Classroom Setup: The participants felt the grant was moderately helpful (Range: 2.21-2.63 on a 1=low to 3=high scale) in providing ideas for creating a rich, student-centered environment. In light of the classroom observations made during the year, it is not surprising that help was neither sought nor needed.

Learner Behaviors: The grant activities did provide guidance for those interested in encouraging on-task behavior in (2.58), and peer teaching by (2.47) their students. To a lesser extent were those activities perceived to address effective use of resources, use of a variety of intelligences, and the development of questioning techniques (2.26).

Teacher Behaviors: Participants involved in this project have clearly begun the transition from ones who deliver information to those who facilitate learning. The grant was seen as providing help with that paradigm shift (2.42). To a lesser extent was the grant perceived as providing help with writing option-filled lesson and unit plans (2.37), training on various student-centered instructional strategies-cooperative learning, peer review, rubric design, journal writing(2.37), and demonstrating how teachers may form a community of learners (2.21).

Integrated Learning: If there was a weakness in project activities, this would be the area where it appeared. The professional development offered, while providing ways in which students might see applications of their learning beyond the classroom (2.37), was not perceived as helping with the development of interdisciplinary units (2.05), and incorporating career and occupational connections (1.33) into units of instruction. However, the instruction designed to help the participants include a variety of learning modalities into their repertoire was very helpful
(2.58).

Quality Work: The message delivered in the professional development workshops regarding high expectations for quality work was very strong (Range: 2.53-2.68). However, it was not perceived universally that the instruction in portfolio development was very helpful (1.79).

Learner Reflection on Process and Product: Project participants were moderate in their perception that grant activities were helpful in providing instruction and support with: the use of journals (2.21); ways in which to help students make connections (2.26); multiple ways to assess students (2.37); and, how students might use rubrics for revision of their work (2.00). It would appear that emphasis here might be approprfate for the 2000-2001 academic year.

Collaboration and Teamwork: The use of small groups for instruction is very common among the participants in this project. Therefore, the grant, while helpful in providing suggestions for the improvement of cooperative group behavior (2.53), was somewhat less successful from the participants' viewpoint in offering ways to improve student partnerships beyond the classroom (2.32) and a sense of community in the classroom (2.37). It was perceived that less emphasis was placed upon helping the participants develop effective strategies to include administrators as partners in the learning process (1.89).

 

CONCLUSION
The teachers in the Pilot Project are dedicated professionals who have chosen to further develop their expertise in ways designed to focus their teaching on student-centered instruction. They are clearly practicing the strategies which have been provided, and equally forthright in their desire for additional support. This evaluation process, using characteristics of student-centered learning as defined by the participants, has identified those areas in need of further emphasis.
 

Click on the next page you would like to view: