Appendix A

Sample Observation Instrument i

i Developed from Weiss, Iris, 1997 Local Systemic Change Observation Protocol.

Faculty Development Observation Protocol

 

Background Information

Observer ___________________________________ Date of Observation ____________________________
  Duration of Observation:
  __ 1 hour __ half day
  __ 2 hours __ whole day
  Other, please specify ___________________________

Total Number of Attendees _______________________

Name of Presentor(s)

 

Section One: Context Background and Activities

This section provides a brief overview of the session being observed.

I. Session Context

In a few sentences, describe the session you observed. Include: (a) whether the observation covered a partial or complete session, (be) whether there were multiple break-out sessions, and (c) where this session fits in the project’s sequence of faculty development for those in attendance.

 

II. Session Focus

Indicate the major intended purpose(s) of this session based on the information provided by the project staff.

 

III. Faculty Development Activities (Check all activities observed and describe, as relevant)

A. Indicate the major instructional resource(s) used in this faculty development session.

___ Print materials

___ Hands-on materials

___ Outdoor resources

___ Technology/audio-visual resources

___ Other instructional resources (Please specify.)

 

B. Indicate the major way(s) in which participant activities were structured.

 

C. Indicate the major activities of presenters and participants in this session. (Check circle to indicate applicability.)

 

 

 

 

 

D. Comments
Please provide any additional information you consider necessary to capture the activities or context of this faculty development session. Include comments on any feature of the session that is so salient that you need to get it "on the table" right away to help explain your ratings.

 

 

Section Two: Ratings

In Section One of this form, you documented what occurred in the session. In this section, you are asked to use that information, as well as any other pertinent observations, to rate each of a number of key indicators from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent) in five difference categories by circling the appropriate response. Note that any one session is not likely to provide evidence for every single indicator; use 6, "Don’t know" when there is not enough evidence for you to make a judgment. Use 7, "N/A" (Not Applicable) when you consider the indicator inappropriate given the purpose and context of the session. Similarly, there may be entire rating categories that are not applicable to a particular session.

Note that you may list any additional indicators you consider important in capturing the essence of this session and rate these as well.

Use your "Ratings of Key Indicators" (Part A) to inform your "Synthesis Ratings" (Part B) and indicate in "Supporting Evidence for Synthesis Ratings" (Part C) what factors were most influential in determining your synthesis ratings. Section Two concludes with ratings of the likely impact of faculty development and a capsule description of the session.

 

I. Design

A. Ratings of Key Indicators

 
Not at all
      
To a great extent
  
Don’t know
N/A
1. The strategies in this session were appropriate for accomplishing the purposes of the faculty development

1

2

3

4

5
  

6
 
7
2. The session effectively built on participants’ knowledge of content, teaching, learning, and/or the reform/change process

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
3. The instructional strategies and activities used in this section reflected attention to participants’:              
    a. Experience, preparedness, and learning styles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
b. Access to resources
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. The design of the session reflected careful planning and organization

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
5. The design of the session encouraged a collaborative approach to learning

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
6. The design of the session incorporated tasks, roles, and interactions consistent with a spirit of investigation


1


2


3


4


5


6


7
7. The design of the session provided opportunities for teachers to consider classroom applications of resources, strategies, and techniques


1


2


3


4


5


6


7
8. The design of the session appropriately balanced attention to multiple goals

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
9. Adequate time and structure were provided for reflection

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
10. Adequate time and structure were provided for participants to share experiences and insights

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
11. __________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
    

 

B. Synthesis Rating

1
2
3
4
5
Design of the session was not at all reflective of best practice for faculty development       Design of the session extremely reflective of best practice for faculty development

 

C. Supporting Evidence for Synthesis Rating

 

II. Implementation

A. Ratings of Key Indicators

 
Not at all
      
To a great extent
  
Don’t know
N/A
1. The session effectively incorporated instructional strategies that were appropriate for the purposes of the faculty development session and the needs of adult learners


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
2. The session effectively modeled questioning strategies that are likely to enhance the development of conceptual understanding (e.g., emphasis on higher-order questions, appropriate use of "wait time," identifying perceptions and misconceptions)




1




2




3




4




5
  




6




7
3. The pace of the session was appropriate for the purposes of the faculty development and the needs of adult learners

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
4. The session modeled effective assessment strategies
1
2
3
4
5
  
6
7
5. The presenter(s)’ background, experience, and/or expertise enhanced the quality of the session

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
6. The presenter(s)’ management style/strategies enhanced the quality of the session

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
7. __________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
      

 

B. Synthesis Rating

1
2
3
4
5
Implementation of the session not at all reflective of best practice for faculty development       Implementation of the session extremely reflective of best practice for faculty development

 

C. Supporting Evidence for Synthesis Rating

 

III. Disciplinary Content

Not applicable. (Disciplinary content not included in the session.)

