A SSESSMENT OF T EACHER E DUCATION P ROGRAMS IN H IGHER E
DUCATION : A LUMNI /E MPLOYER S URVEY R ESULTS, K-12 A CHIEVEMENT R
ESEARCH F INDINGS, AND W HAT R EMAINS TO BE I NVESTIGATED Dr. Mike
Alfano, Dr. Michael Faggella-Luby, Dr. Rachael Gabriel, Dr. Marijke
Kehrhahn, Dr. Mary Yakimowski University of Connecticut Transition
to the Connecticut State Standards and System of Assessments Third
Annual Connecticut Assessment Crown Plaza, Cromwell Rocky Hill, CT
August, 2012 HTTP :// WWW. EDUCATION. UCONN. EDU / ASSESSMENT /
PowerPoint available at: HTTP :// WWW. EDUCATION. UCONN. EDU /
ASSESSMENT /
Slide 2
A SSESSMENT OF T EACHER E DUCATION P ROGRAMS IN H IGHER E
DUCATION : A LUMNI /E MPLOYER S URVEY R ESULTS, K- 12 A CHIEVEMENT
R ESEARCH F INDINGS, AND W HAT R EMAINS TO BE I NVESTIGATED This
panel from UConns Neag School of Education will discuss major
findings from research on their teacher preparation programs. This
session will include a description of the Neag School of Educations
Assessment Plan and an overview of studies that have been completed
recently. Specifically, panelists will describe major findings from
our alumni and employee surveys, staffing research, and K-12
studies (including recent results from studies of student
achievement in math and reading). Then, with audience
participation, we will open a discussion of possible directions for
future research to meet CTs K-12 district needs.
Slide 3
Introducing Introducing Mary E. Yakimowski Neag School of
Education Director of Assessment The Neag Assessment Plan The
Alumni Surveys The Employer Surveys
Slide 4
Introducing Introducing Michael Alfano Formally, UConn Neag
School of Education Executive Director of Teacher Education
Currently, Southern CT State University Professor & Chair,
Dept. of Sp Ed & Reading The Placement of Alumni
Slide 5
Introducing Introducing Michael Faggella-Luby Neag School of
Education Associate Professor, Special Education The Evidence-based
Survey Studies
Slide 6
Introducing Introducing Dr. Rachael Gabriel Neag School of
Education Assistant Professor, Reading/Language Arts The Pupil
Performance Studies
Slide 7
Introducing Introducing Dr. Marijke Kehrhahn Neag School of
Education Associate Dean Where This Leads Us & Generating Ideas
from You
Slide 8
Mary E. Yakimowski Neag School of Education Director of
Assessment The Neag Assessment Plan The Alumni Surveys The Employer
Surveys
Slide 9
N EAG S CHOOL OF E DUCATION
Slide 10
P URPOSE OF A SSESSMENT P LAN Assessment/Evidence-based culture
leading to continuous improvement Accreditation
Slide 11
C YCLE OF C ONTINUOUS I MPROVEMENT
Slide 12
N EAG S CHOOL OF E DUCATION A SSESSMENT P LAN
Slide 13
A SSESSMENT P LAN
Slide 14
Slide 15
N EAG A SSESSMENT P LAN H IGHLIGHTS Incorporated many best
practices including: Focus on facilitating an assessment culture. A
system of participatory participation in assessment development and
reporting. Formative and summative assessments at both the
candidate and program level to embrace ongoing feedback. Efforts
made to ensure that assessments are credible, fair, consistent,
accurate, and unbiased, allowing for multiangulation.
