop "Technology Learning Environments" N % Strongly Agree 63 10% Agree 267 43% Disagree 146 24% Strongly Disagree 27 4% Missing 114 18% TOTAL 617 100%

Impacts of Technology Use on Youth Participants were asked to describe the impact of their work using technology on their youths’ achievement in science or math. A majority of respondents stated that they have noticed their technology use increases youth engagement with the material they are trying to teach. Indirectly, this raises levels of youth achievement as engaged youth are more likely to excel. Educators who mentioned this shared both anecdotal evidence as well as scientific evidence from their own school districts, schools, or classrooms. The next largest impact mentioned was that technology provides another way for youth to learn (via multimedia, interactive, and social networking avenues)—and so allows youth multiple ways to grasp material or demonstrate their understanding of material. Educators also found value in the immediacy of current and extensive information, the availability of online resources as added enrichment outside of the classroom, and the


cultivation of 21st Century skills in youth. Finally, it should be noted that some educators still have found little to no to negative impact on their youth. Table 10. Impact of Technology Use in Classroom on Youth N %* Engages Youth With Material/Motivates Youth 118 19% Provides Another Way of Learning 77 12% General Positive Impact 50 8% Provides Immediate Access to Current Info, More Info, and Feedback 44 7% Enrichment for Classroom Lessons 38 6% Cultivates 21st Century Skills 29 5% Provides "Real Life" Applications 17 3% Helps Educators Teach (organization, preparation) 15 2% Allows Youth to Learn at Their Own Pace 15 2% Demonstrates That School Can Be Cool 9 1% Teaches That Technology is a Tool 8 1% Provides Outlet for Creativity in STEM 7 1% Accelerates Understanding 4 1% Increases Participation in Class 4 1% Connects Youth to Other Youth 4 1% Little/No/Negative Impact 27 4% Missing 204 33% *sums to greater than 100% due to mention of multiple impacts

Science and Math Topics Finally, participants were asked to list some of the topics used to teach science or math concepts. While the complete list is broken into science and math (and further divided into specific and general topics) in Appendix C, the top five science and math topics mentioned are listed as follows: Science

• Weather/meteorology (56 mentions)

• Genetics/heredity (37 mentions) • Global warming (36 mentions) • Human body/anatomy/body

systems (35 mentions) • Cells (33 mentions)

Math • Stock market (33 mentions) • Fractions (26 mentions) • Shopping (21 mentions) • Coordinate planes/graphing (20

mentions) • Percents (19 mentions) • Ratios/proportions (19 mentions) • General geometry (19 mentions)


Appendix A. Websites Used With Youth


Appendix B. Youth Website Preferences


App

endi

x C

. Sc

ienc

e an

d M

ath

Topi

cs


MSP2 Youth Questionnaire Analysis Between Thursday, April 30, 2009 and Monday, June 15, 2009, an online questionnaire for middle school youth was active. This survey, created and administered by Education Development Center, Inc. with help from the National Middle School Association and various partner networks was made available to middle school youth across the nation via their science and math educators. A total number of 445 youth attempted to respond to the questionnaire; of these 445 potential participants, 440 decided to go forward with and participate in the research study. The following is an analysis of the data collected via this questionnaire. Demographics A majority of youth who responded to demographic items were male (48%, N=213), White (35%, N=153), and spoke English at home. Most youth who responded to a question about birth year (31%, N=136) were born in 1995/1996; therefore the general age of participants was approximately 13-14 years. Fifty percent of participants responded to questions about their grade level; of those who responded, the majority were in 6th-9th grades (see Figures 1-4 and Table 1).

Table 1. Participants, by Home Language N %


Appendix J

English 176 40.00% French 1 0.23% German 2 0.45% Greek 1 0.23% Hindi 1 0.23% Japanese 1 0.23% Korean 1 0.23% Kurdish 1 0.23% Oromo 2 0.45% Punjabi 1 0.23% Somali 1 0.23% Spanish 3 0.68% Vietnamese 1 0.23% English/Bangla 1 0.23% English/Cantonese 1 0.23% English/German 1 0.23% English/Japanese 2 0.45% English/Korean 1 0.23% English/Kurdish 1 0.23% English/Nuer 1 0.23% English/Spanish 10 2.27% English/Yiddish 1 0.23% English/Russian/Uzbek 1 0.23% Missing 228 51.82% TOTAL 440 100.00%

Participants were also asked about their favorite activities for leisure. Participants cited a range of activities—primarily sports and social activities, but games, jobs, art, academic work, and outdoor activities were readily cited as well. See Appendix A for a complete list of leisure activities. Computer Accessibility When asked about computer availability in their homes, 68% (N=300) participants stated that they had computers in their homes (as compared to 3%, N=13, participants who did not). In addition, when asked about Internet access in their homes, 65% (N=287) participants stated that they did have Internet access in their homes (as compared to 3%, N=14, participants who did not). Most participants who had computer access in their homes also had Internet access as well. When asked about computer availability in their schools, 75% (N=329) participants stated that there were computers available and 2% (N=9) participants stated that there were not (29% missing, N = 129).


Participants were asked about their computer use. First, participants were asked what settings they primarily used the computer. Overwhelmingly, participants primarily used the computer in their own homes (see Figure 5).

Technology Use A section of the questionnaire was dedicated to learning exactly how youth use the Internet, both for school and for fun. Table 2 displays the results of this section.



It was found that in general middle school youth are less likely creators and more likely consumers of particular content (such as video games, computer programs, animations, blogs). Unsurprisingly, youth reported using basic applications to write, research, and communicate and using the Internet for searching as their primary uses of the Internet for school. They also used the Internet to analyze data or information. For fun, however, it seems that youth use the Internet for other purposes, primarily for playing online games, chatting with friends, and downloading music or videos. This is in addition to using the Internet in the same ways they use it in school—meaning that youth are more Internet-savvy than we are allowing them (or they feel allowed) to be in school/for school or that youth do not see other functions of the Internet as aspects that can be related to school or schoolwork. Youth participants were most interested in looking at Web sites that had video capability and information about popular culture (including movies, TV shows, and music). See Table 3 for other ways in which youth used the Internet. Table 3. Internet Interest, by Site Type N %* Watch a video on a video-sharing Website like YouTube or GoogleVideo 175 39.77% Go to Websites about movies, TV shows, music groups, or sports stars you are interested in 172 39.09% Go online to get news or information about current events 149 33.86% Buy things online, such as books, clothing or music 119 27.05% Go online to get information about a college, university or other school you are thinking about attending 66 15.00% Read the online journals or blogs of others 58 13.18% Look online for health, dieting, or physical fitness information 51 11.59% Missing 218 49.55% *Total exceeds 100% as respondents were able to indicate multiple activities.

Youth participants were also given a series of questions regarding the Web sites they used most often for particular purposes (fun, school work, sources of information) and the sites they most enjoyed. Table 4 highlights the top three types of Web sites mentioned by participants for each of the questions posed (see Appendices B-E for specific Web sites mentioned). As demonstrated by Table 4, youth participants rely on “search” Web sites for most Internet needs. In addition, youth participants see social networking sites as not only fun or enjoyable sites, but as sources of information. Youth understand that game sites are not necessarily good sources of information for school or otherwise. Finally, these youth also know to look at sites provided by teachers/schools/school districts for schoolwork; in particular, specific sites for STEM


subjects were identified the most. These sites, however, lacked association with being fun or enjoyable. It should be noted, though, that many sites mentioned in response to the “Web sites Used for School” question may have been mentioned because “ALL the good ones [“fun” Web sites] are blocked [in school].”

Social Networking Further probing regarding social networking was also included in the questionnaire. First, youth were asked about the frequency of social networking site use. With a 43% response rate, 25% (N=111) of participants stated they log into social networking sites at least once a day; approximately half of these participants log into these sites several times per day. Other respondents remained evenly spread over logging in over less frequent amounts of time (over spans of days or weeks; see Figure 6).


