THE (UN) COMMON

CORE

The Sizemore Conference Evaluation Report presents the results of a secondary data analysis collected in the 2014 Conference held at Duquesne University on May 27 and 28 of 2014.

5th Annual Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore Summer Conference

Renata de Almeida Ramos

July 17, 2014

2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 3 EVALUATION OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 3 METHODOLOGY FOR THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 3 KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4

EVALUATION DESIGN AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 5 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND USE ..................................................................................................... 5 EVALUATION DESIGN ........................................................................................................................ 5 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................................ 6

Survey Construction ....................................................................................................................... 6 RESULTS - ............................................................................................................................................ 6 SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 6

EVALUATION FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 7 PARTICIPANTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................................... 7 REFLECTIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................... 9

Evaluative Survey: Research Overview, Plenary and Keynote Speakers ....................................... 9 Presenter Scale .............................................................................................................................. 14 Panelists Scale ............................................................................................................................... 16

WORKSHOPS ..................................................................................................................................... 18 SUGGESTIONS FOR 2015 ................................................................................................................... 24

EVALUATION LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 25

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ....................................................................... 26

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 27

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 27

3

Executive Summary

Evaluation Objectives

The goal of this internal, summative, secondary data analysis is to analyze and present the results from the surveys supplied by the Conference organizers.

Methodology for the Evaluation

The data was collected through post surveys delivered after each session and workshop. Four Surveys were designed: Evaluative Survey – Tuesday Evening; Evaluative Survey – Wednesday Morning; Evaluative Survey – Wednesday Afternoon; Evaluative Survey – Workshop. The criteria in the scale of workshop surveys did not vary by session.

The surveys identified (a) participant’s professional role and (b) how the participant knew about the conference; and measured:

• Learning experiences

• Improvement of awareness in social justice and urban education

• Gain of new insights

• Impact and ‘inspiration’ in participant’s work

• Panelists and facilitator content knowledge and presentation skills

Key Findings

From 58 Evaluative Surveys collected:

• 74.14% are teaching.

• 62.07% know about the Conference through their schools.

• 62% rate the presenter’s discussion on social justice in education and issues on urban education with the highest score.

• No panelist receives a score lower than 4, in a scale 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

• 39 spontaneous comments are written in the instruments.

• 78.45% do not answer the open-ended questions.

4

From 131 Workshop Surveys collected:

• 78% of workshop participants deem their facilitators as highly knowledgeable about their subject matter.

• There is a strong correlation (r=.803, p=.000) between two criteria—‘the facilitator related to the participants’ and ‘facilitate in an engaging manner’.

• Promoting the Conference as professional development for all educators, informal or not, can increase the diversity of attendees.

• The holding of the Conference during the summer gives the educators time to implement their learning in the next school year and exchange ideas with other teachers that have experience in other levels of education and social context.

Introduction

This evaluation report was created for the Sizemore Urban Education Initiative. The report is the result of a summative evaluation using secondary data analysis referent to the Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore 2014 Summer Conference & Award Ceremony activities.

The 5th annual Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore Conference, entitled ‘The (UN) Common Core: Pathways to Opportunity or Mechanism of Social Injustice?’ was held from May 27 to May 28, 2014 at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Sizemore Conference is part of the Sizemore Urban Education Initiative and continues Dr. Sizemore’s work in closing the achievement gap in urban education, “providing participants with experiences and tools that support their work” (Dr. Launcelot Brown), especially the underserved. Her axiom was “All children can learn.”

To achieve this goal the Sizemore Urban Education Initiative articulates different activities in the community— Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore fellowship, Sizemore Pipeline–Tomorrow’s Urban Teachers program, We Promise program with African American male students from Pittsburgh Public Schools, and the design of the Sizemore Conferences and award with renowned keynote speakers and workshops, free of charge.

The 5th Sizemore Conference had the following schedule:

• Day 1 (Tuesday Evening): Opening Plenary Speaker and a Panel

5

• Day 2 (Wednesday): Traditional opening, Research Overview, Morning Plenary Speaker, and the realization of 10 workshops that worked concomitant. In the afternoon the Conference presented a Keynote Speaker and another panel.

