4d... · Web viewThe “Analyzing Teaching Commentaries” commentaries in the TPA require...

Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012 1

University of Cincinnati Educator Preparation UnitTransforming Lives, Schools, and Communities

Our Unit standards for performance expectations have become: Candidates of the University of Cincinnati are committed to transforming the lives of P-12 students, their schools, and their communities, and

Demonstrating foundation knowledge, including knowledge of how each individual learns and develops within a unique developmental context.

Articulating the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and the structures of their discipline. Collaborating, leading, and engaging in positive systems change. Demonstrating the moral imperative to teach all students and address the responsibility

to teach all students with tenacity. Addressing issues of diversity with equity and using skills unique to culturally and

individually responsive practice. Using technology to support their practice. Using assessment and research to inform their efforts and improve outcomes. Demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge, grounded in evidence- based practices,

committed to improving the academic and social outcomes of students.

In view of this conceptual framework and our urban mission, the goal for our Transformation Initiative is to improve the performance of students in high needs schools by preparing educators who recognize the moral imperative to meet the needs of each student. Perhaps most significantly, we will assess the outcomes of students in partner schools as well as candidates.

This initiative was designed to serve K-12 students in city schools, particularly those with special needs (i.e., unmotivated, neglected, special education, second language learners), and to better prepare our teaching candidates for urban settings and collaborative teaching. As a teacher preparation program with an urban focus, located midtown in the city, we have a responsibility to address issues of race and ethnicity, what Duncan (2009) refers to as teachers’ “daily fight for social justice” (Duncan, 2009). In particular, we know that the quality of instruction and the competence of the teacher have a significant impact on the learning and achievement for students of color (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Darling-Hammond (2009) contends that well-prepared teachers make a greater difference for students who have struggled. Learning to teach, she argues, is grounded in looking at what works for a wide array of students and critically reflecting on what is effective and what is not.

This initiative is grounded in what we know about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of successful urban teachers. Haberman’s efforts (1995) have identified fifteen characteristics of effective teachers which include: (a) protecting children’s learning; (b) persistence; (c) approach to at risk students; (d) theory into practice; (e) professional/personal orientation to students; (f) fallibility; (g) emotional and physical stamina; (h) organizational ability, (i) explanation of teacher s success; (j) explanation of children’s success; (k) real teaching; (l) making students feel needed; (m) the material versus the student; and (n) gentle teaching in a


violent society. In their study of stakeholder perceptions, McDermott and Rothenberg (2000) reporting findings that affirmed the need for trusting relationships, high expectations, and integrating students’ cultural knowledge for successful work with urban students.

The dispositions to which we are committed are also aligned with this project. As Haberman and Post (1998) suggest, there are essential elements of the belief and knowledge systems of urban teachers that predisposes them to success in urban settings. They report that effective urban teachers have self-knowledge, with a thorough understanding of their own cultural roots, grounding themselves in self-examination rather than “color-blindness” (Gorski, 2010). In terms of self-acceptance, Haberman and Post argue that self-acceptance is essential, in that (it takes somebodies to make somebodies” (p. 100). Effective urban teachers are able to work with children and adults different from themselves in ways viewed by others as respectful, caring, and empathetic with others how they perceive, understand, and explain their world. Consistent with the earlier characteristic of persistence, Haberman and Post describe the ability to “generate sustained effort” (p. 100) both on their behalf and that of their students. These teachers engage in systematic self-analysis and reflection, with an ongoing commitment to learning and growing. The final characteristic Haberman and Post suggest, is the ability to function in chaos. They argue that urban school systems are in themselves unstable and dysfunctional organizations. In order to remain effective, teacher must be able to act on behalf of children in spite of the irrationality and bureaucracies around them.

Essential Themes

This transformation initiative is structured by theme, allowing each program to implement their efforts in a way that meet their standards, candidates learning, and optimize student outcomes. These themes can, in themselves, be organized as a “who”, “what”, and “how” of our efforts. Our candidates’ dispositions and preparation as educators for high needs schools (who) will be addressed to help candidates come to terms with unintentional barriers and biases and help them reflect on their efforts. Our program curriculum and structures (what) will be revised in view of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Field and Clinical Experiences and research based practices. The impact of these efforts will be measured in part by the Teacher Performance Assessment (how).

The Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) is a national assessment of pre-service teachers that focuses on student learning and is designed around the principles that successful teachers apply knowledge of subject matter and subject-specific pedagogy, develop and apply knowledge of their students’ varied needs, consider research/theory about how students learn, and reflect and act on evidence of the effects of their instruction on student learning.

“Who”: Candidates Dispositions and Preparation as Educators in Urban Schools

Theme: Helping candidates come to terms with unintentional barriers and bias. This theme is consistent with Haberman and Post’s (1998) elements of self-knowledge and self-acceptance. Due to the limits of their own experiences and socio-cultural backgrounds, teaching candidates


often bring unintentional barriers and bias to the study of teaching and learning. Sleeter (2008) outlined at least three challenges that early career teacher must address. First, pre-service teachers must wrestle with the forces of occupational socialization with the inherent and tacit belief in the superiority of the White ways of teaching and working. Second, as pre-service teachers enter urban classrooms they have to be able to reflect on race and class as powerful filters of interpretation. Third, new and pre-service teachers must learn to integrate professional knowledge with practice in order to move beyond survival practices used in early teaching experiences. These challenges are consistent with the work of Gay (2010) whose notion of culturally responsive teaching suggested that much intellectual ability lies untapped and unrecognized in students of diverse ethnicities. We are committed to help candidates move from a cultural deprivation (deficit) paradigm that emphasizes limited cultural capital in the home and communities of low income and minority students to a cultural difference paradigm that works to unleash the learning potential of ethnically diverse students.

Theme: Preparing teachers for city schools. Haberman’s (1995) and Haberman and Post’s (1998) characteristics of effective teachers clearly inform this theme. We address issues of persistent, orientation to students, and stamina. We emphasize the role of the “opportunity gap” rather than “achievement gap” among various groups of students. In addition, we emphasize collaborative rather than control-oriented classroom management, trust, and respect.

All of our licensure programs require city experiences for their candidates. Like many teacher preparation programs, our candidates sometimes express an interest in teaching “urban, but not too urban” (Watson, 2011, p. 31) students. Watson suggested that these new teachers wanted to teach “students of color who exhibited their perceptions of middle-class-ness” (p. 31). Increasingly, our University of Cincinnati candidates are experiencing “urban” rather than “not too urban” schools. They are attending classes within high needs schools, in high poverty areas. They are working with students living in poverty, and confronting the complexities of families with many stressors and few resources. Through these placements, we are aligned with Watson’s recommendation that educator preparation programs must incorporate issues of race, inequity, classroom management, and poverty with repeated, personal experiences, rather than in a multicultural education course. In addition, we are finding that earlier, more frequent and better integrated field experiences are helping candidates not suited or not interested in teaching in high needs schools choose a different career path.

Theme: Reflection and analysis of teaching effectiveness. Diez (2010) suggests that teacher candidate work samples or portfolios are frequently filled with artifacts but do not provide evidence of in depth analysis. She contends that good work samples provide evidence that the candidate has captured thinking about how the artifact supports growth towards the standards of practice and shows that the candidate has determined next steps in increasing student learning.


Reflection is key to effective urban teachers. Yet, as Haberman and Post (1998) contend, just reflecting isn’t helpful unless it is grounded in a belief of the relationship between teacher “success” and student “success” and the commitment to continuous growth and learning. Through the use of the Collaborative Assessment Log and with the implementation of the Teacher Performance Assessment, University of Cincinnati School of Education faculty are increasingly addressing candidates’ ability to reflect and analyze their own teacher, reviewing evidence, on their teaching, what they have learned about their teaching and students’ learning, and what they would do differently if they could teach a learning segment again. The “Analyzing Teaching Commentaries” commentaries in the TPA require candidates to show how specific research/theory guided their selection of specific strategies and materials to help their P-12 students develop the strategies and skills that are needed to meet the learning objectives. Candidates are directed to use notes they collected through learning segments and use this evidence to evaluate and change their teaching to meet the various needs of students. Finally, through both the TPA and the Collaborative Assessment Logs, candidates examine how this process of reflection informs what they plan to do in the next teaching episode, unit or lesson.