Youth were asked about the particular different ways in which they used social networking sites, and 44% (N=195) of participants stated that they did use these sites (percentage of site users differs from above due to separate questionnaire items with differing response rates). Of the 44% that use social networking sites, the following information was obtained:

• 71% post messages to friends’ pages • 67% send private messages (similar to email) to friends • 52% post comments on friends’ blogs or pictures • 38% send group messages (blanket messages) • 28% send indirect messages (“poke,” “wink,” “kudos”) to friends • 6% use chat functions to talk to friends* • <1% use sites for gaming with friends* • 3% did not provide data

*These ways of using sites were written in by participants and were not offered as choices in the questionnaire. These data demonstrate that youth readily use many of the communication features of social networking sites; they do not only use these sites to create their own pages and put themselves out in the world—they use these sites as a means to reach out to others as well. Online Gaming Youth were also asked questions about online gaming and their gaming preferences. We first asked participants what types of gaming devices they use, regardless of whether or not they own these devices themselves. Of the 64% (N=273) of participants who responded:

• 54% of participants use a gaming console • 50% of participants use a computer • 42% of participants use a cell phone • 39% of participants use a handheld/portable gaming device. • 1% of participants did not use any of the above

It appears that participants who participate in online gaming use a wide variety of devices to do so; there is not one particular device that sticks out as being used more than others.


When asked whether they played multi-player games (78% response rate; N=343), 29% (N=129) of participants said they did play them, 43% (N=190) said they did not play them, and 5% (N=24) were unsure (percentage of site users differs from above due to separate questionnaire items with differing response rates). The top three participant games are:

• Call of Duty • Halo • Guitar Hero

Most participants were overwhelmingly drawn to action games, followed by sports games; only a few participants thought of academic games as their favorite (see Figure 7, see Appendix F for a detailed list of games).

Technology Use and STEM Computer use in courses, specifically in science and math courses, was also polled. In science courses, participants stated that they used the computer about monthly; however, in math courses, participants stated that they used the computer hardly ever (see Figure 8 and Figure 9).

In addition, a large number (45%, N=197) of participants thought that their classes could be taught using the Internet (see Figure 10).


When asked whether they visited Web sites for science and math work, 36% of participants (N=157) said that they do, and 17% (N=74) said that they do not (48% missing, N = 209). Those that said they visited Web sites for science and math work said that they visited the following sites most often (see Appendix G for a full list of Web sites):

• Google • Ask.com • Study Island

Google by far had the most mentions. The high frequency of search engine use by participants indicates that no one site has been identified as “the” STEM site to go to. This is also confirmed by the high use of Study Island and other teacher/district sites: youth remember sites provided to them by teachers and schools; the participants in this study have not identified any specific STEM site as a widely known “go-to” site for STEM schoolwork. Youth participants proved to be adept at using the Internet and available Web tools—and they felt that use of these tools could occur more often in the classroom. One participant shared, “I think that everyone in schools everywhere should have a required school email address or AIM account. That way, you can ask teachers questions without raising your hands, or make less noise in the room. But everything could be monitored [sic], to make sure everyone is on task.”

Of the participants who do use Web sites for science and math work, 28% (N=125) like the sites they use, and 4% (N=17) do not like the sites they use (68% missing, N=298). Some listed reasons for liking sites include:

• Helps find information for school work/Useful • Fun • Helps participants learn

Some listed reasons for disliking sites include: • Boring • Not used often • Relates to school/Participant dislikes school or STEM subjects


A common answer to this question is reflected in this quote from one participant: “Because, science and math bore me mostly. Unless you're talking Star Trek. If they made more science things related to Star Trek and Spock and all that, I'd learn more and never take my attention off the lesson once.”

More participants listed reasons why they do like STEM sites they use than participants who listed reasons why they disliked those same sites. It seems that participants understand that these sites provide them with knowledge, skills, and tools that are valuable to at least their immediate academic situation, if not future academic and/or career goals. For example, one participant wrote, “They try to [sic] hard to get kids to like learning. The career I plan to pursue in the future involves science and math, my least favorite subjects, but I know I'll get used to them.” A full list of reasons can be found in Appendix H.

Technology Preferences Youth were asked multiple questions about their Web site preferences. One item identified particular characteristics of Web sites and asked youth to respond if they found those characteristics to be true of their favorite Web sites. From a 50% (N=222) response rate, it was found that:

• 40% of favorite Web sites were easy to navigate • 31% of favorite Web sites had information that was easy to find • 30% of favorite Web sites were visually appealing • 27% of favorite Web sites were interactive • 21% of favorite Web sites were “youth oriented” • 3% of favorite Web sites were entertaining or fun* • 1% of favorite Web sites provided social networking/personalization options* • <1% of favorite Web sites were game oriented or provided games* • <1% of favorite Web sites were comical* • <1% of favorite Web sites looked good/were well made* • <1% of favorite Web sites had cool names* • <1% of favorite Web sites were “awesome”* • <1% of favorite Web sites were colorful* • <1% of favorite Web sites had music*

*These favorite characteristics were written in by participants and were not offered as choices in the questionnaire. Of the choices offered to participants, many favorite Web sites were easy to navigate; it seems as if this site feature is something that middle school youth are drawn to, though they do not actively seek it out as part of determining whether or not they enjoy a Web site. Of youth-given responses, most were that site content was entertaining or fun. This indicates that content is the primary draw for youth, as opposed to usability. When asked to define “youth oriented” by indicating either a given choice, set of given choices, or their own answer, participants regarded “youth oriented” sites as those that


are easy to navigate (27%, N=118) and interactive (24%, N=107). Of participants supplying their own definition of “youth oriented,” the vast majority (7%, N=30) stated that content of the site was appropriate for youth or developed specifically for youth use (see Table 4 for greater detail). Table 5. Definitions of "Youth Oriented" N %* Easy to navigate 118 26.82% Interactive content 107 24.32% Colorful 90 20.45% Lots of images 89 20.23% "Flashy" 64 14.55% "For kids" content** 30 6.82% Where you can learn something** 1 0.23% Missing 217 49.32% *Total exceeds 100% as respondents were able to indicate multiple definitions. **Youth-given response.

Self-Efficacy with Technology Participants were asked about their comfortability with using computers. A majority of participants (66%, N=290) were either very comfortable or comfortable using computers (see Figure 11).

Participants were asked to assess their ability to use computers and the Internet to complete tasks. In general, youth feel confident in their ability to use technology in different capacities (collecting information, organizing information, communicating) and different aspects of their lives (school and out of school). More youth remained neutral about whether using technologies that scientists and engineers use would aid in their learning. See Figures 12-18.



In sum, youth participants proved to be familiar with and adept at using the computer and the Internet in their everyday lives. One participant stated, “I love getting on computers to do things[.] I think it is very fun and great[;] if I didn’t have computers it would make my life a lot harder.”

Web site Credibility Participants were asked to give a likert scale rating of their belief of information provided on the Internet. While 23% (N=101) of participants remained neutral on this item, the vast majority of those who did express an opinion one way or the other (27%, N=117) stated that they strongly agree or agree with the statement “For the most part, I believe the information found on the Internet.” See Figure 19 for greater detail.