During the two days the Sizemore Initiative collected information from the participants and recorded video of most panels and plenaries.

Here we present data results of the analysis hoping to provide a snapshot of the Conference as well as a scaffold to improve the evaluation process. Consequently, the aim is to identify what worked well and what can be improved, and thereby incorporate those insights into the planning of future conferences and contribute to the continuing success of the Sizemore Summer Conference series.

Evaluation Design and Analysis

Evaluation Purpose and Use

The purpose of this evaluation is to present the results from data collected by the Sizemore Urban Education Initiative from the Sizemore Conference and to suggest actions for improvement.

The results attempted to answer the following questions:

• Who are the Sizemore Conference participants? • How did participants hear about the Sizemore Conference? • How did participants perceive the activities and facilitators? • What suggestions do participants have for the 2015 Sizemore Conference?

This evaluation delivers the possibility for the organizers to plan for and improve their subsequent events by incorporating the views of all stakeholders, providing the organizers with evidence of the relevance of the Sizemore Initiative, which can be presented to their funders.

Evaluation Design

The evaluation design followed the Conference chronogram structure, organizing the analyzed data by day and activities. The information was maintained as whole as possible, therefore the survey open questions were not aggregate on themes or the spontaneous comments edited.

The evaluation included the presentation of suggestions to facilitate future evaluations and overcome some difficulty inherent to the evaluation process, like number of surveys returned, as requested by the stakeholders.

6

Data Collection

The data was collected through 4 different instruments. The surveys are designed by period (Tuesday evening, Wednesday morning, Wednesday afternoon) and the type of the activity (panel or workshop). The surveys designed by period are referred to as ‘Evaluative Survey’ and the other activities are referred to as ‘Workshop Survey’.

Participants completed all surveys shortly after the activities concluded.

Dr. Launcelot Brown stressed the importance of filling out the surveys several times during the Welcome on Wednesday morning.

Survey Construction

The Evaluative Survey instruments are designed in two parts, first with common questions (2 multi-choice queries, 6 scales statements, and 2 open-ended questions) and a second part referent to the specific activity for that period (Tuesday evening, Wednesday morning and Wednesday afternoon). The survey collected on the final activity (Wednesday afternoon) contained 3 open questions related to the participant’s suggestions for the next Conference in 2015.

The Workshop Survey instruments measured, with a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), the different abilities and knowledge of the workshop’s facilitator in form of criteria. The same scales were used for all the workshops. See appendix for instrument design model.

Results - Survey Data Analysis

The materials analyzed, provided by the organizers, were: official chronogram, DVD with the recording of Wednesday activities with exception of the workshops, photocopies of the surveys organized by day and workshop subject, and a list of the participants by workshop (the organizers intentions to allocate the participants, not a presence list).

Incomplete surveys and duplicated photocopies were identified and marked, the DVD was watched and notes taken for context understanding, and the surveys were coded. The quantitative data was entered in statistical software, SPSS. The open-ended questions were aggregate in tables. Throughout the work with the data, all insights were written in a notebook.

The descriptive results will be presented in 3 parts: Participants’ Demographics, Reflections on the activities (Evaluative Survey: Research Overview, Plenary Speaker and Keynote Speaker, and Workshops), and Suggestions for 2015.

7

Evaluation Findings

“I feel like the passion exuded from the speakers recharged me.” (District School Administrator regarding the session of Wednesday morning) A total of 58 Evaluative Surveys and 131 Workshop Surveys were returned. According to the list of participants (not presence) 283 people were expected to attend one of the 11 workshops. The workshops were concurrent; therefore we can presume that the number of participants in the 5th Annual Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore Summer Conference was at least 131 individuals.

Participants’ Demographics

The participants’ demographics data were drawn from the 58 Evaluative Surveys. The survey design presented some challenges to be considered when reading the results. Two questions gave us insight in the participant’s profile: ‘My professional role is’ and ‘How did you hear about conference?’. The 3 versions of the Evaluative Survey had the 2 questions. On the other hand, only the second question had the option for the participants to indicate if he/she had already answered that question. The boxes related to the options of the professional roles could be misguided. For example, one of the participants ticketed the box for ‘student’, but also filled out the space for the option ‘other’.