“What”: Revising Curriculum and Program Components

Theme: Embedding courses in schools and better integrating courses with field experiences. An increasing number of teacher preparation classes are being taught in nearby high-needs schools and are better integrated with the field experiences in those schools. These experiences function as “laboratories” for our candidates, settings to apply the knowledge and skills they are learning in their classes. Campus-based faculty members are available to support candidates, and provide feedback on knowledge, skills, and dispositions. These efforts are consistent with the recommendations of the report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. Each of the licensure programs currently has at least one example of an embedded course or parts of a course and those will increase as we move to semesters in the autumn of 2012. Through these embedded courses and accompanying field experiences, we are moving away from lesson plans as mere academic exercises (Conderman, Morin, & Stephens, 2005). In this context, candidates’ lesson plans are explicitly tied to a specific target population in their field experience classrooms. Candidates must consider the unique array of special needs (i.e., unmotivated, neglected, special education, second language learners) as they plan and implement classroom activities.

Theme: Adding more and earlier field experiences. Field experiences – being there – is an important aspect of our candidates ability to develop a professional/personal orientation to students, caring, and empathy for students’ whose experiences have been far different than their own (Haberman & Post, 1998).

The Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning argued that the “education of teachers in the United States needs to be turned upside down. To prepare effective teachers for 21st century classrooms, teacher education must shift away from a norm which emphasizes academic preparation and course work loosely linked to school-based experiences. Rather, it must move to programs that are fully grounded in clinical practice


and interwoven with academic content and professional courses” National Council l for Accreditation of Teacher Education p. ii). As the School of Education moves to semesters in the autumn of 2012, each of the licensure programs is increasing the number of field experiences and will provide earlier field experiences for their candidates. These experiences will be more frequent, earlier and better integrated. They promise to be more demanding, varied and clinically based. Opportunities for candidates to connect what they learn with the challenge of using it will increase. University-based supervisors and faculty members, along with school-based cooperating teachers will provide closer guidance and support. Candidates will blend practitioner knowledge with academic knowledge as they learn by doing. They will refine their practice in the light of new knowledge acquired and data gathered about whether their students are learning. Earlier and more frequent experiences will also help address the concern that short-term experiences in urban schools may not extend candidate preparation, even in professional development schools (McKinney, Haberman, Stafford-Johnson, & Robinson, 2008). We are not only turning the preparation of educators “upside down”, but “moving it out..

Theme: Implementation of research-based strategies. Effective urban teachers are able to connect theory to practice (Haberman, 1995). If university based faculty are going to talk the talk of evidence-based practices, then they must walk the walk in their own classes. Syllabi are being developed to explicitly indicate the research-based strategies used by the instructor. Instructors are modeling the three phases of explicit instruction (explicit training and teacher modeling, guided practice, and independent practice). Candidates’ work samples must include documentation that the strategies and interventions are research-based and demonstrated to be successful. This commitment has moved us to begin to break down the existing silos. Special education faculty and general education faculty are co-teaching, demonstrating to our candidates the types of collaboration that can increase student engagement and achievement. Protocols, such as student work samples, analysis of student work (New Teacher Center, 2002) and teacher performance assessment have been to help candidates systematically and collaboratively examine the work of P-12 students in their practicum classrooms to discover student learning needs and determine how best to address them. Cooperating teachers and university faculty members use their experience and expertise to help our teacher candidates select appropriate student work, establish criteria for assessment, and sort and analyze the work to identify learning needs. Together, they identify patterns that become apparent from this analysis and reflect on implications for differentiating instruction.