The high number of “neutral” responses demonstrates a high uncertainty among middle school youth in their ability to determine credible or non-credible online content. In addition, participants were asked an open-ended question about how they determine whether or not sites are trustworthy. It was found that participants interpreted this question in one of two ways: to mean how they determined that the source and content of the site is credible or to mean how they determined whether the site was “Web safe” with regard to private or personal information. Most participants provided answers


pertaining to the former, stating that they relied on the recommendation of the site by others (including peers, teachers, and parents) or they used triangulation of information to determine the accuracy of the content provided. Participants who answered the latter question primarily discussed visual cues displayed on the site itself demonstrating that it is a “safe” Web site. See Appendix I for detailed participant responses to this item. In sum, it was found that most participants either use tactics that are ineffective when trying to determine the accuracy of information on a Web site or multiple tactics to ensure that information is correct. For example, one participant stated, “I guess if it just basically sounds right. I don't use Wikipedia[;] that stuff can be wrong. I usually use Google, which is VERY trustworthy.” Identifying information that “sounds right” and relying on information about particular Web sites are two tactics that may or may not yield Web sites that contain reliable information. This demonstrates a high need for direct teaching of Web literacy skills, and this area should be further explored in the future.

STEM in Future Careers Participants were asked to list one job they would like to have as an adult. 70% of participants (N=311) listed careers ranging in the following fields:

• Research • Education • Justice/Military • Business • Medicine • Sports • Arts • Specialized services

The top five listed careers were: • Teacher • Veterinarian • Lawyer • Doctor • Police Officer

For a detailed list of careers mentioned, see Appendix J. Participants were then asked whether they would need to use science, math, or technology in the job(s) they listed. Over 50% of participants (N=238) thought they would (see Figure 20).


Finally, participants were asked to list five different jobs they were aware of that involve science, math, or technology. 71% of participants (N=312) listed careers in the above fields—with lots of overlap with specific careers mentioned (see Appendix K for full list). However, the top five careers mentioned in response to this question were:

• Teacher • Scientist • Engineer • Doctor • Biologist

In general, participants were just as general or specific in naming careers that involve STEM as they are in naming careers in which they are interested, though more generic careers (e.g., doctor, teacher, engineer) were mentioned more frequently than specific careers. Science and Math Topics Participants were asked to list some of the science and math topics they enjoyed learning. While the complete list is broken into science and math in Appendix L, the top five science and math topics mentioned are listed as follows:


Science • Life science topics in general (N=54) • Chemistry/chemicals (N=49) • Human body/anatomy/body systems

(N=48) • Animals/zoology (N=46) • Volcanoes (N=36)

Math • Arithmetic (N=178) • Fractions (N=115) • Algebra topics in general (N=74) • Geometry topics in general (N=58) • None (N=40)

Human body/anatomy/body systems seems to be the singular science topic that both youth enjoy learning and educators often use to teach science concepts; fractions seems to be the singular math topic that both youth enjoy learning and educators often use to teach math concepts. In addition, it seems that youth are particularly drawn to life science and earth science concepts. Youth are also drawn to general topics in algebra and geometry, but most would rather enjoy more elementary math concepts, such as arithmetic. It should also be noted that a large number of youth were not able to think of a topic they actually enjoyed. Youth STEM Exposure Outside of School Participants were asked about their participation in STEM activities outside of school. Figure 21 demonstrates that a majority of participants who answered this item did participate in at least one or two STEM activities outside of school per year.

Participants were also asked to identify specific places where they participated in STEM activities outside of school. Large numbers of participants identified museums, science centers, and planetariums. The next largest type of participation occurred during visits to colleges and university. Small percentages of participants identified STEM participation outside of such established formal and informal learning institutions, these places include neighborhoods and businesses. Participants seem to be able to more readily identify a STEM learning experience when at an institution where they expect it; it is less likely that a STEM learning experience will be identified in more everyday contexts. See Table 5 for specific types of STEM participation.


Table 6. STEM Participation Outside of School, by Type Type of Participation N %*

Museum (Art, History) 235 53.41% Science museum/Science center/Planetarium 146 33.18% College/University 94 21.36% Zoos/Aquariums 36 8.18% Neighborhood locations (neighbor's, community center, animal shelter, blood bank, environmental center, fire house, food bank, nursing home, SPCA, airport, fairs) 19 4.32% Community service (picking up litter, helping kids read, Make-A-Wish project, walks, TailWaggers911) 13 2.95% National/State park/Wildlife park 9 2.05% Businesses (catering weddings, Coca-Cola Factory, Crayola Factory, Apple Store, IMAX, mall, drug store, pretzel factory) 8 1.82% Camp (Space, Little Buffalo, iCamp, Science, Zoology) 8 1.82% Historic places (FDR's house, King's Landing, Monticello, Morse's home, Ft. Williams, Pearl Harbor, Gettysberg 8 1.82% Military Base/NASA 8 1.82% Community organizations (Boy Scouts, Builders Club, Girl Scouts, JMG, Project Reach, Tech Student Association, youth group, Yearbook Club, book club, Red Cross) 8 1.82% Activities (cooking, planting flowers, hiking through woods) 6 1.36% Religious organization 6 1.36% Major city (NYC, DC, Philadelphia) 5 1.14% Arts (general participation, backstage, sound board) 4 0.91% Science fair/Math bowl 4 0.91% Class (First Aid, game design, science workshop) 3 0.68% Government 3 0.68% Homework/Tutoring 3 0.68% Job/Parent's job 3 0.68% Library 3 0.68% Sports 2 0.45% Missing 213 48.41% *Total exceeds 100% as respondents were able to indicate multiple types of participation.


Adapted from

The Ohio Resource Center’s: ORC Resource Review Rubric retrieved March 2, 2010 from

: http://www.ohiorc.org/about/rubric.aspx.

MSP2 Resource Guide and Blog Review (Spring 2010)

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t wi

th

stan

dard

s Re

leva

nce

Adap

tabi

lity

Accu

racy

Re

sear

ch/

Read

ings

Cu

rrenc

y Co

vera

ge

Navig

abilit

y Ap

peal

X

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

M

ath

Ass

essm

ent

http

://w

iki.n

sdl.o

rg/in

dex.

php/

Mid

dleS

choo

lPor

tal/M

ath_

Ass

essm

ent

Com

men

ts:

May

wan

t to

incl

ude

a re

sear

ch s

ectio

n th

at

offe

rs e

vide

nce

of th

e be

nefit

s o

f a w

ell

bala

nced

ass

essm

ent

syst

em

refe

renc

es

NC

TM

asse

ssm

ent

stan

dard

s

rele

vant

to

mid

dle

scho

ol m

ath

teac

hers

is a

dapt

able

no

app

aren

t in

accu

raci

es

read

ings

in

clud

e tim

ely

issu

es

rega

rdin

g as

sess

men

t

timel

y an

d up

to

dat

e in

clud

es a

br

oad

arra

y of

the

nuan

ces

of

asse

ssm

ent;

may

wan

t to

cons

ider

or

gani

zing

st

rand

sp

ecifi

c as

sess

men

t re

sour

ces

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l

X

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

A

A

Q

uant

itativ

e Li

tera

cy

http

://w

iki.n

sdl.o

rg/in

dex.

php/

Mid

dleS

choo

lPor

tal/Q

uant

itativ

e_Li

ter

acy

Com

men

ts:

QL

acro

ss th

e cu

rric

ulum

ne

eds

to b

ecom

e as

w

ides

prea

d as

read

ing

acro

ss th

e cu

rric

ulum

. H

ow c

an y

ou b

uild

upo

n or

off

of th

is re

sour

ce

guid

e to

pro

mot

e in

tegr

atio

n of

QL

into

the

entir

e m

iddl

e sc

hool

cu

rric

ulum

?