Within this limitation the 58 surveys returned were assigned in 3 different points: (1) Tuesday Evening, (2) Wednesday Morning and (3) Wednesday Afternoon. The representation of the survey return was, for the total of 58: Day 1 Tuesday Evening– 7 surveys or 12.1%; Day 2 Wednesday Morning – 31 surveys or 53.4% and Day 2 Wednesday Afternoon - 20 surveys or 34.5%. Tuesday evening had a low general attendance probably due to the inclement weather.

8

Surveys indicate 65.5% of the participants are teachers and 5 out of 17 that chose the option ‘other’ described their role as ‘faculty’, ‘professor’, or ‘coach’. Therefore, from the 58 participants, 43 or 74.14% are teaching in at least one level of education.

Other professional roles and their frequencies are presented in the table below:

Professional Role Frequency

Student (ProDel Cohort 3) 1

Family Advocate 1

Community Provider/Leader 2

Social Worker 1

Child Welfare 1

School Administrator (District) 1

School Administrator 2

Counselor 2

In congruence with the majority of the professional roles being teachers, the participants mostly heard about the conference through their schools, with a representation of 62.07%.

The following table reflects how the attendees knew about the Sizemore Conference:

‘Hear’ About Conference Frequency

Through My School 38

Word of Mouth 2

Attended Previously 8

Courier 1

Pittsburgh Public Schools District Office 3

Poster at Duquesne University 1

Community/Child Welfare Organization 2

Conference Website/ Duq.edu Homepage 2/1

Email (from administration, announcement, mailing list from a forum)

3

Mandatory Professional Development 1

9

Reflections on the Activities

Evaluative Survey: Research Overview, Plenary and Keynote Speakers

The survey design assessed the participant’s point of view for the session through 6 statements scaled 1 to 5, where 1 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 ‘strongly agree’. Two more categories were added for analyzing purposes only: not applicable (N/A) and blank. The N/A was applied when the participant did not respond to that statement because it judged related to another presentation and not the one that he/she participated. The blank was considered when the respondent answered other statements but not that specific statement.

The presenter and panelist’s assessment were made through 5 criteria for each, when applicable; each criterion was corresponded to a scale 1 to 5, where 1 was the ‘lowest’ score and 5 the ‘highest’ score.

Two open-ended questions requested for ‘new insights’ and ‘concrete actions’.

10

Sessions Statements

The results for the sessions statements are listed below:

4%

24%

26%

36%

3%

7%

The sessions provided solid learning experiences. (N=58)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

2% 3%

12%

31% 40%

3% 9%

The sessions made me more aware of social justice issues in the context of education. (N=58)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

2% 3%

17%

28% 38%

3% 9%

The sessions made me more aware of urban education. (N=58)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

2% 2%

21%

22% 40%

3% 10%

I gained new insights from the sessions. (N=58)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

2%

21%

33% 27%

3% 14%

Inspired by the sessions, I will develop (a) concrete action(s)

at work. (N=58)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

2% 3%

21%

31%

31%

3% 9%

The sessions will impact my work. (N=58)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

11

An average of 36.33% of the participants ‘strongly agree’ that the sessions had the best outcome mentioned on the statements. On the other hand, 12.85% of the answers did not give us any information being N/A or blank.

The open-ended questions related to the ‘new insights’ and ‘concrete actions’ had a mean of 78.45% non-respondents. With 62.1% declaring that they ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that they gained ‘new insights’ using the statements scales, only 10 participants identified those new insights as requested by the open-ended question. ‘Agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ was selected by 60.4% (35 participants) for the statement ‘Inspired by the sessions, I will develop (a) concrete action(s) at work’. However, only 19% listed their ideas about the actions the session inspired.

The table below presents the insights and ideas as listed on the instruments:

Referred Activity Listed Insights Gained Listed Ideas for Concrete Actions

Dr. Walker Plenary and

PPS Panel

“Offer real suggestions to improve the state of urban education. I thoroughly enjoyed the speakers, the sessions & the presenters. I just need practical advice to implement it.”