A. Ratings of Key Indicators

 
Not at all
      
To a great extent
  
Don’t know
N/A
1. Disciplinary content was appropriate for the purposes of the faculty development session and the backgrounds of the participants


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
2. The content was sound and appropriately presented/ explored

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
3. Facilitator displayed an understanding of concepts (e.g., in his/her dialogue with participants)

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
4. Content area was portrayed by a dynamic body of knowledge continually enriched by conjecture, investigation, analysis, and proof/justification


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
5. Depth and breadth of attention to disciplinary content was appropriate for the purposes of the session and the needs of adult learners


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
6. Appropriate connections were made to other areas of science/mathematics, to other disciplines, and/or to real world contexts


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
7. Degree of closure or resolution of conceptual understanding was appropriate for the purposes of the session and the needs of adult learners


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
8. __________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
      

 

B. Synthesis Rating

1
2
3
4
5
Disciplinary content of the session not at all reflective of best practice for faculty development       Disciplinary content of the session extremely reflective of best practice for faculty development

 

C. Supporting Evidence for Synthesis Rating

 

IV. Pedagogical Content

Not applicable. (Pedagogical content not included in the session.)

A. Ratings of Key Indicators

 
Not at all
      
To a great extent
  
Don’t know
N/A
1. Pedagogical content was appropriate for the purposes of the faculty development session and the backgrounds of the participants


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
2. Pedagogical content was sound and appropriately presented/explored

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
3. Presenter displayed an understanding of pedagogical concepts (e.g., in his/her dialogue with participants)

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
4. The session included explicit attention to classroom implementation issues

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
5. Depth and breadth of attention to pedagogical content was appropriate for the purposes of the session and the needs of adult learners


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
6. Degree of closure or resolution of conceptual understanding was appropriate for the purposes of the session and the needs of adult learners


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
7. __________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
      

 

B. Synthesis Rating

1
2
3
4
5
Pedagogical content of the session not at all reflective of current standards for science/ mathematics education       Pedagogical content of session extremely reflective of current standards for science/ mathematics education

 

C. Supporting Evidence for Synthesis Rating

 

V. Culture/Equity

A. Ratings of Key Indicators

 
Not at all
      
To a great extent
  
Don’t know
N/A
1. Active participation of all was encouraged and valued

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
2. There was a climate of respect for participants’ experiences, ideas, and contributions

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
3. Interactions reflected collaborative working relationships among participants

1

2

3

4`

5
  

6

7
4. Interactions reflected collaborative working relationships between facilitator(s) and participants

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
5. The presenter'(s) language and behavior clearly demonstrated sensitivity to variations in participants’:1                
    a. Experience and/or preparedness
1
2
3
4
5
  
6
7
b. Access to resources
1
2
3
4
5
  
6
7
c. Gender, race/ethnicity, and/or culture
1
2
3
4
5
  
6
7
6. Opportunities were taken to recognize and challenge stereotypes and biases that became evident during the faculty development session


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
7. Participants were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the focus of the session

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
8. Faculty participants were encouraged to generate ideas, questions, conjectures, and propositions

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
9. Investigation and risk-taking were valued
1
2
3
4
5
  
6
7
10. Intellectual rigor, constructive criticism, and the challenging of ideas were valued

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
11. __________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
      

1Use 1, "Not at all," when you have considerable evidence of insensitivity or inequitable behavior; 3, when there are no examples either way; and 5, "To a great extent," when there is considerable evidence of proactive efforts to achieve equity.

 

B. Synthesis Rating

1
2
3
4
5
Culture of the session interferes with engagement of participants as members of a faculty learning community       Culture of the session facilitates engagement of participants as members of a faculty learning community

 

C. Supporting Evidence for Synthesis Rating

 

VI. Overall Ratings of the Session

While the impact of a single faculty development session may well be limited in scope, it is important to judge whether it is helping move participants in the desired direction. For ratings in the section below, consider all available information (i.e., your previous ratings of design, implementation, content, and culture/equity; related interviews, and your knowledge of the overall faculty development program) as you assess likely impact of this session. Feel free to elaborate on ratings with comments in the space provided.

Likely Impact on Participants’ Capacity for Exemplary Instruction

Consider the likely impact of this session on the faculty participants’ capacity to teach exemplary science/ mathematics instruction. Circle the response that best describes your overall assessment of the likely effect of this session in each of the following areas.

___ Not applicable. (The session did not focus on building capacity for classroom instruction.)

 

 
Not at all
      
To a great extent
  
Don’t know
N/A
1. Participants’ ability to identify and understand important ideas of science/mathematics

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
2. Participants’ understanding of science/mathematics as dynamic body of knowledge generated and enriched by investigation


1


2


3


4


5
  


6


7
3. Participants’ understanding of how students learn
1
2
3
4
5
  
6
7
4. Participants’ ability to plan/implement exemplary classroom instruction

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
5. Participants’ ability to implement exemplary classroom instructional materials

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
6. Participants’ self-confidence in instruction
1
2
3
4
5
  
6
7
7. Proactiveness of participants in addressing their faculty development needs

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7
8. Professional networking among participants with regard to science/mathematics instruction

1

2

3

4

5
  

6

7

 

Comments (optional):

 

Back to Chapter 3 | Back to Top | Next Appendix | Next Chapter

Table of Contents