|
Special Projects
National
Summer Institute Program | Computer
Literacy Program
National Summer Institute
Program
History of the AAM National Summer Institutes
(NSI)
NSI Best Practices
2003 NSI Summary & Agenda
History
of the AAM National Summer Institutes (NSI)
by Wendy Fusco
AAM Director, Montreat College
Suggestions and comments: E-mail (wfusco@montreat.edu)
History and
Analysis of the National Summer Institute
When the Adventure of the American Mind (AAM) Partners
began in October 1999, the Library of Congress (LOC) agreed
to host a one-week National Summer Institute for AAM Teachers
similar to the American Memory Fellows program. The purpose
of the National Summer Institute was to assist teachers
in developing curriculum and teaching methods that use
the digital primary resources in the LOC collection to
further student learning. The LOC planned to host the first
two years of the National Summer Institute and then AAM
would host any following institutes.
National Summer Institute, 2000
The first AAM National Summer Institute was held at the
LOC the week of June 12, 2000. Applications were produced
by the LOC and sent to AAM Partners. The AAM Partners were
Montreat College, Mars Hill College, and Brevard College.
Approximately 20 educators including both classroom teachers
and media specialists applied. The LOC reviewed the applications
and selected all 20 participants. In addition to the in-service
teachers, four undergraduate students who had completed
the AAM course at Montreat College were allowed to attend.
Prior to the institute, an online session was developed
by the LOC for the Summer Institute participants. The purpose
of this session was to begin collaboration with LOC staff
and to orient the Summer Institute participants to the
American Memory Collection web site. Communication difficulties
prevented most teachers and all of the undergraduate students
from completing the online session.
The Summer Institute participants were flown to Washington,
D.C. on Sunday, June 11, 2000. The Summer Institute activities
included computer-based activities and curator tours of
the collections. Participant feedback suggested that the
computer-based activities mirrored too closely the activities
participants had completed in the AAM graduate course prior
to the summer institute. Participants reported the curator
tours as the highlight of the summer institute.
National Summer Institute, 2001
When preparing for the second national
Summer Institute efforts were made to improve communication
between the
AAM Partners and the LOC staff. These efforts included
visits by LOC staff to the AAM Partners in October 2000
and to the fall AAM graduate courses for classroom teachers.
The LOC’s applications for the 2001 National Summer
Institute were given to all teachers participating in the
now five AAM Partners (Furman University and Western Carolina
University joined Montreat College, Mars Hill College,
and Brevard College in 2001). As in the previous year,
the LOC received the applications directly from the teachers
and made the participant selections for the Summer Institute.
Due to complications surrounding the undergraduate students
during the 2000 Summer Institute, undergraduates were not
considered for the second year. The volume of teacher applications
resulted in the LOC accepting 40 teachers and dividing
them in two groups. Two one-week institutes were held back-to-back
in June with 20 participants in each institute. Changes
in the 2001 included: eliminating the pre-institute online
session, extending the institute by beginning on Saturday,
and including an afternoon for exploring museums and monuments.
The institute curriculum was modified to build on the knowledge
and the skills teachers developed through the AAM graduate
course and focused on a particular type of artifact each
day. Participant feedback suggested that the changes in
the institute curriculum were effective in making the American
Memory Collection more purposeful for teachers. Participants
enjoyed the new institute curriculum, however, the 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. institute hours were too long to sustain creativity
and focus.
Thomas Jefferson Summer Institute, 2002
The original plan called for the AAM
partners to host the National Summer Institutes after the
second year. However,
the AAM staff and Education Research Consortium Executive
Director (ERC) felt it was essential for teachers to
have an opportunity to see artifacts and visit the LOC
because teachers who had attended previous Summer Institutes
were more eager to use digitized primary resources in
their teaching than those who had not attended an institute.
The AAM Partners wanted to extend this experience to
more teachers. However, the grant that funded the LOC’s
Learning Center ended in 2001. As a result, the computer
lab that participants had used in the previous institutes
was downsized as well as the LOC’s available staff.
Because the visits to the LOC were so critical, the LOC
agreed to provide the curator presentations for the 2002
institute. To reduce the workload on the smaller LOC
staff, the institute focused on a particular topic.
The AAM Partners sought to develop a theme that would
be appropriate for all teachers in grades K through 12.
Thomas Jefferson was chosen because of his diversity of
interests and influence on history. Teachers could develop
unit plans for their grade level using one of his many
pursuits such as politics, architecture, and gardening.
This idea led to the creation of the Thomas Jefferson Summer
Institute (TJSI). The weeklong TJSI would be held in part
at Monticello and the Kenwood International Center for
Jefferson Studies in Charlottesville, VA, and finished
at the LOC. AAM conducted a preliminary site visit to select
facilities and activities for the institute and to plan
the curriculum with LOC staff.