Slide 16
Information available from external sources such as state
licensing exams, evaluation through clinic experiences, employer
reports, and alumni studies. Alignment of all accreditation
processes from the university to program levels. A concerted effort
to provide a spotlight on assessment. A system for reviewing and
approving the assessment plan. Assessment-related research
opportunities. (CONTINUED)
Slide 17
ALUMNI AND EMPLOYER SURVEYS Every 2 years for select programs,
every 4 years by school
Slide 18
PURPOSE information from stakeholders (10 years of alumni)
Collect information from stakeholders (10 years of alumni) for:
Continuous improvement of the Neag School Dissemination to school,
depts, unit, programs Commitment to high quality programs of study
and to conduct meaningful research that speaks to the critical
issues in education, technology, sports, and health and wellness
(http://www.education.uconn.edu) 4,244 total alumni identified
3,818 of those had valid addresses 758 responded 17% of total
identified alumni 20% response rate from contacted alumni
Slide 19
29 REPORTS School-wide, Each Department, and Teacher Education
Report School-wide Report Department of Curriculum &
Instruction Bilingual Education Elementary Education
English/Language Arts Mathematics Music Science Social Studies
World Language Department of Educational Leadership Ed Leadership
Education Admin Ed Leadership Executive Leadership Ed Leadership
UCAPP Department of Educational Psych Cognition and Instruction
Counseling Education Gifted & Talented School Psychology
Special Education Department of Kinesiology Athletic Training
Exercise Science Physical Therapy Sports Management Teacher
Education Unit IB/M TCPCG
Slide 20
SATISFACTION AND IMPORTANCE Six-point Likert-type scale
ScaleSatisfactionImportance 1Very unsatisfiedVery unimportant
2Moderately unsatisfiedModerately unimportant 3Somewhat
unsatisfiedSomewhat unimportant 4Somewhat satisfiedSomewhat
important 5Moderately satisfiedModerately important 6Very
satisfiedEssential N/ANo opinion
Slide 21
T EACHER E DUCATION : S ATISFACTION WITH E DUCATIONAL Q UALITY
Educational Quality Two highest items accessibility of faculty
overall quality of instruction Three lowest items range of courses
course content challenged to meet academic potential
Slide 22
OVERALL PREPARATION Mean:SatisfactionImportanceGap Combine
multiple approaches to solve problems 5.205.47-0.26 Collaborate
effectively with others 5.565.69-0.13 Adapt to changes in your
working environment 5.325.61-0.29 Think analytically and logically
5.405.62-0.22 Learn on your own, pursue ideas and find necessary
information 5.525.67-0.15 Lead and/or supervise groups of people
5.195.44-0.25 Formulate creative and original ideas 5.325.59-0.27
Effectively use technology 4.865.49-0.63 Consider the perspectives
of others 5.435.56-0.13 Conduct inquiry and/or research
5.265.09+0.17 Understand research in professional journals
5.054.92+0.13
Slide 23
Mean: Satisf. Import.Gap Creating meaningful learning
experiences for students. 4.534.85-0.32 The content and/or area
specialty 4.444.76-0.32 Working effectively with parents.
4.424.60-0.18 The degree of preparation for working in the
profession. 4.194.84-0.65 Challenging students to meet their
fullest potential. 4.154.80-0.65 The difficulty level of the
program. 4.124.52-0.40 Standardized assessment skills.
4.054.16-0.11 Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
4.044.55-0.51 Teaching English language learners. 3.844.35-0.51
Integrating technology into classroom instruction. 3.814.46-0.65
Classroom management skills. 3.794.85-1.07 Teaching students who
are both in spec ed& ELL. 3.584.32-0.74 Educating students from
diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. 3.554.57-1.02 Formative
classroom assessment skills. 3.454.58-1.13 Teaching special
education students 3.274.64-1.37 Teaching gifted and talented
students. 3.044.33-1.29 Preparation for the Teaching
Profession
Slide 24
Top 3 themes: Clinical My student teaching experience changed
my life and affected my teaching more than I ever thought possible.
I was able to implement many of the teaching strategies that I
learned at NEAG during this experience. Having spent the first half
of the year visiting the classroom, and the second half student
teaching in that same classroom was incredibly beneficial. Courses
The individual methods courses offered for each content area during
the TCPCG program has been the most relevant and useful of all
courses. Furthermore, the courses on Multicultural education and
Students with special needs continue to be important in my career
and I often refer to materials for information. Faculty I think the
most valuable experiences I had in the Neag School were the
connections I made with my professors. I always felt well-supported
and mentored by the professors I had, and I still e-mail with
several of them for advice and help. These professors are not only
experts in their fields, but valuable resources and friends to all
students in the Neag School. WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE MOST
VALUABLE EXPERIENCE OFFERED BY THE NSOE?
Slide 25
Top 3 themes: Courses The course about special education was
not effective in preparing me for the teaching field. While this is
an important topic to be aware of, the material was not presented
in a manner that I was able to retain information, and I did not
feel prepared to handle situations involving special education upon
entering the teaching field. Clinical The clinicals that were
outside of your concentration-- for me, high school social studies
did not help me much with elementary school. Instead give us time
in primary vs. intermediate elementary. Technology During my time
there, the technology component was least valuable. We basically
just demonstrated proficiency with Microsoft Office programs. WHAT
DID YOU FIND LEAST VALUABLE?
Slide 26
RECOMMEND NSOE? 95.9% of respondents would recommend graduate
study at the Neag School of Education to others
Slide 27
SUMMARY Positive responses to survey regarding alumni
perceptions of the Teacher Education programs Most are employed in
field for which they received training and satisfied with their
employment Parts of Teacher Education to improve were most often
identified as courses and clinical experiences
Slide 28
Michael Alfano Formally, UConn Neag School of Education
Executive Director of Teacher Education Currently, Southern CT
State University Professor & Chair, Dept. of Sp Ed &
Reading The Placement of Alumni (via district and CSDE
records)
Slide 29
HOW MANY ALUMNI ARE EMPLOYED BY CONNECTICUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS?
