Teacher/Faculty Workshop Evaluations
Instrument 7: Post-Practicum
Evaluation
Project: Great Lakes Research Consortium
Summer Practicum for Applied Environmental Problem-Solving:
New Approaches and Techniques for Undergraduate Faculty
State University of New York
Funding Source: NSF: Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement (DUE)
Purpose: To evaluate a summer practicum and
use the data to refine the program
Administered To: Faculty who attended the
practicum and who teach undergraduate students in environmental
sciences
Topics Covered:
- Facilities: accommodations, classroom, food,
laboratory
- Plans & Expectations (Teacher/Faculty): project
implementation
- Workshop Evaluation: areas for program improvement,
content, effectiveness, exemplary areas, insturctor,
methods, objectives, opportunity to practice,
organization
Format/Length: 40 open-ended questions
Great Lakes Research Consortium Summer
Practicum for
Applied Environmental Problem-Solving: New Approaches and
Techniques For Undergraduate Faculty
1996 POST-PRACTICUM EVALUATION
The program you have completed is an initiative of the Great
Lakes Research Consortium and the National Science Foundation.
We would appreciate receiving your evaluation. We will use
your comments for refining the program in the future and writing
our final report to NSF.
Overall Evaluation
- What was the most effective part of this practicum?
- What was the least effective part?
- What is the best way to improve this practicum?
Goals
The Consortium set two important goals. Please evaluate
how well these goals were achieved, and offer suggestions
for ways to improve the program so as to more fully achieve
our goals.
Goal 1: To encourage participants to revise or create
courses or programs that will focus on applied environmental
problem-solving as a method to stimulate undergraduate interest
in environmental sciences and environmental issues in local
communities.
Will you revise or create a new course as a result of your
participation in the practicum?
How well were the practicum's different modules integrated into
the theme of environmental problem-solving?
How would you improve this integration?
Goal 2: To expose participants to innovative new theoretical
and practical techniques now being used to address ecological
and environmental issues in the Great Lakes basin, and to introduce
participating faculty to several of the scientists who are actively
developing and improving these techniques.
How well was this goal achieved?
Did the "hands-on" experiences in utilizing research equipment
in the field and laboratory provide you with enough information
to pursue personal interests in the techniques further and to
evaluate the techniques' potential for undergraduate teaching
at your institution?
Was there enough opportunity to interact with the scientists
making presentations as part of the practicum?
Modules
Please describe the most effective and least effective part
of the modules, and suggest ways for improving each:
Module 1: Lake Ontario Environments and Environmental
Issues (Scrudato, Haynes; Field Weekend)
Most Effective:
Least Effective:
Ways to Improve:
Module 2: Great Lakes Ecosystem Science and Environmental
Analysis
(Haynes, Engel, Scudato, Sprules, Stewart: Ecosystem science,
environmental analysis, toxic chemical sampling/handling/storage,
collecting and analyzing Oswego Harbor data, collecting and
processing fish and sediment samples, cascading trophic dynamics,
particle size spectra)
Most Effective:
Least Effective:
Ways to Improve:
Module 3: Techniques for Analyzing Toxic Chemicals
(Roberts and Pagano: Analytic theory, preparing and analyzing
sediments and fish, integrating chemical methods into classes)
Most Effective:
Least Effective:
Ways to Improve
Module 4: Ecosystem Modeling
(Young, DePinto, Stewart: Spreadsheets, lake phosphorus modeling,
physical and chemical transport modeling, bioenergetics and
bioaccumulation modeling, linking models, applying models to
Oswego Harbor, integration of modeling into classes)
Most Effective:
Least Effective:
Ways to Improve:
Module 5: Writing Environmental Assessments and Curriculum
Development
(Haynes: Scoping Oswego Harbor project, writing EIS in teams,
citizen participation, public hearing, integrating EIS approach
into classes, revising courses)
Most Effective:
Least Effective:
Ways to Improve:
Overall Logistics
Were the promotional brochures accurate in describing the
practicum?
Were the pre-practicum letters and materials sent to you sufficient
to prepare you for the practicum?
How would you improve these materials?
Please evaluate the best part and worst part of the following
categories, and suggest ways to improve each.
Dormitories
Best part:
Worst part:
Ways to improve:
Food
Best part:
Worst part:
Ways to improve:
Meeting Rooms and Labs (not included in this survey,
but should be added for the next time)
Best part:
Worst part:
Ways to improve:
Overall Scheduling:
Best part:
Worst part:
Ways to improve:
Other Comments:
|
 |