Theme: Academic language development. Academic language has been described as the specialized set of words, grammar, and organizational strategies used to express complex ideas, higher-order thinking processes and abstract concepts (Zwiers, 2008). In May of 2004, the National Council of Teachers English (NCTE) issued a Call to Action citing the unique aspects of adolescent literacy that are encountered by students within the academic discourses of their content area classes. Because the demands of academic expository discourses differ from more familiar forms such as literary or personal narrative (Kucer, 2005), NCTE charged teachers with the responsibility of “make(ing) visible to students how literacy operates within the academic disciplines” (National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2004).With the implementation of the Teacher Performance Assessment, University of Cincinnati School of Education faculty and


candidates are increasingly addressing P-12 students’ abilities to understand and produce the oral or written language that are a critical part of each academic discipline. While many P-12 students manage to appropriate the features of academic genres, many do not. Across our licensure programs, candidates are engaged in building units of instruction that give P-12 students opportunities to move from their social languages into the unique languages required in the academic disciplines.

“How”: Using the Teacher Performance Assessment to Track Change

Theme: Implementing a reliable and valid Teacher Performance Assessment to improve the consistency and quality of teacher effectiveness. The Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium (TPAC) is an initiative to develop an assessment of the competence of pre-service teachers, a prototype for a national teaching performance assessment. Through participation in the development and implementation of the Teacher Performance Assessment, the School of Education is moving toward a robust, complex, multifaceted assessment of our candidates in action.

Pre-service teachers design a series of 3–5 lessons called a learning segment. To complete the assessment, they submit artifacts and commentaries as evidence of how they planned and implemented instruction to deepen student learning in their specific content area. Artifacts represent the authentic work of the pre-service teachers and their students. These include lesson plans, copies of instructional and assessment materials, one or two video clips of their teaching, and student work samples.

The commentaries provide an opportunity for candidates to describe the artifacts, explain the rationale behind their use, and analyze and reflect on what they learned about their teaching practice and their students’ learning. In each commentary, the pre-service teachers respond to prompts to provide evidence of what they know and understand about their students and their learning.

As an accelerated teacher preparation program within an accelerated state, the University of Cincinnati’s School of Education, has been at the forefront of early pilots of the national assessment. Programs currently engaged in these efforts include early childhood education, middle childhood education, world languages, special education-other settings, and secondary education. This autumn, we will engage in a full pilot in all licensure programs where TPAC Handbooks are available (special education, early childhood education, art, music, world languages, elementary mathematics, elementary literacy, secondary English language arts, secondary science, secondary mathematics, secondary social studies and history). The four tasks cover critical areas 1. Planning, instruction, and assessment; 2. Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning; 3. Assessing Student Learning; and 4. Analyzing Teaching; and support the development of formative assessment tools that will provide more explicit feedback for our candidates. Signature assignments are being designed to mirror these assessments and will be integrated into course work and field experiences throughout the licensure programs,


beginning with initial course work in human development, educational foundations and special education, through the final courses and field experiences.

Considering the data from the Teacher Performance Assessments as a way to improve programs has forced us to consider the outcomes of our courses and field experiences. Diez (2010) describe “embedded signature assessments” (p. 44) as assignments or course activities that provide candidates with formative feedback on program outcomes. As we begin the re-examination of what we what our students to be able to know, do, and be, we recognized that consistency in the ways in which we address and assess candidate outcomes are central to our program improvement efforts. As we work with candidates in planning, program must agree on how lesson plans will be presented, assessed, and used to provide information to candidates to improve their practice. On our most recent program reports several programs continued to use grades as an assessment; as we move to these signature assignments we anticipate assessments that more clearly align with our program outcomes rather than inputs.

Anticipated Outcomes and Research Questions

We anticipate that this transformation effort will result in: Candidates with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be effective teachers for all

students in challenging schools. Program structures that support the development of candidate knowledge, skills, and

dispositions. An effective Teacher Performance Assessment to serve as a summative assessment for

the program. A series of consistent, fair, and bias-free assessments to measure the development of

candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance Assessment.

The research questions that structure our efforts are: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on candidate

knowledge, skills, and dispositions and ability to teach in challenging schools? Does the Teacher Performance Assessment generate evidence that is useful in refining

educator preparation efforts? What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on the learning and

behavior of p-12 students? What assessments emerge to measure the development of candidate knowledge, skills,

and dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance Assessment?