refe

renc

es

NC

TM

com

mun

icat

ion

sta

ndar

d

rele

vant

to

mid

dle

scho

ol m

ath

teac

hers

and

th

eir n

on-

mat

h co

lleag

ues

the

reso

urce

is

ada

ptab

le

but m

ore

deta

ils

shou

ld b

e of

fere

d to

m

ath

teac

her

to h

elp

them

w

ork

alon

gsid

e th

eir n

on-

mat

h co

lleag

ues

to

inte

grat

e Q

L in

to th

eir

cont

ent

area

s

no a

ppar

ent

inac

cura

cies

“References”

section offers

readings and

research

timel

y an

d up

to

dat

e

wid

e ra

nge

of re

sour

ces

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l


Appendix K

Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t wi

th

stan

dard

s Re

leva

nce

Adap

tabi

lity

Accu

racy

Re

sear

ch/

Read

ings

Cu

rrenc

y Co

vera

ge

Navig

abilit

y Ap

peal

X

A

A

A

A

B

A

A

A

A

R

eadi

ng &

Writ

ing

Mat

h ht

tp://

wik

i.nsd

l.org

/inde

x.ph

p/M

iddl

eSch

oolP

orta

l/Rea

ding

_and

_W

ritin

g_M

athe

mat

ics

Com

men

ts:

May

wan

t to

furth

er

inve

stig

ate

som

e of

the

uppe

r ele

men

tary

ELA

te

chni

ques

and

st

rate

gies

and

dire

ctly

re

late

them

to m

iddl

e gr

ades

mat

hem

atic

s.

refe

renc

e to

N

CTM

P

SS

M

Ver

y re

leva

nt-

espe

cial

ly to

th

ose

teac

hers

in a

m

iddl

e sc

hool

whe

re

cont

ent

tend

s to

be

mor

e in

tegr

ated

.

Man

y so

urce

s of

ad

apta

ble

idea

s.

no a

ppar

ent

inac

cura

cies

W

hile

re

adin

gs a

re

cons

iste

nt

high

light

ing

the

bene

fits

of

read

ing/

writ

ing

in

mat

hem

atic

s,

this

pie

ce is

m

issi

ng

spec

ific

rese

arch

fin

ding

s th

at

advo

cate

th

eir

incl

usio

n.

This

mig

ht

be a

sel

ling

poin

t for

so

me

resi

stan

t te

ache

rs.

very

tim

ely

give

n th

e pu

sh fo

r im

prov

emen

t in

lang

uage

lit

erac

y

offe

rs a

wid

e se

lect

ion

of

read

ing

&

writ

ing

reso

urce

s

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l

X

A

B

B

A

D

A

A

A

A

M

oney

, Mon

ey, M

oney

ht

tp://

wik

i.nsd

l.org

/inde

x.ph

p/M

iddl

eSch

oolP

orta

l/Mon

ey_M

oney

_M

oney

Com

men

ts:

You

may

wan

t to

add

subt

itles

con

tain

ing

mat

h co

nten

t con

nect

ions

for

each

of t

he p

iece

s.

Teac

hers

mig

ht b

e m

ore

apt t

o ex

plor

e th

em.

Con

nect

s to

N

CTM

co

nnec

tions

an

d pr

oble

m

solv

ing

stan

dard

s

Whi

le m

uch

of th

e co

nten

t is

rele

vant

, I

won

der i

f te

ache

rs w

ill

inco

rpor

ate

it in

thei

r pl

anni

ng le

t al

one

peru

se

it if

they

do

not s

ee

expl

icit

mat

h co

nten

t co

nnec

tions

Whi

le th

e pr

oble

ms

are

rele

vant

, de

term

inin

g w

here

they

m

ight

fit i

nto

a te

ache

r’s

curr

icul

um

may

be

a ch

alle

nge

for

som

e te

ache

rs.

no a

ppar

ent

inac

cura

cies

S

eem

s in

appl

icab

le

here

.

Giv

en th

e st

ress

in th

e fin

anci

al

mar

kets

this

se

ems

timel

y.

Bro

ad a

rray

of

reso

urce

s.

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t wi

th

stan

dard

s Re

leva

nce

Adap

tabi

lity

Accu

racy

Re

sear

ch/

Read

ings

Cu

rrenc

y Co

vera

ge

Navig

abilit

y Ap

peal

X

B

A

A

A

D

A

A

A

A

M

ath

Fairs

, Fam

ily N

ight

s, e

tc.

http

://w

iki.n

sdl.o

rg/in

dex.

php/

Mid

dleS

choo

lPor

tal/M

ath_

Fairs

_and

_Com

petit

ions

C

omm

ents

:

See

ms

mor

e ta

ngen

tial t

o th

e st

anda

rds

than

oth

er

reso

urce

gu

ides

Rel

evan

t to

mid

dle

scho

ol

popu

latio

n

Res

ourc

es

are

adap

tabl

e

No

appa

rent

in

accu

raci

es

See

ms

inap

plic

able

he

re.

The

need

for

com

mun

ity

and

fam

ily

enga

gem

ent

is c

ontin

ual.

Bro

ad a

rray

of

reso

urce

s.

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Rel

evan

ce

Ada

ptab

ility

A

ccur

acy

Res

earc

h/

Rea

ding

s C

urre

ncy

Cov

erag

e N

avig

abili

ty

App

eal

x

B A

A

A

B B

B A

B Q

uant

itativ

e Li

tera

cy

Comments

Standards

mentioned

in passing.

.

B Especially

teachers

engaged in

textbook

oriented

instruct-‐

tional

practices.

x

B B

B B

B B

B C

B


Adapted from



x

B B

B B

B B

B C

B Vo

cabu

lary

Dev

elop

men

t Vo

cabu

lary

Dev

elop

men

t (co

nt.)

Comments

The two

sources that

are cited

(AAAS, NSES)

both go to

some extent to

stress the need

to engage

students in the

Nature of

Science prior

to the focus on

developing

vocabulary

skills. I found

the focus on

strategies

directed

towards

amending the

deficit in the

deficit model

of education to

be significant.

The author’s

use of

textbooks

providing new

vocabulary

words that are

“new” denies

the un-‐

readable

nature of

many

textbooks for

students that

are classified

as being below

grade level

Urban

strategies

where

connection

s are made

to the

students

lives is a

missing

component

Approach

is limited

to the

delivery of

informatio

n to the

student

rather

than the

student

engaging

the

material.

This

approach

supports

traditional

approache

s to

teaching

science in

the

classroom.

Nature of

Science

component

are absent

See

Research

See

Research

I do

not

thin

k th

at it

is

ap

prop

riate

to

link

vo

cabu

lary

de

velo

pme

nt to

a

publ

ishe

rs

web

-site

. A

ppea

rs to

en

dors

e on

e pu

blis

her

over

an

othe

r. Th

e pu

blis

her

will

ob

viou

sly

prom

ote

thei

r pr

oduc

t.

Students

that are

motivated

to learn

seem

to be

targeted

for this

material.


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

x

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

C

A

Fore

nsic

Scie

nce

Comments

A very nice

collection of

resources.

Nic

e de

scrip

tion

Fly

links

do

not

wor

k Li

nks t

o “C

rime

Scen

e O

nlin

e” re

quire

lo

g-in

. Th

is

may

be

post

ed

on th

e m

ain

page

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

x

B A

B B

C B

B C

B Re

adin

g Co

mpr

ehen

sion

Stra

tegi

es in

Scie

nce

Comments

The focus

seem

s to be on

the student

working with

material that

the teacher

provides

rather than

encouraging

students to

engage in their

self selected

(more

relevant) texts.

Many of the

resources are

designed for

teacher

directed

instruction.

While the

students are

engaged in

“hands-‐on”

activities, they

are

disproportion

ately teacher

directed.

Going to

McGregors

webinars

takes m

e to:

www.heinema

nn.com.com


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

x

A B

A A

A A

B A

A/B

Ocea

n Sy

stem

s Comments

While a large

percentage of

the U.S.

population

lives in coastal

areas, millions

do not.

Connecting

ocean them

es

to urban Mid-‐

westerners is

very abstract.

The web-‐site

needs to

connect

oceans to the

lives of these

students. Eg.

Winter snows

of 2010 to

warming

oceans…

See relevance

Site designed

to be used by

both teachers

and students

who can

connect to the

ocean

experience.

Great potential

for

independent

work on the

students’

parts.