ANSWER: 3,090 165/166 DISTRICTS
Slide 30
Distribution of Our Alumni Across Connecticut School
Districts
Slide 31
Alumni Teachers Employed by Connecticut School Districts (map
does not include related services and administrators)
Slide 32
Alumni Elementary Teachers Employed in by Connecticut School
Districts Green= alumni
Slide 33
Alumni Secondary Teachers Employed by Connecticut School
Districts Orange= alumni
Slide 34
Alumni Special Education Teachers Employed by Connecticut
School Districts Pink = alumni
Slide 35
Where are our alumni employed as related service personnel
Slide 36
Alumni Employed as School Psychologists in by Connecticut
School Districts Red = alumni
Slide 37
Alumni Employed as School Counselors in 2009-2010 by
Connecticut School Districts Yellow = alumni
Slide 38
Top Employers of Alumni as Related Service Personnel Employern
West Hartford School District62 South Windsor School District45
Trumbull School District21 Newtown School District20 Madison School
District12 Monroe School District12 New Fairfield School District7
Capitol Region Education Council6
Slide 39
Top Employers of Alumni as School Psychologists Employer East
Hartford School District West Hartford School District Glastonbury
School District Enfield School District Windham School
District
Slide 40
Top Employers of Alumni as School Counselors Employer
Manchester School District New London School District
Slide 41
Where are our alumni employed as administrators?
Slide 42
Alumni Employed as Elementary Administrators by Connecticut
School Districts Areas shaded represent alumni Principals Asst.
Principals
Slide 43
Alumni Employed as Middle School Administrators by Connecticut
School Districts Areas shaded represent alumni. Asst. Principals
Principals
Slide 44
Alumni Employed as High School Administrators by Connecticut
School Districts Principals Asst. Principals Areas shaded represent
alumni.
Slide 45
Alumni Employed as Central Office Personnel by Connecticut
School Districts Pink = alumni
Slide 46
WHO EMPLOYED THE MOST OF OUR ALUMNI?
Slide 47
T OP E MPLOYERS OF A LUMNI DRGEmployerTotal IHartford School
District149 HEast Hartford School District99 BGlastonbury School
District89 FManchester School District83 BWest Hartford School
District82 INew Britain School District61 FVernon School District59
BSouth Windsor School District57 IWindham School District57
DTolland School District53 IWaterbury School District52 DWindsor
School District49 OtherConnecticut Technical High School System49
HBristol School District45 OtherCapitol Region Education Council45
FEnfield School District39 INew Haven School District39 ASimsbury
School District37 HStamford School District37 BFarmington School
District36 CMansfield School District35 DNewington School
District33 CEllington School District32 BGreenwich School
District32 HMeriden School District32 FGroton School
District31
Slide 48
Top Employers of Alumni Secondary English/LA Teachers Employern
Glastonbury School District13 Vernon School District11 East
Hartford School District10 Windham School District10 Connecticut
Technical High School System10
Slide 49
T OP E MPLOYERS OF A LUMNI S PECIAL E DUCATION T EACHERS
Employer n Manchester School District12 Glastonbury School
District12 East Hartford School District12 West Hartford School
District9
Slide 50
Michael Faggella-Luby Neag School of Education Associate
Professor, Special Education The Evidence-based Survey Studies
Slide 51
Evidence-based Examination of Classrooms: Do Pre- or In-service
Teachers and Your Field Make a Difference?
Slide 52
PURPOSE & RESEARCH QUESTION Purpose: to examine whether
variations in response to an evidence-based instrument can be
attributed to: group membership (pre- on in-service teacher), field
(elementary, secondary, special; education), and/or the interaction
between group membership and field. Research Question: Is there a
significant interaction between group (pre- and in- service
teachers) and field (elementary, secondary, special education) with
respect to the overall score and factor scores on an instrument
designed to measure confidence of evidence- based practice
use?
Slide 53
SRBI/RTI FRAMEWORK Tier 1: Comprehensive & Coordinated
Instruction for All Students Tier 2: Supplemental Instruction for
Students at Some Risk Tier 3: Specialized, Individualized
Intervention for Students at High Risk 80% of Students 15% 5%
Slide 54
5 DOMAINS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION 1.Planning
and Preparation 2.Evidence-based Classroom and Behavior Management
3.Evidence/standards-based Instruction 4.Evaluation 5.Professional
Behaviors and Responsibilities
Slide 55
THE DOMAINS DomainPerformance Indicator Domain 1: Planning and
preparation Student teachers will 1A. physically prepare space and
materials needed to deliver instruction 1B. design lesson plans to
provide all learners access to the general curriculum 1C. modify
lesson plans to address needs of students with disabilities Domain
2: Evidence-based Classroom and Behavior Management Student
teachers will 2A. maintain a structured learning environment 2B.