Thirty-seven teachers applied for the trip and were accepted.
As part of the application process, the participants provided
ideas for individual unit plans they intended to research
during the institute. Teachers were to complete the unit
plans using the resources and information they collected
during the institute. Teachers were awarded renewal credit
toward their teaching license for completed units. Because
the unit plans were not completed during the institute,
it was difficult to collect unit plans during the rest
of the summer.
Some difficulties participants
encountered were acquiring materials, limited time, and
changing topics for the unit
plans. Even though the curators were provided with a list
of topics for the unit plans prior to the institute, the
topic list was too broad and curators were overwhelmed
trying to meet each participant’s needs. Participants
reported the most useful parts of the institute were the
tours of UVA’s Academic Village, the Special Collections
presentation at UVA, the tours at Monticello and the curator
presentations at the LOC. Overall the TJSI was successful,
but there were areas for improvement.
Thomas Jefferson
Summer Institute, 2003
AAM staff decided to repeat
the TJSI as the fourth institute and to assign an AAM
Partner as the institute coordinator.
Montreat College accepted the coordinator role. An institute
planning team was assembled including AAM staff members
from Montreat, an AAM staff member from Mars Hill, two
teachers who had participated in the first institute,
and the ERC grants manager. Each team member was given
a task in planning the institute.
The pre-institute planning trip
was repeated and was very valuable. The TJSI planning
team was able to share expectations
and collaborate with the contacts at the various sites
to focus the institute curriculum on meeting the participants’ needs.
In response to participant feedback,
modifications were made to the application packet from
the previous year to
provide more detailed information about the institute to
potential participants. The application materials were
given to AAM Partners to distribute to qualified teachers
by hand or through the mail. The TJSI had a prerequisite
of completing the AAM graduate course prior to the institute.
The number of AAM Partners had grown again and now included
colleges in Western North Carolina, Upstate South Carolina,
Arizona, and Southern Illinois. A pre-institute teleconference
session was held at Mars Hill College to connect participants
from western North Carolina and upstate South Carolina
with participants at SIU-Carbondale. This session was videotaped
and shared with enrollees who could not participate (including
those from Arizona). A web site was developed using Blackboard
to allow teachers to complete preliminary activities and
participate in a discussion board.
Other changes in TJSI based on 2002 participant feedback
included lengthening the institute by two days to allow
teachers more time to investigate and research their unit
plan topics and to visit the LOC and museums on their own.
Also, teachers developed their basic unit plans prior to
attending the institute so they could focus on locating
supporting materials rather than creating the unit plan
during the institute. Though the curators were given a
list of unit plan topics prior to the institute, the teachers
were directed to use the online catalogs for UVA, Kenwood,
and the LOC so they could be responsible for knowing what
was available. The teachers were required to keep journals
and collect primary artifacts, such as brochures and ticket
stubs to support their unit plans. As an incentive to collect
these primary resources, check sheets were distributed
to teachers and completed check sheets were entered into
a drawing for a $25 gift certificate to Barnes and Noble.
Though every effort was made to
enhance the fourth Summer Institute based on the previous
years’ experience,
participant evaluations reflected varying degrees of satisfaction.
Most teachers rated the TJSI as one of their best professional
development experiences. Consistent with the previous institutes,
several teachers would have liked more time to explore
museums. Some teachers felt the Thomas Jefferson theme
was limiting. The TJSI planning team observed the preliminary
activities for the Charlottesville locations worked well.
Most of the requested books were available and the tours
were tailored to the participants’ needs. Some participants
expressed concern about lack of time for the preliminary
activities. Because each AAM Partner used a different curriculum
for the prerequisite graduate course, the participants
came to the institute with varying experiences, knowledge,
and technical skills. This resulted in the content of some
sessions to be review for some participants and new materials
for others.
Summary of
the Four Summer Institutes
Participant feedback
suggested the primary goal of assisting teachers in
using primary resources to further student
learning was achieved. Most teachers enjoyed the institute
and appreciated the opportunity to see rare books,
manuscripts, and maps. The teachers were engaged in the
institute
activities and asked good questions. The institutes
provided an opportunity for many teachers to visit our
nation’s
Capital and Monticello. Throughout the school years
that followed the institutes, it seemed that teachers who
had participated showed a greater enthusiasm and appreciation
for the AAM program. Although the institute was modified
each year, not every participant was fully satisfied.
is made available through a grant funded by the U.S. Congress.
AAM is administered through
the .
For site-related problems, e-mail aam@ercwc.org..
|
