Archbold Project FIRST; Home National NSF First Project Archbold FIRST Goals Participating Faculty February Workshop May Workshop Field Exercises Project FIRST Evaluations Bibliography

Archbold Project FIRST
February Workshop: Evaluation

"Faculty workshops in field
ecology at Archbold:
an opportunity to enrich the
teaching of ecology for your
undergraduate students"

Project First at Archbold Biological Station
Participant evaluation summary of the FIRST project workshop, Feb. 5-7, 1999.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
The lodgings at Archbold was satisfactory. 11 3      
The food at Archbold was satisfactory. 12 2      
The materials (handouts and video) were appropriate to the workshop. 10 4      
The Archbold facility is an exceptionally good place to conduct field exercises with students. 13 1      
Facilitators clearly communicated the goals of the FIRST project. 5 5 4    
Facilitators clearly communicated the objective of inquiry-based learning. 5 7 2    
Facilitators clearly communicated the objective of cooperative learning. 4 9 1    
Facilitators background, experience, and expertise enhanced the quality of the workshop. 11 3      
The workshop facilitated collaboration and communication among members of your team. 8 5 1    
The workshop encouraged collaboration and communication between Archbold staff and institutional team members. 8 5 1    
The workshop facilitated collaboration and communication between institutional teams. 2 10 1 1  
The workshop incorporated instructional strategies that were appropriate for the purposes of faculty development. 8 5 1    
The activities stimulated ideas for using inquiry-based methods. 6 7 1    
The workshop encouraged a cooperative approach to learning. 7 2 5    
Appropriate connections were made to teaching science in the classroom. 4 5 4 1  
The workshop provided opportunities for faculty members to consider classroom applications, strategies, and techniques. 8 4 1 1  
Adequate time was provided for participants to share experiences and insights. 8 5 1    
Adequate time was provided for reflection. 6 5 3    

FIRST Project Evaluation Summary

Participants' responses to open-ended questions.

1. List the strengths of the workshop.

Archbold Field Station
Location
Great surroundings Facilitators

Enthusiasm of facilitators
Primary instructors were great
 Workshop Exercises
Oak Gall exercise
Highlighted the importance of field stations
Field experience
Stimulated thought about teachable field projects
Enhanced field instruction at the undergraduate level
Demonstration of the field techniques
Develop own ideas for teaching lab exercises
Highlighted the importance of inquiry-based learning
 Collaboration
Great to meet colleagues and compatriots in ecology teaching
Exchange of teaching experience and tips among participants
Interactive collaboration
Fostered interaction within and between institutions
Interactions with others to share experiences and ideas
Allowing teams to work together in groups
Communication with others in the same boat
Brought together instructors from different institutions
It was marvelous to meet and talk with other Florida professors
Relaxed atmosphere really encouraged interaction 2. What can we do better?
Clarify goals and objectives.
Clearer objectives and schedule.
Was still a bit unclear about the concrete goals of the workshop when I arrived but have a clearer idea now. Perhaps the bottom line goals could be stated explicitly and briefly in the future.
 Discuss cooperative learning as it applies classroom situations.
Our exposure to cooperative learning seemed to be one of promotion and not learning and evaluation. Cooperative learning is still uncertain in my mind. Perhaps a description presentation without the salesmanship would allow participants to evaluate the approach better.
Role playing in cooperative learning could be explained better. I see this as a challenge in applying to real students.
Discuss more the challenge of classroom teaching.
I think the discussion of pedagogy might be more productive if we are more focused on particular issues or situations. Sometimes things were a little too general to be really helpful.
More time for dialogue in evaluation of exercises.
Data on whether this really helps students.
Promote exchange of teaching ideas in small groups rather than having most of it the large group setting.
 Discuss evaluation techniques.
Don't know because I don't now "successful" the workshop was (i.e. how do you assess success).
 3. Has this workshop encouraged you to use inquiry-based exercises in other field locations?
Yes.
Already doing so but got some new ideas here so the answer is yes.
Will consider the possibility as it applies to my field course.
4. What barriers do you perceive in using Archbold as a field site for teaching?
Distance to field station.
Logistics of getting classes down here, particularly large classes.
Lack of transportation to field station.
Institutional liability restriction.
Need additional bits of field equipment and lab equipment.