Centers of Regional
Environmental Education

Scope of Work - Year 5

Goal | Priority Objectives | Outcomes | Outputs | Evaluation | Tasks and Timeline | Year 4
Summary:

With technical and financial support from the current EETAP States Program, Illinois has moved forward on several related fronts: a statewide database housed on EE-Link, major training initiatives for non-formal EE educators, and a network of partnerships for offering EE opportunities to formal educators.  During years 4 and 5 we plan to solidify what was started in Years 2-3.

The emphasis during Year 4 will be the database.  Through its calendar capabilities, we plan to eliminate duplication of efforts, coordinate teacher training throughout the state, and maximize partnerships.  We will be evaluating the database and making adjustments as necessary.  We will also be working to diversify membership on the CORE2 (Centers of Regional EE) Teams with the ultimate goal of reaching underserved and under represented audiences within the state.  Regions will assess the state of teacher training within their regions at the beginning and end of Year 4 using the assessment tool developed during Year 3.

The emphases in Year 5 will be further networking and coordination of efforts, as well as establishing diversity within the CORE2 Teams.  During Year 4, two CASES (Cultural Diversity) workshops will be held in the state for the CORE2 Teams.  We expect that these workshops will provide the impetus to look closely at our regions with the intent of developing a strategy during Year 4 to ensure diversity within the teams. At the beginning of Year 5, we will hold another CASES workshop, but for a broader audience, with the goal of implementing that diversity strategy.  During Year 4, the East Central (EC) CORE2 will pilot a partnership with the Illinois Science Teachers Association’s Building a Presence (BaP) Program, which is a statewide network that has been underway for about three years.  In Year 5, we plan to be fully integrated with the BaP Program.

In addition, we plan to hold a TOOLS Train the Trainer refresher workshop in February 2005.  By that time, two workshops will have been held in the state, so newly trained presenters will be able to share their experiences and brainstorm ways to reach additional participants.

Goal:  
Build the understanding and skills needed to create comprehensive and sustainable EE programs at the state and local level.
[Back to Top]
Priority Objectives:
  • To strengthen the ability of five regional centers (CORE2) to provide professional development in environmental education (EE) for in-service teachers.
  • To promote EE professional development opportunities to all in-service teachers in Illinois by fostering collaboration and networking between EE providers and Regional Offices of Education (ROEs).
  • To facilitate the sharing of programs and workshops among regions through the use of a statewide electronic database.
[Back to Top]
Outcomes:
  • CORE2 is viewed by 50% of surveyed EE program participants as the most efficient and effective mechanism to actively promote professional development opportunities for educators regionally and statewide through its networks, newsletters, database, and state calendar.
  • 80% of database users (professional development providers and educators) state that the database is an informative, effective, and easy to use tool.
  • 50% of environmental educators in IL are increasingly aware of professional development and other EE opportunities advertised through CORE2.
  • 50% of the active EE providers in IL enter into new partnerships as a result of working with their CORE2.
  • As a result of participating in the TOOLS Train the Trainer workshop, 85% of the participants organized and held at least one TOOLS workshop for audiences in their region.
  • As a result of participating on one of the state-level TOOLS workshops, 80% of the participants can give at least one example of how they improved the professional development that they offer.
[Back to Top]
Outputs:
  • Reassessment on the status of using a coordinated approach to in-service EE professional development completed by the regions.
  • Additional strategies for addressing identified gaps developed by each region.
  • Regions compile a report on the progress made during the two years toward a coordinated approach to in-service EE professional development.
  • Two more regions establish partnerships with the Building a Presence (BaP) program.
  • Ten regional and five statewide EE in-service educator professional development opportunities promoted by these regions using the BaP partnership.
  • Twenty environmental educators who offer in-service professional development participate in the Tools for Non-formal Educators Workshop.
  • Twenty Tools trainers participate in a refresher workshop.
  • One strategy to increase the diversity of audiences that attend professional development is completed and implemented by each CORE2
  • A minimum of two educational opportunities that demonstrate growth in partnerships and networks offered to EE providers by CORE2s.
  • A 10% increase, compared to Year 4, in the number of regional and statewide EE professional development opportunities posted on the state calendar.
  • A 5% increase, compared to Year 4, in the number of EE providers per region joining the statewide database.
  • A 10% increase, compared to Year 4, in the number of workshops, programs, and resources promoted through the database.
  • CORE2s create regional exhibits that emphasize partnerships and advertise regional and statewide accomplishments.
[Back to Top]
Evaluation for Year 4:
  1. Identify the outcome(s) that will be evaluated.
    80% of database users (professional development providers and educators) state that the database is an informative, effective, and easy to use tool.
  2. Rationale
    The overall goal for Illinois is the coordination of statewide efforts in the delivery of professional development opportunities in environmental education for educators in order to eliminate duplication of services and to assure equal access for all. The database has been identified by the environmental education community as the most important tool for the coordination of efforts. It is a response to audience needs. Through the process of evaluation we want to determine whether or not it is effective (being used on a regular basis), informative (contains necessary and important information), and easy to use (as seen by repeat usage).
  3. Identify the data or type of information you will collect for each outcome(s).
    In addition to adapting the instrument Arizona designed to evaluate its database, we will be accumulating logs of use (illustrating when and how the database is used). The information gathered will be both qualitative and quantitative. Data from a variety of categories, such as user-friendliness, search-ability, and the diversity and quality of offerings, will be collected from the audiences of end users and providers. This will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness, preferences, and utility of the resource.
  4. Describe how and when you will collect the data for each outcome(s).
    Between October and the end of January, known EE providers in each region will be encouraged to input their organizational and program information on the database. Beginning in February, major marketing to teachers will be conducted. The survey will be posted on the database at the beginning of March inviting users (providers and end users) to give feedback about their experiences working with the database. EE providers who entered information before March will receive an e-mail inviting them back to the site to answer the survey. Attendees at the state conference in April will receive a hard copy of the survey to answer. Results will be tabulated and combined with those from the site
  5. Indicate the sample size (as appropriate) for each outcome(s).
    The survey will remain on the database website through the end of June 2004. During that time, the number of surveys vs. the number of actual visitors/users will be tracked. If the sample size does not reach at least twenty percent of the users, a random list of users will be contacted.
  6. Describe how you will analyze the data collected for each outcome(s).
    Questions on the survey address the value of the database in terms of the quality of information gained, as well as the frequency of use and the application potential. The rating is on a Likert scale, making it fairly easy to tabulate. The data will be analyzed and categorized into broad headings for action steps to refine, reformat, delete, and/or update. Any necessary changes will be accomplished at the beginning of Year 5. 
[Back to Top]
Year 5 Evaluation #1