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

x

A A

A A

A A

A B

A Re

prod

uctio

n an

d He

redi

ty

Comments

Nice

accompanying

discussion of

standards and

their

interpretation.

The resources

here will easily

be adaptable

to enable

students to

apply and

relate this

important

topic to their

lives.

Critical to this

investigation

is making that

personal

connection.

See Relevance

Her

edity

link not found.


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

x

A B

A A

A A

A C

A Ea

rth’s

Oce

ans

Comments

NSES

Connecting the

ocean to the

Midwest is a

difficult task

but the

resources here

could facilitate

this process.

Making these

connections to

the daily lived

experience is

the key.

Maybe a

separate

section

specifically

pointing to

Midwest

issues would

assist.

Fo

rmat

ion

of

Tsun

amis

Link does not

link…

Several others

do not

function as

well.

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

x

A A

A A

A A

A A

A Sc

ienc

e Fa

ir 2.

0 Comments

The links for

stimulating

science fair

projects are

very good with

the exception

of “Science

Fair Activities

from

Energy

Kids”. This

site is a classic

what not to do

with science

fair…cook

book

experiments…t

he kids w

ill

have very little

engagement

with them

.

Almost m

akes

me want to

return to my

classroom and

launch a

science fair

next year.


Adapted from



MSP2 Resource Guide and Blog Review (Spring 2010)

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t wi

th

stan

dard

s Re

leva

nce

Adap

tabi

lity

Accu

racy

Re

sear

ch/

Read

ings

Cu

rrenc

y Co

vera

ge

Navig

abilit

y Ap

peal

X

B

A

A

A

C

A

B

A

A

M

akin

g M

ath

Vis

ual

http

://ex

pertv

oice

s.ns

dl.o

rg/m

iddl

e-sc

hool

-mat

h-sc

ienc

e/20

08/1

0/20

/mak

ing-

mat

h-vi

sual

/

Com

men

ts:

Rel

evan

t to

the

NC

TM

repr

esen

tatio

n pr

oces

s st

anda

rd

Mid

dle

scho

ol

stud

ents

are

us

e to

man

y vi

sual

im

ages

.

Res

ourc

es

are

adap

tabl

e

No

appa

rent

in

accu

raci

es

none

m

entio

ned,

m

ay w

ant t

o sh

are

rese

arch

that

sh

ows

the

bene

fits

of

visu

al

thin

king

in

mat

hem

atic

s

mak

es

mea

ning

ful

use

of

tech

nolo

gy

adva

nces

mig

ht w

ant t

o ac

know

ledg

e ot

her m

ath

area

s in

the

blog

pos

t w

here

re

ader

s m

ight

co

ntrib

ute

visu

aliz

atio

n to

ols.

whi

le

the

inte

nt o

f th

e po

st

was

n’t t

o be

co

mpr

ehen

sive

, it s

houl

d in

clud

e de

tails

abo

ut

futu

re a

reas

to

exp

lore

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l


Appendix L

Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t wi

th

stan

dard

s Re

leva

nce

Adap

tabi

lity

Accu

racy

Re

sear

ch/

Read

ings

Cu

rrenc

y Co

vera

ge

Navig

abilit

y Ap

peal

X

C

C

D

D

C

A

D

A

A

Tr

acki

ng N

utrit

ion

and

Fitn

ess

Goa

ls

http

://ex

pertv

oice

s.ns

dl.o

rg/m

iddl

e-sc

hool

-mat

h-sc

ienc

e/20

08/1

0/23

/trac

king

-nu

tritio

n-an

d-fit

ness

-goa

ls/

Com

men

ts:

This

pos

t was

diff

icul

t to

eval

uate

from

a

mat

hem

atic

s le

ns.

Stro

nger

con

nect

ions

to

the

embe

dded

m

athe

mat

ics

need

s to

be

mad

e.

not

men

tione

d ca

se n

eeds

to

be

mad

e ho

w a

nd w

hy

to c

onne

ct to

m

athe

mat

ics

not

eval

uate

d fo

r ad

apta

bilit

y

not

eval

uate

d fo

r ac

cura

cy

none

m

entio

ned

the

over

arch

ing

topi

c se

ems

curr

ent g

iven

th

e na

tiona

l co

nver

satio

ns

abou

t he

alth

car

e

not

eval

uate

d ea

sy to

na

viga

te

good

app

eal

X

C

A

A

A

C

A

B

B

A

Le

t’s T

alk

Teac

hing

: Gam

es in

M

ath

Cla

ss

http

://ex

pertv

oice

s.ns

dl.o

rg/m

iddl

e-sc

hool

-mat

h-sc

ienc

e/20

08/1

0/27

/lets

-talk

-te

achi

ng-g

ames

-in-m

ath-

clas

s/

Com

men

ts:

not

men

tione

d,

each

of t

he

web

re

sour

ces

coul

d be

id

entif

ied

with

a m

ath

stra

nd to

he

lp

orga

nize

the

cont

ent

rele

vanc

e is

ap

pare

nt

inso

far a

s po

tent

ial

mid

dle

scho

ol

stud

ent

enga

gem

ent

adap

tabl

e ac

ross

gra

de

setti

ngs

and

lear

ning

se

tting

s (i.

e.

clas

sroo

m,

lunc

h &

le

arn,

afte

r sc

hool

)

no a

ppar

ent

inac

cura

cies

no

ne

men

tione

d,

may

wan

t to

shar

e re

sear

ch th

at

show

s th

e be

nefit

of

gam

e; o

r fu

rther

re

sour

ces

rega

rdin

g m

ath

gam

es

stud

ent

enga

gem

ent

via

gam

ing,

pa

rticu

larly

w

ith

tech

nolo

gy,

seem

s to

be

incr

easi

ng

the

post

le

aves

me

won

derin

g ab

out t

he

sele

ctio

n of

on

line

reso

urce

s-

why

wer

e th

ese

ones

ch

osen

and

ot

her o

nes

not c

hose

n.

As

with

the

visu

aliz

atio

n po

st, I

thin

k th

at a

fra

mew

ork

base

d on

co

nten

t w

ould

hel

p sh

ow h

ow

thes

e re

sour

ces

fit

with

in th

e fra

mew

ork

as w

ell a

s su

gges

t gap

s of

reso

urce

s.

lots

of s

pam

ty

pe

com

men

ts.

may

wan

t to

cons

ider

ap

pend

ing

the

blog

pos

t w

ith u

ser

com

men

ts

that

are

he

lpfu

l in

expa

ndin

g th

e m

essa

ge

of th

e bl

og

post

good

app

eal


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t wi

th

stan

dard

s Re

leva

nce

Adap

tabi

lity

Accu

racy

Re

sear

ch/

Read

ings

Cu

rrenc

y Co

vera

ge

Navig

abilit

y Ap

peal

X

A

A

A

A

A

B

A

-B

B

A

Re-

thin

king

Mat

h A

sses

smen

t ht

tp://

expe

rtvoi

ces.

nsdl

.org

/mid

dle-

scho

ol-m

ath-

scie

nce/

2008

/12/

18/re

-thin

king

-m

ath-

asse

ssm

ent/

Com

men

ts:

Con

side

r diff

eren

tiatin

g re

sour

ces

for i

ndiv

idua

l cl

assr

oom

use

and

thos

e re

sour

ces

for

prof

essi

onal

co

llabo

ratio

n or

di

scus

sion

alig

ns w

ith

NC

TM’s

P

SS

M

asse

ssm

ent

prin

cipl

e

ongo

ing

rele

vanc

e ad

apta

ble

acro

ss

setti

ngs

and

grad

es

no a

ppar

ent

inac

cura

cies

th

e m

ajor

ity

of th

e re

sour

ces

men

tione

d te

nd to

com

e fro

m

auth

oriti

es in

m

athe

mat

ics

educ

atio

n

Unf

ortu

nate

ly

blog

pos

ts

beco

me

outd

ated

as

soon

as

they

ar

e pu

blis

hed.

in

parti

cula

r, th

is p

ost

men

tions

the

2005

NA

EP

, ye

t sin

ce

then

dat

a ha

s be

en

rele

ased

for

2007

and

20

09.

