Workshop Evaluation - May 2002 - Murray State University/Hancock Biological Station - FIRST II Project

Sep 4, 2026

Upload by Ophelia

A workshop evaluation for the FIRST II Project conducted at Murray State University and Hancock Biological Station in May 2002 collects responses from 12 participants. The feedback measures effectiveness of facilitator communication, participants’ understanding of inquiry-based learning and teaching, and the value of active-inquiry field activities at Cypress Swamp. Respondents rate overall goal achievement, report improved clarity on inquiry concepts and assessment needs, and comment on organization, workshop balance between classroom and fieldwork, and opportunities for hands-on engagement and future preparation materials.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Workshop Evaluation

FIRST II Goals and Objectives

Understanding of Inquiry-Based Teaching/Learning

WORKSHOP EVALUATION MAY 2002 Murray State University/Hancock Biological Station FIRST II Project Please help us evaluate to what degree we achieved the following FIRST II goals: Note: N = 12 respondents Goal \#1: Explanation of FIRST II goals and objectives 1. How effective were the facilitators at communicating the goals of the HBS FIRST II project? very much somewhat not much 100% 0% 0% Explain your response. - a good structured explanation of the goals - workshop well organized; I feel more connected to the other first II teams and the national program - well organized workshop; good written materials; kept us informed about changes in the schedule - goals 1,2,4,5,6 for May’s workshop were met; goal 3 needs more facilitating - I think the goals were adequately descried. Perhaps this could be improved by sending more material ahead to the teams. I often find myself motivated to read voraciously before a conference/workshop. - I understand the individual and institutional goals relative to teaching effectiveness and student learning - We not only got the “lectures” about why, what, and how to use IBL, but also got first hand (hands on, minds on) experience (application?) of activities in lecture lab time. I.e.,“where can this work for me” was answered - Prior to attending the workshop, I had no knowledge about this group or its mission. Clearly, IBL is an excellent tool for improving teaching and student learning as indicated by the facilitators. - The goals were modeled as well as discussed throughout the workshop - It was well-planned and delivered - Appear clear-cut - Appropriate mix of yak (espec. Dave, but his enthusiasm is infectious) and collaborative activities Goal \#2: Understanding of inquiry-based teaching/learning 2. To what extent has the workshop contributed to your understanding of inquiry-based learning/teaching? very much somewhat not much 58% 42% 0% Explain your response - I had some knowledge, and expected to see more - Very little knowledge ofwhat IBL actually was going into workshop - Having participated in First I, I had a pretty good idea about IBL. This workshop clarified some things - The whole workshop had us engaged in various IBL activities - The concrete experience with techniques was the best part of the conference - I’ve already used active learning but the workshop has added to the tools and helped me understand the need for formal assessment - Prior to this workshop I could see how IBL would naturally and easily be adapted to lab sessions where it makes sense, but could not see how it would be used as easily during “lecture times.” I now am beginning to see areas where IBL methods could, with only a little effort, be worked into lectures too. Very eye-opening! - Previously, I worked in several biomedical research collaboratives and have benefited greatly from collaborative learning. Also, the medical school where I previously worked (1993-2000) used PBL. I have implemented IBL type activities in diverse settings (K-12), post-secondary and informal education programs. - I understood in general about IBL prior to this workshop. What was helpful was that dimensions in a contextual framework were clearly delineated. This helped to open a new “space” for my own thinking about IBL. - I found that it describes what I have been doing and calling “problem solving”approaches,“discovery learning” and using facilitation techniques in teaching. - Clarified some issue of assessment, add a new teaching strategy - We pretty much started at zero, so this was very important in informing us of IBL 3. How effective were the active-inquiry activities in the field (Cypress Swamp) in contributing to your understanding of inquiry-based learning/teaching? very effective somewhat effective not effective 25% 75% 0% Explain your response. - should have been better organized - good introduction to IBL - [demonstrated directed vs.

FAQs

How did participants rate the facilitators’ communication of FIRST II goals?

Most respondents indicated the facilitators were very effective (100% very much, 0% somewhat, 0% not much). Comments highlight structured explanations, good organization, and clear updates to the schedule.

To what extent did the workshop improve understanding of inquiry-based learning and teaching?

Participants reported substantial improvement (58% very much, 42% somewhat, 0% not much). They cited hands-on engagement, clarification of inquiry dimensions, and better understanding of assessment and how IBL can be adapted to different teaching contexts.

How effective were the field active-inquiry activities at Cypress Swamp?

Most participants found the field activities beneficial (25% very effective, 75% somewhat effective, 0% not effective). Feedback points to guided vs. open-ended inquiry learning, though some noted issues with site stimulation, organization, and time spent in the classroom.

Sep 4, 2026

Upload by Ophelia