Add your Year 5 evaluation below. Use the following subheadings and address each in the order listed.

  1. List the outcome that will be evaluated exactly as it is written under Year 5 outcomes:
    A 10% increase, compared to Year 4, in the number of workshops, programs, and resources promoted through the database.
  2. Include a short explanation why the outcome was selected:
    The overall goal for Illinois is the coordination of statewide efforts in the delivery of professional development opportunities in environmental education for educators in order to eliminate duplication of services and to assure equal access for all. The database has been identified by the environmental education community as the most important tool for the coordination of efforts. It is a response to audience needs. Through the process of evaluation we want to determine whether or not it is effective (being used on a regular basis), informative (contains necessary and important information), and easy to use (as seen by repeat usage.

    The database has the potential to link the EE community within the state of Illinois. Unfortunately, previous attempts to coordinate the state have failed for a variety of reasons. Overcoming the memories of past experiences, encouraging educators to try again, and assuring them that the database will work IF we commit ourselves to it are very difficult challenges. The only way we have to track the change in usage and attitude is through continued use of the survey.
  3. Identify the data or type of information you will collect to evaluate the outcome:
    In addition to adapting the instrument Arizona designed to evaluate its database, we will be accumulating logs of use (illustrating when and how the database is used). The information gathered will be both qualitative and quantitative. Data from a variety of categories, such as user-friendliness, search-ability, and the diversity and quality of offerings, will be collected from the audiences of end users and providers. This will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness, preferences, and utility of the resource. 
  4. Describe how and when you will collect the data:
    The survey has been on the database since June 2004. The first batch of surveys was analyzed at the end of Year 4. Since then, the survey has been split into one for providers and the other for end users. The only difference is two additional questions on the provider’s. Since we are going to market the database more heavily in the next few months, we want to continue to gather data, especially from the end user. Of the 27 surveys in the first batch, only two were from end-users.  We are particularly interested in whether the database will be perceived as an important source of ready and easy to access information to both providers and end-users. 
  5. Indicate the sample size (as appropriate) for the outcome being evaluated:
    The survey will remain on the database website through the end of June 2005. We would like a minimum of 100 responses. Some of these will be random users who see the survey and take it. Others will be actively recruited during the marketing and asked specifically to take the survey.     
  6. Describe how you will analyze the data collected for the outcome selected:
    Questions on the survey address the value of the database in terms of the quality of information gained, as well as the frequency of use and the application potential. The rating is on a Likert scale, making it fairly easy to tabulate. The data will be analyzed and categorized into broad headings for action steps to refine, reformat, delete, and/or update. Any necessary changes will be made during the summer of 2005.
    The Year 4 survey was answered primarily by EE providers and the results indicated that they  potentially see the database as a valuable tool; however, most indicated concern about whether or not teachers would actually use it! Each region is developing an implementation and marketing plan targeted to end users and providers. Some regions have the majority of providers utilizing the database; others don’t. By keeping the survey on the database this year, we hope to get a better understanding of the users’ perceptions in order to make improvements, if necessary.
    Through successful marketing of the database, we hope to increase participation in and usage of the database. By keeping the survey up and available, we hope to document a change in perception by the providers.
[Back to Top]
Year 5 Evaluation #2