Whi

le th

is

post

offe

rs a

w

ide

colle

ctio

n of

ite

ms,

I’m

left

won

derin

g w

hy th

ese

reso

urce

s w

ere

sele

cted

.

The

“Mat

h W

hizz

” spa

m

shou

ld h

ave

not b

een

allo

wed

to b

e po

sted

.

good

app

eal

X

A

A

A

A

C

A

D

A

A

E

xplo

ring

Mat

h In

tera

ctiv

ity -

in

You

r Offl

ine

Cla

ssro

om

http

://ex

pertv

oice

s.ns

dl.o

rg/m

iddl

e-sc

hool

-mat

h-sc

ienc

e/20

09/0

3/13

/exp

lorin

g-m

ath-

inte

ract

ivel

y-in

-you

r-of

fline

-cl

assr

oom

/

Com

men

ts:

As

the

blog

pos

ts e

xpan

d in

topi

c an

d fre

quen

cy it

w

ould

be

a go

od id

ea to

co

nnec

t to

prev

ious

/futu

re p

osts

via

lin

ks. F

or e

xam

ple,

this

po

st s

houl

d be

link

ed to

th

e po

st ti

tled

“Onl

ine

Mat

h Le

sson

s fo

r the

O

fflin

e C

lass

room

”

Alig

ns w

ith

NC

TM’s

P

SS

M

tech

nolo

gy

prin

cipl

e

appr

opria

te

adap

tabl

e ac

ross

se

tting

s an

d gr

ades

no a

ppar

ent

inac

cura

cies

no

ne o

ffere

d lin

ks w

ork

and

are

curr

ent

see

com

men

ts

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t wi

th

stan

dard

s Re

leva

nce

Adap

tabi

lity

Accu

racy

Re

sear

ch/

Read

ings

Cu

rrenc

y Co

vera

ge

Navig

abilit

y Ap

peal

X

A

-B

A

A

A

C

A

D

A

A

Mea

surin

g a

Sol

id

http

://ex

pertv

oice

s.ns

dl.o

rg/m

iddl

e-sc

hool

-mat

h-sc

ienc

e/20

09/0

4/15

/mea

surin

g-a-

solid

/

Com

men

ts:

A re

curr

ing

thou

ght a

s I

read

thro

ugh

the

blog

po

sts

is “w

hat c

ould

be

mis

sing

”. In

this

pos

t, no

re

sour

ces

cons

ider

m

easu

ring

a sp

here

, or

even

a fr

ustu

m fo

r ex

ampl

e. I

won

der i

f the

co

nclu

sion

of a

pos

t m

entio

ned

the

gaps

stil

l ne

edin

g re

sour

ces

mig

ht

enco

urag

e re

ader

pa

rtici

patio

n w

hile

filli

ng

in th

e ga

ps o

f res

ourc

es.

This

alig

ns

with

the

NC

TM

PS

SM

m

easu

rem

ent s

tand

ard.

It

mig

ht b

e he

lpfu

l to

expl

icitl

y st

ate

this

and

ho

tlink

to th

e N

CTM

st

anda

rd.

rele

vant

se

ems

adap

tabl

e no

app

aren

t in

accu

raci

es

none

offe

red

links

wor

k an

d ar

e cu

rren

t

see

com

men

ts

easy

to

navi

gate

go

od a

ppea

l

X

A

A

A

R

eadi

ng a

nd W

ritin

g M

athe

mat

ics

http

://ex

pertv

oice

s.ns

dl.o

rg/m

iddl

e-sc

hool

-mat

h-sc

ienc

e/20

09/0

6/29

/read

ing-

and-

writ

ing-

mat

hem

atic

s/

Com

men

ts:

From

sta

ndar

ds…

Th

e te

xt “I

f stu

dent

s ca

n le

arn

to e

xpla

in th

eir

thin

king

in s

olvi

ng a

mat

h pr

oble

m (u

sing

dra

win

gs

or ta

bles

or g

raph

s as

w

ell a

s w

ords

), th

ey

acqu

ire a

mea

ns o

f se

tting

out

thei

r wor

k lo

gica

lly a

nd re

finin

g th

eir

thin

king

as

they

co

mm

unic

ate

thei

r un

ders

tand

ings

” su

gges

ts a

con

nect

ion

to

the

stan

dard

of

repr

esen

tatio

n.

Con

nect

ed to

N

CTM

P

SS

M

Com

mun

icat

ion

sta

ndar

d.

(con

tinue

d in

co

mm

ents

se

ctio

n)

rele

vant

- es

peci

ally

in

a sc

hool

se

tting

that

is

a m

iddl

e sc

hool

whe

re

cros

s-cu

rric

ulum

in

tegr

atio

n oc

curs

This

pos

t pr

imar

ily

serv

es a

s an

ad

vert

for t

he

mat

h re

sour

ce

guid

e “R

eadi

ng

and

Writ

ing

Mat

h”.

As

men

tione

d un

der

alig

nmen

t- a

focu

s on

the

stan

dard

re

pres

enta

tion

may

be

a bl

og o

r wik

i to

pic

wor

th

expl

orin

g.


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

X

B B

A A

A A

A B

A The Origin of Species

Comments

Relevant

material

connected to

the

controversy

with this topic

would be

helpful.

As the blog

indicates,

much more

needs to be

added here.

Research

(Colburn &

Henriques

2006)

indicates that

clergy is more

apt than

teachers to

correctly

understand

founding

principles of

evolution.

Teachers need

OVERT

support along

these lines.

Many may not

know what

questions they

need to be

asking.

Let us not

forget the

controversy

that this topic

presents.

Link to

“Heredity”

produced

“page not

found

Locating the

links at the top

of the page

could assist

browsing

later.

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

X

A B

A B

A A

B

Po

lar B

ears

and

Clim

ate

Chan

ge

Comments

NSES

generalities

Relating the

issues of the

polar bear to

local

experiences…

e.g. if the bears

are

experiencing

these changes,

what changes

can we find

evidence for

locally.

A lack of

response to

the blogger

who

commented

about the cold

winter in OH

indicating that

global

warming could

therefore not

be happening;

this is typical

lack of

understanding

of the issue.

Immediate

graph and

NOAA link of

averages

should be

posted in

response.

Connections to

local relevance


Adapted from



If teachers do

not

understand

the science

behind the

concept…how

will they assist

the students in

grasping the

concepts?

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

X

B A

A A

B B

A A

In

vest

igat

ing

Cell S

ize

Comments

Nice

suggestions

for inquiry

extensions

Inquiry

suggested as

extension but

not as a

primary focus.

Suggesting to

teachers

relevance to

different cell

functions and

their relative

sizes.

Links support

interdisciplina

ry work.

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

X

A A

A A

A A

A A

A Ho

w Do

es B

ird D

ivers

ity A

ffect

the

Incid

ence

of

West

Nile

Viru

s in

Hum

ans?

Comments

Excellent

venue for

connecting to

individual and

local concerns.


Adapted from



Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

X

A A

A A

A B

A A

A Ar

e Yo

u Re

ady

for R

ichte

r Sca

le D

ay?

Comments

Downgraded

only due to the

recent

earthquake

news omitted

due to the lack

of updating of

site. H

owever,

the links are

fantastic.