“It rejuvenated my passion & dedication to education. I am recommitted to my students.”

“I learned so much about African American schools prior to integration. It was amazing,”

“Dr. Siddle Walker’s five points are applicable to many leadership situations.”

Dr. Ball Overview

and Dr. Howard Plenary

“The information from Dr. Vanessa Siddle Walker was very insightful in how specific elements contribute to successful students with limited resources.”

“Make parents more aware of what the intention of the common core actually is so that parents, students, the community can collectively partner with educational institutions to put pressure on federal levels of governing bodies to strategize on creating curriculum that involves the people it will most affect and not companies that make money through administration of standardized testing.”

“The research overview was unnecessary but Dr. Howard’s speech was on target. He needed more time. Should have spoken first.”

“1) Start conversations with colleagues.”

“I was reminded about the necessity to look how to change methods and approaches to teaching to match the needs of changing students.”

“Research free apps for phones students can use to help with reading music. Look how I can change my methods or structure of lessons I currently need to continually reteach.”

12

Dr. Ball Overview and

Dr. Howard Plenary (Cont.)

“The many gaps that exist that hinder our African American students from succeeding.”

“Establishing connections and partnerships between home, community and education institutions, that form programs that encourage success.”

“Really inspiring speakers. I tremendously enjoyed the opportunity to listen to these presenters.”

“ I will provide readings on the topic of diverse learners in my courses.”

“The importance of supporting minority students to achieve academic success!”

“Reflect on my current practice, changing & looking to adapt for new school year.”

“I feel like the passion exuded from the speakers recharged me. I also benefitted from the reminders of a call to action.”

“Working with administrators past and present to gain support for minority students in achieving academic excellence!”

“Professional development– practical points, expected progressions in thinking, acceptance to share with developing & seasoned teachers”

Dr. Milner Speaker and

Common Core Panel

“New differentiated instruction skills.”

“Network with other individuals and organizations that are making progress, change & impact on urban education.”

Apart from the requested information presented above, 7 participants wrote spontaneous comments on the survey. From the 7 comments only 1 answered the open question.

13

The spontaneous comments are transcribed below:

Referred Activity Comment

Dr. Ball Overview and

Dr. Howard Plenary

“Suggestion: 1. Please watch the time; Dr. Howard went over which cut all the sessions after him in the morning short. 2. I think some speakers need to cut back on the research facts and spend more time on giving suggestions to educators on how to help urban students. 3. Focus more on urban situations and poverty and less on skin color.”

“Dr. Tyrone Howard was amazing!” Note on statement #3: “key note speaker specifically Dr. Howard.” Note on statement #5: “keynote speakers”

“Excellent! Want to read his research!”

“Interesting, thought provoking”

“There should have been more time for speaker and less data by Dr. Ball This time could have let Q&A for speaker”

“Dr. Howard was the highlight of the morning!! I feel we needed more time with him. He would make a great keynote speaker!! (vs a plenary speaker). He could’ve been a replacement for Dr. Delpit.”

Dr. Milner Speaker and

Common Core Panel

On the side of Dr. Rich Milner scale: “alienated groups in audience”

On the side of Dr. Milner scale: “Excellent!” On the side of Common Core scale: “Dr. Washington = 5! Good job!”

The session data disaggregated by date and period showed some peculiarities.

The lowest ‘strongly agree’ percentage, with 14.3%, are all related to the Tuesday Night session and referred to the increase of awareness of ‘social justice’ and ‘urban education’ and gained ‘new insights’ from the session. A reflection on the nature of the sessions and the public attending is needed to try to understand the low percentage given to the ‘strongly agree’. At the same time, this session for most of the same participants was deemed as ‘provided solid learning experiences’ with a 42.9% ’strongly agree’.

The highest ‘strongly agree’ percentage for the sessions also referred to only one session, Wednesday Morning. It has 58.1%, or 18 out of 31, ‘strongly agree’ for ‘gained new insights’, and 48.4% ‘strongly agree’ for the statement ‘The session made me more aware of social justice issues in the context of education.’

