Using the Triad Model to Assess

Perceptions of the Student Teaching Experience

Heng-Yu Ku, Kimberly Kaufeld, Chelsie Hess,

Scott Kreider, Nancy Sileo, and Eugene Sheehan

AERA 2014

Background • Quality of Teacher Preparation Programs

• According to Zeichner (2005) ,“The effectiveness of different teacher education programs, organizational structures, and entry routes to teaching is one of the most hotly contested issues in teacher preparation” (p. 59).

• Program Evaluation

• Accrediting organizations are requiring colleges of education to have a well-developed assessment system that “collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its program” (NCATE, 2002).

Background

• Student Teaching Experience

• Last year of schooling

• Gain insight to teacher preparation program

• Triad Model

• Cooperating Teachers

• University Supervisors

• student teacher

Background

• Student Teaching Experience

• Elementary teacher prep program: Last semester program

• Triad Model: 3 way dynamic

Cooperating Teacher

University Supervisor

Student Teacher

Program

Background • Triad verses cooperative triad exists in most

educational settings. (Yee, 1967)

• Student teaching triad model has been researched from perspectives of:

• Cooperating teachers (Koerner, 1998; Veal & Rikard, 1998; Tannehill, 1989),

• University supervisors (Karmos & Jacko, 1977)

• Student teachers (Tillema, 2009).

Purpose

• Assess student teaching evaluation used by the

School of Teacher Education for student teachers.

• Assess differences among cooperating teachers,

university supervisors, and student teachers’ ratings

from the student teaching evaluation survey.

• Assess cooperating teachers’ and university

supervisors’ perceptions of the teacher education

program.

Research Questions

1. What underlying factors are measured by the

student teaching evaluation survey?

2. Are there differences in the ratings of the student

teaching evaluation survey from cooperating

teachers, university supervisors, and student

teachers?

3. What are cooperating teachers and university

supervisors’ perceptions toward the teacher

education program regarding the student teaching

experience?

Method

• Participants

• Student teachers in the elementary professional teacher

education program who completed their student teaching

experience.

• N=124 responses.

• Cooperating teachers who mentored and worked with the

student teachers in the classroom.

• N=140 responses.

• University supervisors who are retired principals or teachers

that have an affiliation with the university.

• N=190 responses.

Instrument • Student Teaching Evaluation Survey

• For student teachers, cooperating teachers, and university

supervisors

• 30-item questionnaire

• Assess student teacher proficiency based upon national

content standards

• Likert Scale:

• 1 (Developing) to 5 (Advanced)

• Teacher Education Program Survey

• Cooperating teachers and university supervisors assess the

teacher education program

• 5-item questionnaire

• Likert scale

• 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Data Analysis

• Research question 1: Exploratory Factor Analysis • Numbers of factors determined from:

• Eigenvalues > 1,

• Cattell’s scree plot

• Salient loadings of > 0.4

• Research question 2: ANOVA

• Research question 3: Independent t-test

Results – Research Question 1

• Step 1: Factor Analysis for each of the three groups. • Cooperating teachers, university supervisors, student

teachers. • Number of factors extracted from the groups:

• Cooperating teachers: 3 Factors • University supervisors: 4 Factors • Student teachers: 6 Factors

• Step 2: Compare Factor Analysis results across the three groups. • Three factors were forced. • 21 items consistent across the groups. • Initially 30 survey items.

Results

Survey Items ST CT US Factor

1 Intentionally supports oral and written language development. 1 1 1 1 2 Understands cognitive foundations of learning. 1 1 1 1 3 Designs appropriate standards-based lesson plans. 1 1 1 1 4 Differentiates instruction in response to the needs of students identified as

exceptional learners. 1 1 1 1

5 Differentiates instruction in response to the needs of students identified as

English as a second language. 1 1 1 1

6 Applies sound disciplinary practices and interventions strategies in the

classroom. 1 1 1 1

15 Provides constructive feedback to students. 1 1 1 1 16 Uses formal and informal assessment strategies to plan, evaluate, and

strengthen instruction. 1 1 1 1

17 Fosters active engagement in learning, self-motivation, and positive social

interaction and creates supportive learning. 1 1 1 1

18 Uses technology effectively to increase student achievement. 1 1 1 1 19 Reflects on own practice; actively seeks out opportunities to grow

professionally. 2 1 3 -

20 Seeks feedback and uses it constructively. 2 1 1 - 21 Documents and reports student achievement. 1 1 1 1 22 Communicates with parents effectively and respectfully. 1 1 3 - 23 Establishes a positive collaborative relationship with families, school

colleagues, and agencies in the larger community. 1 1 3 -

24 Articulates and models the democratic ideal to students. 1 1 3 -

Factor analysis: Question 1

Results Factor analysis: Question 1

Survey Items ST CT US Factor

7 Appreciates human diversity. 2 2 2 2

8 Is vigilant to bias and prejudice in oneself. 2 2 2 2 9 Is held in high regard by others. 2 2 2 2

10 Promotes teaching as a worthy career. 2 2 2 2

11 Is intolerant of harassment, bias, and prejudice in others. 2 2 2 2

12 Interacts respectfully with all and builds positive relationships. 2 2 2 2

13 Reflects on own practice; continually evaluates the effects of their professional decisions and actions on students, families and other

professionals.

2 2 2 2

14 Strives to meet the needs of all students in a caring, non-

discriminatory, and equitable way.

2 2 2 2

25 Is always present and on time, misses or is late only for a true

emergency.

3 3 3 3

26 Dresses and behaves professionally and appropriately for the situation.

3 3 2 -

27 Demonstrates high quality work and a model work ethic. 3 3 3 3

28 Is confident, takes on leadership roles when appropriate. 1 3 3 -

29 Follows rules and policies. 3 3 2 -

30 Meets legal and ethical responsibilities of a teacher. 3 3 2 -

Results – Question 2 Are there differences in the ratings of the student teaching evaluation

survey from cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and

student teachers?

• ANOVA was used to assess differences among the groups:

• Factor 1: Good Teaching Practices • F (2, 471) = 2.97, p = .052

• Factor 3: Professionalism • F (2, 471) = 1.89, p = .151.

• Factor 2: Diversity and Professional Development • F (2, 471) = 4.30, p = .014.

Results – Research Question 2

• Differences in the groups overall mean score per factor loading.

Results – Question 3 What are cooperating teachers and university supervisors’ perceptions

toward the teacher education program regarding the student teaching

experience?

• Independent t-test:

• t(301) = -2.57, p < .05

Discussion

• Focused on three populations: US, CT, ST • Overall, student teachers score themselves highest

among items. • Valid and reliable teaching evaluation survey. • Three factors were extracted:

• Good Teaching Practices • Diversity and Professional Development • Professionalism

Future Work

• Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

• Validating: Three factors found

• Differences in three groups

• Qualitative Feedback

• Perceptions of the Program

• Perceptions of mentoring experience

• Focus Groups