Resource Title

Resource Guide

Blog

Alig

nmen

t with

st

anda

rds

Relev

ance

Ad

apta

bility

Ac

cura

cy

Rese

arch

/ Re

adin

gs

Curre

ncy

Cove

rage

Na

vigab

ility

Appe

al

X

A A

C B

C A

B A

A M

iddl

e Le

vel S

tude

nts

and

‘Abi

litie

s Ne

cess

ary

to

Do S

cient

ific In

quiry

’ Comments

A significant

portion of the

blog relates to

the inquiry

methods as it

relates to NOS.

The literature

on NOS is

loaded with

findings that

clearly state

that a majority

of teachers of

science do not

have an

understanding

of NOS and

therefore have

trem

endous

difficulty

teaching with

inquiry. This

posting needs

to be much

more explicit

in what it

means by

being

“explicit”

when teaching

inquiry/NOS.

See

adapatbility

Semantics are

at play here.

“Com

monly

accepted”

research

findings do not

necessarily

reflect current

research.

Developing

NOS in

students will

require a

dram

atic

change in

classroom

practices. So,

while the

content in this

blog is timely

and current, it

seem

s to

ignore much of

current

practice. A

synopsis of

current NOS

literature may

be helpful

here.

See

adapatbility


7/29/09

What is your primary role as an educator?

1 - Teacher/ Classroom Educator 25% (1) 2 - Administrator 0% (0)

3 - Curriculum Developer 0% (0) 4 - Library, Resource, or Technology Coordinator 50% (2)

5 - Student 0% (0) 6 - Researcher 0% (0)

7 - Other 25% (1)

Mean: 4

Response: 4

In what setting do you primarily work?

1 - Elementary Grades (preK-4) 0% (0) 2 - Middle Grades (5-8) 50% (2)

3 - Secondary Grades (9-12) 0% (0) 4 - School District 0% (0)

5 - Other 50% (2)

Mean: 3.5

Response: 4

What has been the most beneficial aspect of today's session?

1 - Examples and Illustrations 100% (4) 2 - Presentation 75% (3)

3 - Q & A 50% (2) 4 - Other 25% (1)

Response: 4


Appendix M

www.clicktools.com

(5=excellent, 4=very good, 3=good, 2=adequate and 1=poor)

5 4 3 2 1 Mean

1 Rate the quality of the sessioncontent

100% (4) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1

Response: 4

What was the biggest takeaway for you from this session?

1 See what can be done with Moodle and students.

2 examples of ways to use interactive notebooks and to manage them when you have lots of students; would love to have a followupsession focusing on more of the tech tools you could use for interactive notebooks with pros/cons for the various tools.

3 The discussions and the examples plus where to go for more information

4 Setting up the notebook for success.

Did you have any technical difficulties during the session?

1 - Yes 25% (1) 2 - No 50% (2)

3 - If yes, please explain 25% (1)

Mean: 2

Response: 4

What other topics would you like to see for future MSP2 Tech Talks or online events?

1 Using Notebook Software on interactive whiteboards, Twitter in the classroom, VoicethreadsThank you for providing this session.

2 looking forward to the next topics you have planned: Moodle, wikis, digital storytelling (don't see a comment box for requesting additionalinformation about MSP2 Tech Talks but I am interested in learning more--learned about this session on LearnCentral) I have the link forthe MSP2 portal and I'll do some exploring there. Thanks!


www.clicktools.com

1 - MSP2 Tech Talk Information 100% (5)

Response: 5

1 - Elluminate product information 100% (4)

Response: 4

First Name Last Name Organization

Title State/Province

(Requiredfor US orCanada)

Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

1 Joe Testcase Test [email protected]

2 Joe Testcase Test [email protected]

3 Kathleen Burgess Archdioceseof

Philadelphia

Library/Media

CurriculumChairperson

Pennsylvania

US [email protected]

610-532-3335

[email protected]

610-532-3335

4 Peggy George AZ USA [email protected]

5 JL Cribb Tabor cityMiddleSchool

MediaSpecialist

NC US [email protected]

c.us

910-653-3637

[email protected]

910-653-3715

Generated using clicktools on Tuesday October 27 2009 14:18:52


National Middle School Association


1 - Teacher/ Classroom Educator 72.73% (8) 2 - Administrator 0% (0)

3 - Curriculum Developer 0% (0) 4 - Library, Resource, or Technology Coordinator 27.27% (3)


7 - Other 0% (0)

Mean: 1.82

Response: 11


1 - Elementary Grades (preK-4) 18.18% (2) 2 - Middle Grades (5-8) 63.64% (7)

3 - Secondary Grades (9-12) 9.09% (1) 4 - School District 0% (0)

5 - Other 9.09% (1)

Mean: 2.18

Response: 11


1 - Examples and Illustrations 72.73% (8) 2 - Presentation 27.27% (3)

3 - Q & A 27.27% (3) 4 - Other 18.18% (2)

Response: 11


www.clicktools.com


5 4 3 2 1 Mean


54.55% (6) 36.36% (4) 9.09% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.55

Response: 11


1 I crashed the moodle site for my district yesterday. They said I had too much on it. This sounded like I can explore some other ways ofdoing things.

2 all

3 I have more confidence to try Moodle. I am also hopeful that I can continue this dialogue at MSP2 with other interested teachers!

4 I am moving to the 6-9 grade level and am encouraged by your success using Moodle with those students.

5 links to browse and go to for help

6 Examples that any teacher could use, no matter what the platform.

7 What a moodle site can do and look like

8 I found a lot of new information.

9 tips and resources shared


1 - Yes 9.09% (1) 2 - No 90.91% (10)


Mean: 1.91

Response: 11


1 some example Maths course

2 Noteshare program or webpage use in the classroom

3 Anytime you can get an exemplary teacher to share, it's great. My system isn't even using Moodle, but I still got great tips.

4 follow up to today's moodle

5 web 2.0 in the classroom real examples


www.clicktools.com


Response: 5


Response: 4




Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

1 Ann Meyer FairviewCharterSchool

LMS andITL

Wisconsin UnitedStates

[email protected]

.wi.us

414-546-7707

[email protected]

414-327-2391

2 virginia alberti ITIS andLST

B.Castelli

teacher ITALY [email protected]

00390303752984

3 George Mayfield GOALAcademy

Instructor Colorado USA [email protected]

719-242-3697

4 Henry Hill Florida UnitedStates

[email protected]

5 Susie Highley CrestonMiddleSchool

MediaSpecialist

IN USA [email protected]

6 Marie Clarner NorthAttleboroMiddleSchool

MathTeacher

MA USA [email protected]

508-643-230X4126

[email protected]

508-643-2130X4126

7 Celena Miller [email protected]

om



August 12, 2009




5 - Student 0% (0) 6 - Researcher 14.29% (1)

7 - Other 28.57% (2)

Mean: 3.43

Response: 7


1 - Elementary Grades (preK-4) 0% (0) 2 - Middle Grades (5-8) 28.57% (2)


5 - Other 71.43% (5)

Mean: 4.14

Response: 7


1 - Examples and Illustrations 71.43% (5) 2 - Presentation 57.14% (4)

3 - Q & A 42.86% (3) 4 - Other 28.57% (2)

Response: 7


www.clicktools.com


5 4 3 2 1 Mean


71.43% (5) 14.29% (1) 14.29% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.43

Response: 7


1 links for teacher support

2 7 principles of storytelling, what people do with stories, particular math/science "quirks" of stories

3 Start up tips

4 Practical ideas

5 steps in developing digital stories and examples--looking forward to exploring the resources on the Ning later

6 great ideas shared!

7 The slide information and links shared.


1 - Yes 0% (0) 2 - No 100% (7)


Mean: 2

Response: 7


1 Social Media in Math (Math 2.0)

2 Further opportunities to share struggles and successes with Digital Storytelling once participants have created own story.

