Formative and summative evaluation efforts for the Teacher Enhancement Institute conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center, summer 1994

The Teacher Enhancement Institute (TEI) at NASA Langley Research Center was developed in response to Executive Order 12821 which mandates national laboratories to 'assist in the mathematics and science education of our Nation's students, teachers, parents, and the public by establishing programs at their agency to provide for training elementary and secondary school teachers to improve their knowledge of mathematics and science. Such programs, to the maximum extent possible, shall involve partnerships with universities, state and local elementary and secondary school authorities, corporations and community based organizations'. The faculty worked closely with one another and the invited speakers to insure that the sessions supported the objectives. Speakers were informed of the objectives and given guidance concerning form and function for the session. Faculty members monitored sessions to assist speakers and to provide a quality control function. Faculty provided feedback to speakers concerning general objective accomplishment. Participant comments were also provided when applicable. Post TEI surveys asked for specific comments about each TEI session. During the second of the two, two week institutes, daily critiques were provided to the participants for their reflection. This seemed to provide much improved feedback to speakers and faculty because the sessions were fresh in each participant's mind. Between sessions one and two, some changes were made to the program as a result of the formative evaluation process. Those changes, though, were minor in nature and comprised what may be called 'fine tuning' a well conceived and implemented program. After the objectives were written, an assessment instrument was developed to test the accomplishment of the objectives. This instrument was actually two surveys, one given before the TEI and one given after the TEI. In using such a series, it was expected that changes in the participants induced by attendance at TEI may be discovered. Because the institute was limited in time and depth of exposure, attitudinal changes (self-assessment of ability and confidence) were chosen to be surveyed. On the pre-survey, seven general categories of questions were asked. The post-survey repeated three of these categories, providing a pre and post evaluation of the same questions and added a fourth category which asked the participant to self-assess objective accomplishment. The assessment process for TEI was valuable when one looks at the final accomplishments of the TEI. A number of aspects stand out: (1) formative evaluation during project development allowed the goals and objectives to guide the development of the institute; (2) formative evaluation provided positive guidance to presenters in developing and implementing their session; (3) formative evaluation helped presenters to improve or focus their sessions; (4) summative evaluation provided managers a way to gauge the success of the institute; (5) summative evaluation provided a benchmark for future programs to be measured against.