A point to be made in this aspect is that the number of respondents is different and Day 2 Wednesday Morning had a person talking about the relevance of the evaluation surveys possibly impacting the numbers. Also, the session statements are not clearly related to one specific speaker, panel or group of activities in that period. Some instruments had participant’s handwritten notes that emphasized for whom

14

that grade was given. (Refer to the table above for those notes.) Another moderation to be made is that the statement related to ‘social justice’ and ‘urban education’ was phrased as “sessions made me more aware….” where, ‘more’ is the relevant point of measure. The wording can be overlooked and the meaning of ‘more’ can be different for each individual. People can consider themselves already well aware and choose a low number in the scale. Another challenge is the number of blank answers.

Below is the data organized by date and period, where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 ‘strongly agree’. The numbers are in percentage.

Presenter Scale

Considering the 3 speakers, Dr. Vanessa Siddle Walker (Tuesday Night) with a representation of 13.8%, Dr. Tyrone Howard (Wednesday Morning) with 53.4%, and Dr. Rich Milner (Wednesday Afternoon) with 27.6%.

Session Statement

Tuesday Night (N=7) Wednesday Morning (N=31) Wednesday Afternoon

(N=20)

1 2 3 4 5

N/A

Blan

k 1 2 3 4 5

N/A

Blan

k 1 2 3 4 5

N/A

Blan

k

Solid Learning

Experiences 14.3 28.6 42.9 14.3 32.3 25.8 41.9 5 20 25 25 10 15

More Social Justice Aware

14.3 14.3 28.6 14.3 28.6 3.2 16.1 32.3 48.4 5 5 30 35 10 3

More Urban Education

Aware 28.6 28.6 14.3 28.6 3.2 3.2 19.4 29 45.2 5 10 25 35 10 15

Gain New Insights 42.9 14.3 14.3 28.6 3.2 19.4 16.1 58.1 3.2 5 15 35 20 10 15

Impact My Work 14.3 28.6 28.6 28.6 3.2 22.6 32.3 41.9 10 20 30 15 10 15

Develop Concrete

Action 14.3 28.6 28.6 28.6 3.2 25.8 32.3 32.3 6.5 15 35 20 10 20

15

The results for the valid data of presenters scale are as follows:

11%

14%

59%

4% 12%

The presenter was engaging. (N=56)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

2%

12%

21%

48%

4% 13%

The presenter challenged my thinking. (N=56)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

5%

16%

62%

4% 13%

The presenter discussed issues relevant to social justice in

education. (N=56)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

5%

16%

62%

4% 13%

The presenter discussed issues relevant to urban education.

(N=56)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

2%

7%

12%

62%

4% 13%

The presenter related to the audience. (N=56)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

16

Considering all criteria aggregated the presenters received a score 5, the highest, from more than 59% of the respondents. The only categories to receive less than 3 were the scale measuring the challenge of participant’s thinking and how the presenter related to the audience. It is pertinent to notice that from 58 collected surveys, 2 (4%) had missing information because the surveys were incomplete and 13% were left blank.

Panelists Scale

The Sizemore Conference had 2 panels: (1) Pittsburgh Public Schools – We Promise (PPS) on Tuesday Night, and (2) Pro vs. Con Common Core on Wednesday Afternoon.

As expected the PPS panel had a low attendance because of the strong rain and only 7 surveys were returned. However, even with 131 attendees on Wednesday afternoon, only 18 surveys were returned for the Common Core panel discussion.

The panelists’ ability to connect to the audience was recognized with the highest score by 73.5% of the participants. There were no scores lower than 4, on a scale 1 to 5.

The Conference goal to discuss ‘social justice’ and ‘urban education’ was met for 100% of the respondents. Only the highest scores, 4 and 5, were selected for these criteria.

The only criterion receiving scores less than 4 was ‘the panelists challenged my thinking’. Thirteen percent (13%) of the participants gave a score of 3, a score of 4 was given by 31% of participants and a score of 5 by 56% of participants. Examining the disaggregated data we can verify that for the PPS panel 42.9%, or all participants that rate this criterion, gave the panelists a score of 5. Therefore the score of 3 came from 2 participants of the Common Core panel. On the other hand, 33.3% score a 5.