3 love the topics you have chosen! looking forward to the wiki session! how about an entire session on Voicethread--awesome, flexible toolfor many things and especially digital storytelling and collaborative student learning

4 Digital storytelling tools to work with visually handicapped students.


www.clicktools.com


Response: 4


Response: 0




Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

1 Maria Droujkova NaturalMath

Director NC USA [email protected]

2 Pamela Burish University ofNotre Dame

Coordinatorfor

TechnologyOutreach/Fa

culty

IN UnitedStates

[email protected]

574-631-0193

[email protected]

3 Basilla Stevens SeymourMiddleSchool

Teacher Connecticut USA [email protected]

t

2038887690

4 Peggy George AzTEA AZ USA [email protected]



9/16/09





7 - Other 25% (1)

Mean: 4

Response: 4




5 - Other 25% (1)

Mean: 3

Response: 4


1 - Examples and Illustrations 100% (3) 2 - Presentation 66.67% (2)

3 - Q & A 33.33% (1) 4 - Other 0% (0)

Response: 3


www.clicktools.com


5 4 3 2 1 Mean


33.33% (1) 66.67% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.67

Response: 3


1 I came in at the end--hope to see the recording.

2 Glad to see there are others out there who think the same as we do. Great resources.

3 The suggestions of sites to visit for more information


1 - Yes 0% (0) 2 - No 75% (3)


Mean: 2.25

Response: 4


1 More on using Google Apps in the classroom for interactive student learning


Response: 0


www.clicktools.com


Response: 0




Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)



10/7/09



3 - Curriculum Developer 0% (0) 4 - Library, Resource, or Technology Coordinator 66.67% (4)


7 - Other 33.33% (2)

Mean: 5

Response: 6




5 - Other 66.67% (4)

Mean: 4.17

Response: 6


1 - Examples and Illustrations 66.67% (4) 2 - Presentation 100% (6)

3 - Q & A 50% (3) 4 - Other 0% (0)

Response: 6


www.clicktools.com


5 4 3 2 1 Mean


83.33% (5) 16.67% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.17

Response: 6


1 Just needed a refresher on how to use Diigo and the differences btw that and delicious which I already use.

2 Show students how to use Diigo for research.

3 Diigo possibilities

4 A Diigo account is in my near future.

5 how to use diigo, comparison to delicious, great diigo tools

6 Diigo is a powerful social bookmarking/research tool for teachers and students!


1 - Yes 0% (0) 2 - No 100% (6)


Mean: 2

Response: 6


1 Edmodo

2 Would love to see a followup session on Diigo with examples of how teachers are using it with students in their classrooms


www.clicktools.com


Response: 1


Response: 0




Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

1 Geordie Paulus ElkridgeLandingMiddle

TechnologySupportTeacher

Maryland USA [email protected]

2 Alice Tope etseo [email protected]



10/21/09





7 - Other 33.33% (2)

Mean: 3.5

Response: 6




5 - Other 66.67% (4)

Mean: 4.17

Response: 6



3 - Q & A 0% (0) 4 - Other 0% (0)

Response: 6


www.clicktools.com


5 4 3 2 1 Mean


50% (3) 50% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.5

Response: 6


1 CAST has lots of free tools that I didn't know about - tools that will help me integrate UDL best practices into my work

2 three components of UDL, Book builder, and UDL sample courses for teacher prep

3 Definition of UDL and sites where I can go for help on this topic.

4 Ideas about where to goe for more infor about UDL


1 - Yes 33.33% (2) 2 - No 50% (3)

3 - If yes, please explain 16.67% (1)

Mean: 1.83

Response: 6


1 algebra software


www.clicktools.com


Response: 1


Response: 0




Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

1 Karla Phillips CoconinoCommunity

College

CurriculumCoordinator

AZ USA karla.phillips@coconino.

edu

928-226-4346

karla.phillips@coconino.

edu

928-226-4346



November 2009




5 - Student 33.33% (2) 6 - Researcher 0% (0)

7 - Other 16.67% (1)

Mean: 3.33

Response: 6


1 - Elementary Grades (preK-4) 16.67% (1) 2 - Middle Grades (5-8) 66.67% (4)


5 - Other 16.67% (1)

Mean: 2.33

Response: 6



3 - Q & A 16.67% (1) 4 - Other 0% (0)

Response: 6


www.clicktools.com


5 4 3 2 1 Mean


50% (3) 50% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.5

Response: 6


1 All the safety proceedures I did not know about in the science classroom.

2 I found all of the information really useful. I appreciated the pictures because it will make it easier for me to literally see hazards in theclassroom.

3 How many things are done incorrectly in the lab setting in schools.

4 Dr. Roy's dialogue about common misconceptions about laboratory safety.


1 - Yes 33.33% (2) 2 - No 33.33% (2)

3 - If yes, please explain 33.33% (2)

Mean: 2

Response: 6


1 Using technology in the classroom

2 examples of lessons and hands-on activities to use in the classroom

3 Something on integrating Project Wild or Project Wet into state science standards, especially when working through a curriculum guide.


www.clicktools.com


Response: 0


Response: 0




Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Generated using clicktools on Monday April 19 2010 20:16:50


National Middle School Association





7 - Other 15% (3)

Mean: 2.9

Response: 20




5 - Other 50% (10)

Mean: 3.9

Response: 20


1 - Examples and Illustrations 65% (13) 2 - Presentation 50% (10)

3 - Q & A 5% (1) 4 - Other 10% (2)

Response: 20


www.clicktools.com


5 4 3 2 1 Mean


57.89% (11) 36.84% (7) 5.26% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1.47

Response: 19


1 site examples

2 Overview of Scratch

3 ways to use tools to teach math and which tools to use

4 Use of a variety of apps. to engage students in a math classroom.

5 different tools

6 More ways that teachers can benefit from using these tools.

7 Questions from other participants, how the session was facilitated, explanations of applications I wasn't already familiar with

8 Didn't learn much new, but enjoyed the presentation

9 Just expanded my knowledge of what is available on Google, a great deal

10 lots to explore

11 Google Books

12 what google tools to start with as a new user

13 Very interesting applications I was not aware of. I would like to try and incorporate it in my learning environments. I would also like to tryand introduce it to my children's teachers.

14 Knowledge of ways to use various apps

15 Learning how to use all aspects of Google applications.

16 Ideas for how to use Google Apps. Quick overview of what's available and it's use.

17 The overview for GoogleApps for Education


1 - Yes 5% (1) 2 - No 90% (18)


Mean: 2

Response: 20


1 more web 2.0 tools

2 connecting classrooms across borders

3 Specifics on teaching Algebra using technology.


www.clicktools.com

4 math applet

5 math tools about simulations

6 digital storytelling tools/strategiesStrategies for implementing Google Apps in the classroom

7 always interested in Web 2.0 tools, good examples of classroom application of tools, ideas for deliver and moels for classroom basedtechnology PD in districts, I haven't yet looked at your website. Plean to go there tonight. I may find some of this there.

8 How to set up Google Sites

9 GoogleApps used in the classroom, example curriculum, lesson plans, best practices


Response: 6


Response: 1




Country(Required

for Contact)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

Email(Required

for Contact)

Phone (ex. 123-456-

7890)

1 Laura Silva AzusaPacific

University

Lecturer -CurriculumSpecialist

CA UnitedStates

[email protected]

626-815-5039

[email protected]

626-815-5039

2 Karen Justl SpringBranch ISD

Ed. TechGrant

Facilitator

TX USA karen.justl@springbranc

hisd.com

713-251-2405

3 Pat Elliott Hewitt'sCreek P.S.

Teacher-librarian

Ontario Canada

4 Sharon Smith Oklahoma USA [email protected]

5 Melissa Thibodeaux EastBeauregardHigh School

ClassroomTeacher/Ed

TechFacilitator

Louisiana US [email protected]

2.la.us

337-328-7511

6 Susan Miller PinellasCountySchools

Teacher Florida USA [email protected]

7 Leo Willems Singapore [email protected]

[email protected]

Documents

MSP2 Evaluation Report 2009-2010