  1. List the outcome that will be evaluated exactly as it is written under Year 5 outcomes:
    As a result of participating in the TOOLS Train the Trainer workshop, 85% of the participants organized and held at least one TOOLS workshop for audiences in their state.
    As a result of participating in one of the state-level TOOLS workshops, 80% of the participants can give at least one example of how they improved the professional development that they offer.
  2. Include a short explanation why the outcome was selected:
    The TOOLS project, which includes the actual TOOLS for Non-formal Inservice Providers workshop and the TOOLS Train the Trainer workshop, has been an integral part of the work we have done in Illinois. Although a Feedback Form is collected from participants at the end of each workshop, no additional follow-up has ever been done. We have a lot of anecdotal information, but no “hard” data. As a result of the Train the Trainer workshops, we now have another level of information that we want and need to collect.     
  3. Identify the data or type of information you will collect to evaluate the outcome:
    Results of interviews with Train the Trainer workshop participants will determine what/if any evaluation to conduct of workshops that they may have conducted as a result. The initial interviews will determine if workshops were conducted and to learn more about these workshops and related needs. An evaluation of the TOOLS workshops would focus on what participants gained from these and to what extent they improved their own practices as a result.
  4. Describe how and when you will collect the data:
    Data will be collected from both Train the Trainer workshops (the pilot held in Illinois and the national held at NCTC). Thirteen teams have been identified. These will be contacted by e-mail and asked to answer an initial questionnaire, which will then be followed up with a phone interview. The names of the participants from their workshops will be collected and these will  provide the sample for the follow-up evaluation.
    The initial evaluation will take place in January. Results are to be presented at the TOOLS Train the Trainer refresher workshop to be held February 9 & 10.
  5. Indicate the sample size (as appropriate) for the outcome being evaluated:
    As indicated in #4, 13 teams will initially be surveyed.
    A random or purposeful sample of their participants will, in turn, potentially also be contacted and interviewed. The sample will be large enough to be able to draw conclusions as to any changes/improvements they made in their own PD workshops.
  6. Describe how you will analyze the data collected for the outcome selected:
    We will determine the % of workshops that were actually held by participants of the Train the Trainer workshop and will compare this number with how many the teams originally predicted they would offer.
    We will summarize responses in terms of what participant needs are in order to continue to hold and improve additional workshops.
Tasks and Timeline:
Major Tasks
Completion Date
Person/Partner Responsible
Regional CORE Team Meetings October 31, 2004 CORE Coordinators
Database changes/improvements made November 1, 2004 Mary Rice
NAAEE Conference November 10, 2004 Mary Rice
Exhibit Boards Designed November 15, 2004 Lara Darling
Evaluation Plan Developed November 30, 2004 Mary Rice
CASES Workshop Held June, 2005 Becky Lambert
TOOLS Workshop January 2005 Becky Lambert
Regional  PD Workshops November 2004 - September 2005 CORE Coordinators
EEAI Board Meeting December 4, 2004 Judy Miller
Regional CORE Team Meetings January 2005 CORE Coordinators
Exhibit Boards Produced January 2005 Lara Darling
3 CORE2 Work with BaP Program January 2005 CORE Coordinators
PD Checklist Administered January 2005 CORE Coordinators
PD Checklist Summarized  - Gap Analysis -
One strategy designed.		 January 2005 CORE Coordinators
Evaluation of Tools Workshops January 2005 Mary Vymetal-Taylor
TOOLS Train the Trainer Refresher Feb. 9 & 10, 2005 Mary Rice
Regional CORE Team Meetings March 2005 CORE Coordinators
Prairie School Project -- Train the Trainer March 14 & 15, 2005
 Kristin Jacobson
EEAI State Conference April 15 & 16, 2005 Teresa Wisnewski
Statewide Meeting in Springfield April 2005 Mary Rice
EL for IL Revision To Be Determined
 IEEAC
Regional CORE Team Meetings May 2005 CORE Coordinators
Statewide Meeting in Springfield June 2005 Mary Rice
ENTICE Workshops Summer 2005 Randy Wiseman
National Leadership Clinic Summer 2005 Mary Rice
Museum Partners Workshop Summer 2005 Lanis Petrik
Final Database Evaluation July 2005 Marylin Lisowski
PD Follow-Up Assessment & Summaries August 30, 2005 CORE Teams

[Back to Top]

Also see: Scope of Work - Year 4