Considering the high number of blanks (in the 22.2% to 28.6% range) and missing information for a low N, it is difficult to reach a conclusion about the panels.

17

The valid information is presented in charts below:

36%

64%

Panel that participates. (N=25)

PPS We Promise

Common Core Panel

13%

31% 56%

The panelists challenged my thinking. (N=16)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

24%

76%

The panelists discussed issues relevant to social justice in

education. (N=17)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

24%

76%

The panelists discussed issues relevant to urban education.

(N=17)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

29%

71%

The panelists related to the audience. (N=17)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

24%

76%

The panelists were engaging. (N=17)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

N/A

Blank

18

Workshops

The Dr. Barbara A. Sizemore 2014 Conference Workshops were assessed by the 131 surveys completed by the participants. The similar surveys were distributed in all 11 workshops. The workshops’ characteristics and demographics are presented below:

Workshop Official Name

Workshop Referred

Name Facilitators

Number of People Expected

Survey Received

(N)

Survey (% out of 131)

Given Score Range

Differentiated Instruction to

Meet the Diverse Needs

of Students

‘Differentiated Instruction’

Dr. Elizabeth Hughes

29 7 5.3 3 to 5

Preparing Children for 21st Century Skills:

Culturally Relevant

Pedagogy Through Play Experiences

‘Culturally Relevant

Pedagogy Through Play’

Drs. Julia Williams,

Ernest Dettore and Rose Mary

Mautino

28 10 7.6 5 to 5

Emotional and Cognitive Behavior

Approach to Changing Behavior

‘Changing Behavior’

Mr. Sean McCaskill 29 34 26.0 1 to 5

Strategies for Inquiry-Based

Learning

‘Inquiry Based Learning’

Dr. Helga Stokes 24 1 .8 5 to 5

Trauma and Resilience: A

Mental Health Workshop for

Urban Educators

‘Trauma and Resilience’

Dr. Imac Holmes, Ms.

Rebecca Perry Keenan and Ms. Sierra

Brown

28 9 6.9 1 to 5

STEM Education and College Preparation

‘STEM and College’

Mr. Darryl Wiley

26 13 9.9 3 to 5

Building High Self-Esteem

Through Cultural

Awareness

‘Self Esteem’ Ms. Lisa Parker 25 12 9.2 1 to 5

19

Filling the Opportunity Gap Through

Global Learning

‘Opportunity Gap’

Mrs. Emily Markham

15 4 3.1 3 to 5

Building Relationships

with Students to Meet Their

Learning Needs

‘Relationship to learning needs’

Dr. Tyra Good 29 22 16.8 1 to 5

Rethinking Parental/Family

Engagement

‘Family Engagement’

Dr. Sandra Quinones 29 14 10.7 1 to 5

Teaching Entrepreneurial

Skills to Students

‘Entrepreneurial Skills’

Dr. Mary McKinney

21 5 3.8 2 to 5

The representation of the answers gathered from each workshop range greatly from a minimum of 0.8% to a maximum of 26% for the 131 questionnaires received.

Therefore comparisons between the workshops are not only undesirable but also unreasonable. There is also no correlation between educational background or number of presenters by workshop and their scores.

A Pearson Correlation was run in the SPSS to verify the correlation between the criteria scores. All correlations are significant but the strongest Pearson has r=.803 for ‘facilitator related to the participants’ and ‘workshop was facilitated in an engaging manner’. Another interesting correlation, with the second strongest Pearson, is between ‘facilitator discussed issues relevant to urban education’ and ‘discussed issues relevant to social justice in education’ with r=.638.

The lowest score mean, 4.292, refers to the criterion regarding resources available to create changes in the participant’s work environment. In terms of scores, the mean translates to 10 participants giving a score 1 or 2 for their workshops.

Regardless of how the participants evaluate the resources made available for them—a criterion that could depend upon a request from the organization to the facilitators or if that is a prerogative for an excellent presentation—78% understand their facilitators as knowledgeable about the subject matter giving them a score 5. Two facilitators received only the highest score and one facilitator received a score lower than 3.