Methodology

Research Question: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions and ability to teach in challenging schools?


The following program structures, consistent with the Blue Ribbon Panel on Field and Clinical Experiences and grounded in the research base related to educator preparation for challenging schools, are being developed, implemented, and evaluated in this question. The following table describes each structure, the target, and the current or proposed assessment.

Structure Impact Embedded Signature Assessment Status of Assessment

Embedding courses in schools with integrated field experiences

More and earlier field experiences

Research based-strategies

Emphasis on academic language

Pedagogical knowledge and skills

Assessment Plan (Special Education) In placeLesson Planning (All initial programs) In placeIntervention Plan (Special Education) In place Addendum to candidate performance in the field related to Haberman’s characteristics of effective

In development

Conceptual units (All initial programs) In placePositive behavior support (special education) and management plans (all initial programs)

In place

Dispositions Focused Dispositions Assessment PilotingAssessment of language in written work using equity rubric

In development

Repeated measures of diversity knowledge and dispositions

In development

Reflection In development

Research Question: Does the Teacher Performance Assessment generate evidence that is useful in refining educator preparation efforts?

In order to address this question, we will use a content analysis of the scoring and comments of the external, calibrated raters’ for our candidates’ Teacher Performance Assessment. We will then review the categories and themes from this analysis in terms of program structures, course content, and field and clinical expectations. Faculty members will then complete a social validity questionnaire in terms of the usefulness of the TPA in information program continuous improvement plans.

Research Question: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on the learning and behavior of p-12 students?

Our Transformation Initiative has had a significant impact on our assessment system. Since 2002 we have had a candidate performance/program improvement plan and a unit operations improvement plan. With the initiative, we have implemented an “impact on p-12 student learning and behavior” improvement plan. We have implemented, through the Teacher Performance Assessment, an evaluation of candidate’s ability to assess their students, analyze their work, differentiate their instruction, and then reassess. We have, in some settings, implemented a goal attainment scaling size effect study. With the need for additional, innovative efforts, Dean Johnson has released a request for proposals and will commission studies of additional efforts to address the impact of the new program on the learning and behavior of p-12 students.


Research Question: What assessments emerge to measure the development of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance Assessment?

One aspect of this initiative is the development of measures that are sensitive to more precisely measure the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of our candidates consistent with our commitment to transforming lives, schools, and communities. The assessments must be fair, consistent, and unbiased. In response to this need, a protocol for studying these areas in each of the assessment will be developed. To begin these efforts, we will apply our current “assessment of assessments” guide:

Embedded signature assessment:Course:Indicator: Description of how indicator is met:The assessment is:

relevant and consistent with components of the standards. List standards addressed:List standards addressed:

planned, refined, and implemented by key stakeholders (i.e., professional and local community)one of several internal and external multiple measures that are systematically applied across content, course work, and field experiencesclearly delineated and communicated to candidates and/or stakeholders.credible and rigorous.authentic to the work of the educatorconducted the appropriate context (classroom vs. community vs. field)appropriate for the cost (time)consistent with reforma source of information regarding decisions about the program and the candidateIndicator: Description of how indicator is met:The assessment addresses these unit standards:foundation knowledge, including how individuals learn and developcontent knowledge


collaboration, leadership, positive systems changediversitytechnologyassessment and researchpedagogical knowledge grounded in EBPTransformational InitiativeIndicator: Description of how indicator is met:The assessment addresses these Ohio Educator Standards:1 Teachers understand student learning and development, and respect the diversity of the students they teach.2 Teachers know and understand the content area for which they have instructional responsibility.3 Teachers understand and use varied assessments to inform instruction, evaluate, and ensure student learning.4 Teachers plan and deliver effective instruction that advances the learning of each individual student.5 Teachers create learning environments that promote high levels of learning and achievement for all students.6 Teachers collaborate and communicate with other educators, administrators, students and parents and the community to support student learning.7 Professional Responsibility and Growth: Teachers assume responsibility for professional growth, performance, and involvement as an individual and as a member of a learning community.

