Evaluation of chemistry for our future extension phase report

  • 23 дек. 2010 г.
  • 40801 Слова
Evaluation of Chemistry for our Future Extension Phase Report

Pippa Lord, Suzanne Straw, Ruth Hart, Iain Springate and Jennie Harland

July 2009

The evaluation team at NFER would like to thank the Royal Society of Chemistry for their advice and support throughout the pilot and extension phase evaluations. In particular, we are extremely grateful to Josephine Tunney, Melanie Washington,Kate Burrell, Daniel Riddell, Anil Nagalingam and Fiona Miller. We are very grateful to all of the Strand 1 regional coordinators, Strand 2 Teacher Fellows, Strand 3 HEI partners, and Strand 4 laboratory managers at the Universities of Bristol and Sheffield for so willingly giving us their time to be consulted and for their support in ensuring the final report reflects the progress and developmentsmade across CFOF. We must also thank all of the school teachers, pupils, undergraduate students, postgraduates and lecturers who have participated in the evaluation, both in the pilot and extension phase. Finally, many thanks to Jenny Hudson at NFER for formatting the final report, to Ben Haines for supporting the analysis of the CTNG data, and to former colleague Megan Jones who contributed tothe Strand 2 evaluation in the pilot phase. The Royal Society of Chemistry would also like to acknowledge HEFCE‟s support in funding this evaluation through CFOF.

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

About Chemistry for our Future (CFOF) Aims and objectives of the extension phase evaluation Methodology in the extension phase Structure of the extension phase report

1 2 3 3

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8Introduction and overview About CTNG Developments and foci of Strand 1 activity in the extension phase Impacts for school pupils Impacts for teachers and schools Impacts for HEIs and their staff Partnerships and collaborations Strand 1 legacy

1 1 2 3 9 10 11 12

3.1 Introduction and overview 15 3.2 About Strand 2 15 3.3 Where are they now? Developments in the lives and careers of theoriginal Strand 2 teacher fellows 16 3.4 Impacts for fellows and host HEIs: a longer-term perspective 17 3.5 Benefits for schools 20 3.6 Wider impacts and unanticipated benefits 23 3.7 Strand 2 Legacy 23

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

Introduction and overview 28 About Strand 3.1 28 Developments and foci of Strand 3.1 activity in the extension phase29 Longer-term outcomes and impacts forundergraduates 31 Longer-term outcomes and impacts for HEIs 33 Other longer-term outcomes and impacts 33 Strand 3.1 legacy 34

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Introduction and overview About Strand 3.2 Developments and foci of Strand 3.2 in the extension phase How have CBL/PBL exercises been developed, delivered and assessed? 5.5 Outcomes and impacts 5.6 What is the advice to other institutions?

37 37 38 40 55 57 5.7 Strand 3.2 legacy

60

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

Introduction and overview About Strand 4 Developments and foci of Strand 4 in the extension phase Impacts for school pupils Impacts for teachers and schools Impacts for HEIs and their staff The two models compared Strand 4 legacy

63 63 64 67 70 70 71 72

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Introduction and overview 77 About the pupilsample 77 Age group: does this make a difference to impacts? 79 Gender: does this make a difference to impacts? 80 Ethnicity: does this make a difference to impacts? 81 Strand 1 and Strand 4 activities: does the strand make a difference to impacts? 81 7.7 Extent of participation in chemistry events and activities: does this make a difference to impacts? 82 7.8 Outcomes and impacts for pupils overtime 83

8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.6

Introduction and overview Feedback from pupils and school teachers collated by the RSC NFER consultations Impacts for careers advisers and teachers Impacts for HE careers advisers

85 85 89 91 93

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

Introduction and overview A spirit of collaboration across the whole of CFOF Sharing, disseminating and networking within strands Making links...
tracking img