20

The scores aggregated by criteria for the 131 surveys are represented below:

1% 4%

15%

21% 59%

The workshop facilitator discussed issues relevant to social

justice in education. (N=131)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

2% 2%

10%

20%

66%

The workshop facilitator discussed issues relevant to urban

education. (N=131)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

3% 2%

11%

13%

71%

The workshop was facilitated in an engaging manner. (N=131)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

1%

2%

9%

17%

71%

The workshop facilitator related to the participants. (N=131)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

2% 6%

12%

20% 60%

The workshop facilitator inspired in me concrete ideas to implement in my work environment. (N=131)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

1%

7%

14%

78%

The workshop facilitator was knowledgeable about the subject

matter. (N=131)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

21

The following table illustrates the frequencies received in each criterion by workshop:

3% 4%

16%

15% 62%

The workshop facilitator made resources available I can use for

creating changes in my work environment. (N=131)

1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

2% 2%

11%

27% 64%

The workshop facilitator made resources available I can use for further inquiry into the issues

discussed. (N=131) 1 Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5 Strongly Agree

22

Some instruments came back with unsolicited comments. They are presented below by workshop as they were written:

Trauma and Resilience: A Mental Health Workshop for Urban Educators

“Handouts helpful, especially Trauma resources.”

 

STEM Education and College Preparation

“More activities, less talk, great engaging workshop!”

“Thank you! It sounds like your program offers a great opportunity for students.”

“Darryl, Please continue the great work you’re doing. God bless you!”

“More time to do activities”

“Ronmell Heard (412) 736-4778 (Project Ideas)”

“He is and always is awesome & presents resources for us to take away with us.”

“Interesting to see what other STEM facilitators are doing.”  

Rethinking Parental/Family Engagement

“Too much time spent on games”

“Eye contact!” (Written on the side of ‘The workshop facilitator inspired in me concrete ideas to implement in my work environment’; gave a 5 score)

“The cases were good to generate discussion but it felt incomplete. We ran out of time. The “icebreakers” were useful, but I thought I would get something different out of it than I did.”

“Overall awesome!”

“I would have liked to see more discussion on how to get urban parents more actively engaged with the school.”

“We were unable to complete the workshop due to time.”

“Great workshop – engaging.”

“One of the best workshops I have attended! Amazing, relevant, engaging presentation. I loved the level of participation of everyone.”

 

Preparing Children for 21st Century Skills: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy Through Play Experiences

“Very enjoyable & informative! Thanks.”

“Great Session!”

 

 

23

Building High Self-Esteem Through Cultural Awareness

“Very interesting speaker but I did not feel that I got any information regarding raising self-esteem besides teaching them about their history.”  

Building Relationships with Students to Meet Their Learning Needs

“Time was very tight so the presenter could not present her workshop as originally planned.”

“A good workshop for inspiring teachers and/or newer teachers. I need ideas that take education to the next level. Most ideas shared what I already do.”

“She was supportive to discussion and understanding the conflicts between learning styles, teaching styles and standardized testing. One suggestion is to teach strategies early on to prepare students.”

“If I had known this workshop pertained to learning styles I would not have attended. Presenter was engaging but not the topic.”

 

Emotional and Cognitive Behavior Approach to Changing Behavior

“Awesome!”

“Excellent.”

“Sean gave practical information using effective research based strategies – relationship, classroom materials & procedures, and respect & rapport. Nice job incorporating Charlotte Danielson work!”

“Great Job! Heath B.”

“Awesome workshop!”

“Excellent workshop! I would like to see more.”

   

Teaching Entrepreneurial Skills to Students

“Great!”

 

Filling the Opportunity Gap Through Global Learning

“Thanks!”

“Very interesting, engaging presentation.”

24

Suggestions for 2015

The instrument delivered Wednesday Afternoon had a table requesting suggestions for the 2015 Sizemore Conference. From the 16 surveys only 5 returned with these suggestions:

Theme for the Next Conference

Topics for Speakers Topics for Workshops

“Please have Dr. Marcia Sturdivant, president and CEO of NEED present on the education of black children also please have Mr. Rashad Byrdsong speak on violence and the mentally disturbed (Community Empowerment Association).”

“Dr. Gregoire in counseling education program runs a class I took in grad school called “multicultural” – this would be beneficial for teachers to hear ways to make their classrooms and practices more culturally sensitive.”

“1.Incorporating social media in classrooms; 2. Truancy; 3. Motivating urban students; 4. Brief therapy techniques for school counselors. (WVU profs have a great program.)”

Teaching Common Core to Urban Youth

“Anything from Dr. Tyrone Howard – wonderful speaker!”

“Dr. Howard’s work, how to use data we have to teach urban youth.”

Gaining Family/Community Involvement

“Review the “structured ten routines” from Barbara Sizemore, parent viewpoints.”

“Have previously struggling students discuss effective measures that helped them change. Community businesses that want to take part in school programs.”

“We have the problems, but we need the solutions.”

25

Evaluation Limitations

The evaluation presented some limitations due to instrument design, number of surveys returned, and the missing information in some of the surveys.

The limitations are as follows:

• This assessment did not measure the event per se, but the parts that together make the event.

• The Evaluative Survey questions regarding ‘Professional Role’ and ‘How they hear about the Conference’ can have low validity. The numbers may be inflated because one participant could respond more than once, since those questions appeared in 3 instruments.

• Questionnaires with wrong date affected the results. Blank and N/A categories had to be created to handle the data. Also, “not have right question to answer” notes written by participants were found in the instruments.

• Strong rainy weather on Tuesday evening, reported by the stakeholders, most likely affected the attendance and as a consequence the number of surveys received that day.

• Scales were not considered clear enough. Through some notes written by participants —“to whom scale refers to?”— we can argue that the scales did not relate specifically to one particular presenter.

• Substitution of presenters created an unforseen issue in that Dr. Milner’s presentation was extremely similar to Dr. Howard’s; even their references were the same. The issue did not show up on the surveys and it seems that it did not impact the participants’ reaction.

• Time management and allocation is an issue that needs to be reviewed. One of the Trauma speakers complained openly and sincerely about having to change her dynamic presentation due to the extra time used by Dr. Howard. In the DVD and surveys, those challenges were a constant. The time can also have an impact on the number of surveys received. We can foresee people not completing or partially completing the survey because they had to rush to another presentation or lunch.

26

Recommendations and Suggestions

Regarding the instrument design:

• Make clear the connection between the box and the answer option.

• Use a scale that completely discloses what the question is measuring and how the question is being measured. Example:

• Include box for spontaneous comments in all instruments.

• Consider the possibility of asking educator about the level of education they teach. Professors and Adjuncts did not choose the option ‘teacher’ although that is their primary function.

Strategies to increase the return of surveys and in-depth feedback:

• Include a question on the registration asking if the participant would be willing to participate in a focus group or individual interview after the activities conclude. The focus groups could happen in the same space and immediately following Remarks and Closing.

• Create the opportunity for the participant to deliver a hard copy survey or complete an online survey post event.

• Interview or focus group participants could receive complementary materials from the conference like copies of the PowerPoint presentation as an incentive for participation.

Suggestions and ideas based on the participants’ comments:

• Use mailing lists from other forums in the community to advertise the Conference to targeted audience.

• Market the Conference as professional development to educators in general. Examples: informal education (museums, NGOs, educational and social projects in communities, companies with volunteer work in the communities)

27

and formal education (urban, suburban and rural schools from pre-K to graduate programs)

• The timing of the Conference seems perfect. A participant commented how having the Conference in the summer provides time for teachers to implement their new learning in the next school year.

Other suggestions:

• Give feedback to the facilitators and speakers using this report.

• Publish some of the feedback provided in the survey on the website and send an e-mail to the participants regarding their surveys. It is possible that this action might stimulate more feedback. Without compensation, people are more willing to help if there is a sense of accomplishment and support to others.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge and extend our thanks for the contributions received in the development of this report to:

Melissa, for the trust;

Dr. Helga Stokes, for the support with the survey;

Dr. Launcelot Brown, for the review.

Appendices

Instrument (Survey)

Official Program