References:Council for Exceptional Children (2002) Standards for development of assessment systems. Retrieved 9/ 29/ 2009 from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Professional_Standards1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1351Johnson, R. L., Penny, J. A., and Gordon, B. (2009) Assessing performance: Designing, scoring, and validating performance tasks. New York: Guildford Press.

Examples of Current Program Transformation Efforts

All teacher preparation programs are committed to these transformation efforts. They vary, however, in their implementation and the stage of their effort.

Special Education:

Rothenberg Preparatory Academy. Special Education candidates preparing to work with students with mild to moderate educational needs participate in coursework in literacy at the school. Following the class, an embedded field experience engages candidates in assessing, teaching, and evaluating their impact of work with young children attending the school. Faculty members who co-teach the course are joined by university supervisors to provide coaching and support. Candidates prepare an assessment and intervention report which is provided to both the teacher and parent.

Special education is also involved in co-teaching by both university faculty members and candidates, implementation of evidence based practices, and explicit feedback.

Early Childhood Education:


Taft Elementary: The Integrating Social Studies in Early Childhood Curriculum course has a particular focus on urban education. Candidates participate in an urban kindergarten practicum experience while enrolled in the course. To foster understanding, awareness, and appreciation for urban and inner-city communities the course blends on-campus instruction with instruction at multiple locations situated within the urban/inner city community surrounding Taft Elementary, including the school itself. Assignments are developed to reflect on instructional practices that effectively utilize candidates’ emerging understandings of Taft Elementary students and the local community. Candidates visit a local community garden and local non-profit organizations to develop teacher candidates’ competence in making local curricular connections to their teaching of social studies. Related assignments foster an understanding of how the surrounding community supports students and families, as teacher candidates build their knowledge base about how “social studies” can serve to develop children’s understandings about their social world.

In fall, 2011, the program taught 25% of the ECE science classes at Taft Elementary. First, both the UC and Taft second graders exchanged letters and pictures. Next, candidates in both sections of science methods went to the school and taught small group activities. During this last activity the ECE pre-service teachers will teach a science demonstration to small groups for 30 minutes each. These demonstrations will be taught a total of four times so they can better understand how to adapt their teaching from one lesson to the next.

The kindergarten practicum has been refocused as an urban field experience. We will also be pairing multiple candidates (2) with master mentor teachers for each placement in high needs schools.

Middle Childhood Education

The middle childhood education program is engaged in piloting the Teacher Performance Assessment. Middle childhood education faculty members have piloted this prototype for a national teaching performance assessment for two years. One faculty member has been trained as a “scorer trainer” for Ohio. In the Teacher Performance Assessment, candidates describe, analyze, and evaluate the teaching of a 3-5 lesson unit of instruction, a “learning segment”. The TPA is based on the proposition that successful teaching is based on knowledge of subject matter and subject-specific pedagogy, developing knowledge of one’s students, reflecting and acting on evidence of the effects of instruction on student learning, and considering research/theory about how students learn. The Teacher Performance Assessment is focused on P-12 student learning. To complete the assessment, candidates submit artifacts and commentaries and describe their plans and what they actually did to achieve student learning (the “what”), provide a rationale for their plans and an analysis of the effects of their teaching on their students’ learning (the “so what”), and analyze and reflect on the resulting student learning to plan next steps in instruction or improvements in their teaching practice (the “now what”). Candidates’ assessment evidence is judged on five dimensions of teaching: planning,


instruction, assessment, reflection, and academic language. Full implementation begins next year (2011-12) and will be timed to licensure, a “high stakes” Ohio assessment, in 2013-14.

Integrated Efforts

Hughes STEM High School. During autumn 2010 a pilot project of 20 coaching teams (special education and English education pairs) worked together to meet the needs of the Hughes STEM ninth grades, particularly those with special needs (i.e., unmotivated, neglected, special education). The teacher candidates, UC School of Education teaching candidates, are college juniors, seniors or graduate students seeking integrated English language arts teaching license, valid for grades seven to twelve, or a mild to moderate Special Education teaching license, valid for teaching kindergarten through grade twelve. These twenty teams coached Hughes STEM freshmen at the high school during the day and/or after the school day, six hours per week for 10-11 weeks. These UC licensure candidates were supervised by faculty, field service supervisors, and doctoral students. An accompanying university course was offered at Hughes STEM. Instructional management coursework is also taught at Hughes, co-taught by classroom teachers, and providing candidates with a means of observing, recording data, and debriefing.

Math/Science Post-Baccalaureate Licensure. Selected Woodrow Wilson teaching fellows already hold a baccalaureate degree in math, science or engineering and have demonstrated that they are high achievers, academically and professionally. The fellows will complete an intensive, field-based master’s degree in UC’s teacher education program and licensure under the mentorship of STEM faculty in CECH as well as UC’s McMicken College of Arts and Sciences (A&S) and UC’s College of Engineering. Their experience will also include immersion in UC’s STEM partnerships with Cincinnati Public Schools – namely the Hughes STEM high school that opened last fall, the newest link in a K-16 pipeline to ensure the academic success of every student in the Cincinnati USA region and to strengthen the future Ohio workforce. Woodrow Wilson Fellows will complete licensure in either math or science grades 7-12 and a masters’ degree in 18 months.

Research Evaluation Plan

Timeline and Dissemination. We are planning a NCATE accreditation site visit in the autumn 2012. As a member of the PACT consortium, our efforts may serve as models for other PACT institutions seeking NCATE accreditation through the Transformation Initiative. If approved, results of these efforts study would be written into papers to be submitted for publication in scholarly journals, such as Issues in Teacher Education and Teacher Education Quarterly, Educational Researcher, Teacher Education and Special Education, Teaching and Teacher Education. Proposals to present this research would be submitted for presentations at conferences, such as the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the Council for Exceptional Children, National Middle School Association, and other specialized associations. We have already presented some of our work at AERA, CEC, and AACTE. Our work on dispositions has appears in an edited volume for Harvard University Press, and other papers are under review.


Research Question 1: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions?

Action Planned When? Status? DataImplement coursework and embedded field experiences in schools with p-12 teacher partners

Fall 2011 ECE pilots; SPED; Grades 7-12 English/LA

Comparison of performance of candidates on dispositions and goal setting to past groups

Spring 2012 MDL pilotsAdding more and earlier field experiences

Fall 2012 Planned Program evaluations, candidate performance

Addressing unintentional barriers and biases

Summer 2012 – Fall 2013

Work group aligning series of experience and assessments

Assessments, rubric for candidate written efforts, racial identity activities

Preparing teachers for city schools

Fall 2011 All candidates in >1 urban, high poverty placement by policy

Tracking placements; scripts ; focused disposition assessment

Implementation of research-based strategies

Fall 2011 Research based strategies required on all plans/units

Meta-analysis of ratings of use of research-based strategies

Academic language development

Spring 2012- Fall 2013

Reviewing literature; initiating work on strategies

Specific strategies to work with candidates to be developed

Reflection Fall 2012- Fall 2013

Reviewing literature; developing rubric; collaborating with school partners on CAL

Rubric for depth of reflection to be developed

Research Question 2: Does the Teacher Performance Assessment generate evidence that is used in refining educator preparation efforts?

Action Planned When? Status? DataImplementation of TPA for all programs

Spring 2012 MDL, ECE, and SPED uploading Available October 2012

Summarization and analysis of quantitative data

Winter 2013 Planned Summarized March 2013

Coding of written comments Spring 2013 Planned Summarized May 2013Summarization / analysis to programs for review to improve candidate performance and program

Fall 2013 Planned Presented August 2013

Social Validity Questionnaire – including p-12 partners

Winter 2014 Planned Surveys and interviews conducted by March 2014

Generating publications Sum2014 Planned Submitted by September 2014Research Questions 3: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on the learning and behavior of p-12 students?

Action Planned When? Status? DataImplement funded Evaluation Mosaic Studies

Fall 2012 Planned Spring 2013

Reissue rfps for Mosaic Evaluation project; commissioning other studies

Spring 2012 Planned Summer 2013

Identification of assessments Spring 2012 Planned Piloted Fall 2012Review of data generated Spring 2013 Planned Summarized Spring 2013Revising assessments Spring 2013 Planned Completed by June 2013Reliability, bias, and consistency studies

2013-2014 AY

Planned Completed by June 2014


Institutionalize assessments to collect adequate data to identify trends

Fall 2014 Planned Fall 2014-Fall 2018

Research Question 4: What assessments emerge to measure the development of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance Assessment?

Action Planned When? Status? DataIdentify signature embedded assessments

Fall 2012 Planned End of December 2012

Post signature assessments and rubrics on program web-pages Spring 2013 Planned Completed?Implement Assessments Spring 2013 Planned End of spring 2013Review data and redesign Fall 2013 Planned End of December 2013Reliability, bias, and consistency studies

2013-2014 AY

Planned Completed by June 2014

Institutionalize assessments to collect adequate data to identify trends

Fall 2014 Planned Fall 2014-Fall 2018

Budget. The only budget available at this time is that provided to the collaborating programs. Grant proposals have been submitted for additional funding. Dean Johnson has made a commitment to continue to fund proposals that generate assessments related to p-12 student outcomes.

Description of the unit’s capacity to conduct the Transformation Initiative. Faculty members are well prepared to implement this project. Prior to the 2010-2011 academic year, several faculty members participated in a one week institute to reform teacher preparation efforts. In this institute, strategies were designed to increase university program integration in course work and field experiences (e.g., faculty co-teach and sharing in instructional delivery and curriculum design). In addition, plans were made to integrate pedagogical content knowledge that indirectly benefits instruction in 4-12 classrooms (e.g., integrated courses, and professional development targets). Through the use of formative assessment, innovation grounded in research will be developed for presentation to the university teacher preparation faculty.

The partner schools are also a key resource. Hughes STEM High School is located directly across the street from the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services. After two years of renovation, the one hundred year old building now has all new plumbing, wiring, gym, automatic lighting, and roof. There is a state of the art observation classroom where observers can watch master teachers through two-way mirrors during instruction. Wireless and wired computer labs are available, and there is significant technology in the classrooms. A large “innovation lab” is available for teaching our courses. Rooms have also been made available to us at Taft Elementary and Rothenberg Schools for teaching our courses and working with small groups of students.

References


Conderman, G., Morin, J. & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special education student teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 49 (3), 5-10.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third Annual Brown Lecture in Education Research- The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36 (6), 318-334.)

Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Thoughts on teacher preparation. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.edutopia.org/linda-darling-hammond-teacher-preparation

Diez, M. (2010). It is complicated: Unpacking the flow of teacher education’s impact on student learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 441-450. DOI: 10.1177/0022487110382927.

Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain profession – Remarks of Secretary Arne Duncan at Teachers College, Columbia University, October 22, 2009. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html

Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28 (2), 465-498.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.

Haberman, M. & Post, L. (1998). Teachers for multicultural schools. Theory into Practice, 37 (2), 97-1104.

McDermott, P. & Rothenberg, J. (2000). The characteristics of effective teacher in high poverty schools: Triangulating our data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

McKinney, S. E. Haberman, M., Stafford-Johnson, D., & Robinson, J. (2008). Developing teachers for high-poverty schools: The role of the internship experiences. Urban Education, 43, (1), 68-82.

Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers:

http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html

http://www.edutopia.org/linda-darling-hammond-teacher-preparation


Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. Washington, CD: NCATE.

National Council of Teachers of English (2004) NCTE Position Statement Guideline. Retrievedfrom http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/adolescentliteracy

New Teacher Center (2002). Continuum of Teacher Development. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center.

Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559-582). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group and the Association of Teacher Education.

Watson, D. (2011). “Urban, but not too urban”: Unpacking teacher’s desires to teach urban students. Journal of Teacher Education, 62 (1), 23-34.

Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms. Newark, DE: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/adolescentliteracy

4d... · Web viewThe “Analyzing Teaching Commentaries” commentaries in the TPA require...

Documents

Transcript of 4d... · Web viewThe “Analyzing Teaching Commentaries” commentaries in the TPA require...