use a small number of positively stated expectations 2C. reinforce
appropriate behavior 2D. respond to inappropriate behavior 2E
implement individualized behavior strategies for students with
disabilities
Slide 56
THE DOMAINS (CONTINUED) DomainPerformance Indicator Domain 3:
Evidence-based Instruction Student teachers will 3A. introduce
lesson content 3B. maximize student engagement 3C. provide
performance-based feedback 3D. review lesson content at the end of
instruction 3E. teach lesson content relevant to student population
Domain 4: Evaluation Student teachers will 4A. assess student
ability and/or knowledge prior to instruction 4B. assess student
outcomes related to IEP during instruction 4C. assess student
response to instruction Domain 5: Professional Standards and
Responsibilities Student teachers will 5A. uphold high standards of
competence and integrity and exercise sound judgment in the
practice of the profession 5B. engage in professional activities
related to continuous learning and advocacy 5C. respectfully with
all stakeholders
Slide 57
METHOD Subjects: n=484 282 Pre-service IBM & 202 In-service
TCPCG Procedures: Online survey NSOE Current and Alumni students
invited participation Measure: The Student Teaching Evaluation
and/or Self-Assessment Survey (STE-SAS) 21-item instrument
Six-point Likert rating scale on STE-SAS, with 1 indicating Not At
All Confident to 6 indicating Very Confident Intended to provide
common language for professional conversations with the university
faculty about evidence-based teaching, learning, and assessment
Examination of the technical properties of the STE-SAS including
reliability and evidence-based four-factor structure
Slide 58
Pre-Service In-ServiceTotal N%N%N% Elementary79
28.08944.116834.7 Secondary160 56.78843.624851.2 Sp Ed43
15.22512.46814.0 Total282 100202100484100 Descriptive Statistics
Overall, Pre- and In-service Groups, and by Field
Slide 59
Factor 1 : Planning and Assessment ( =.886) 1 Physically
prepare space and materials needed to deliver instruction 2 Design
lesson plans to provide all learners access to the general
curriculum 9 Introduce lesson content 10 Maximize student
engagement 11 Provide performance-based feedback 12 Review lesson
content at the end of instruction 13 Teach lesson content relevant
to student population 14 Assess student ability and/or knowledge
prior to instruction 16 Assess student response to instruction
STE-SAS FOUR FACTORS
Slide 60
Factor 2 : Professional Standards & Responsibilities (
=.879) 17 Uphold high standards of competence in the practice of
the profession 18 Uphold high standards of integrity in the
practice of the profession 19 Use evidence to guide
exercise/exercising sound judgment in the practice of the
profession 20 Engage in professional activities related to
continuous learning and advocacy 21 Collaborate respectfully with
all stakeholders Factor 3 : Instructional Delivery ( = 0.845) 3
Modify lesson plans to address needs of students with disabilities
8 Implement individualized behavior strategies for students with
disabilities 15 Assess student outcomes related to IEP during
instruction
Slide 61
Factor 4: Behavior Management ( = 0.769) 4 Maintain a
structured learning environment 5 Use a small number of positively
stated expectations 6 Reinforce appropriate behavior 7 Respond to
inappropriate behavior
Slide 62
RESULTS Mean total STE-SAS was 5.39 (SD = 0.56) indicating
overall confidence Respondents highest in: professional standard
and responsibilities (M = 5.65, SD = 0.56), followed by maintaining
classroom control (M = 5.47, SD = 0.62), general
teaching/assessment tasks (M = 5.42, SD = 0.59), and Least
confident in individualizing their teaching (large SD)
instructional flexibility/individualization (M = 4.90, SD =
0.96).
Slide 63
Ele SecSpedTotal MSDM M M General teaching/assessment tasks
5.40 0.535.380.635.620.525.420.59 Professional standards and
responsibilities 5.62 0.525.630.625.780.385.650.56 Instructional
flexibility/individualization 4.79 0.884.731.005.770.414.900.96
Maintaining classroom control 5.58 0.475.310.715.740.385.470.62
STE-SAS Descriptive Statistics by Field
Slide 64
RESULTS ANOVA to test significant interaction between group and
field significant main effect for field [F (2, 450) = 13.791, p
=.000] neither significant effect for type of service, nor
interaction effect between field and type. Scheffees analysis
yielded special education exhibited significantly higher global
scores than other respondent groups Secondary Analysis also
demonstrated: Special education rated general teaching/assessment
tasks and instructional flexibility/individualization higher than
both elementary and secondary respondents Secondary education
reported significantly less confidence than either elementary or
special education respondents
Slide 65
SourceSSdfMSFSig. Corrected Model9.694a51.9396.445.000
Intercept9797.3521 32569.417.000 Type.0631.211.646
Field8.29724.14813.791.000 Type * Field.9582.4791.593.204
Error135.367450.301 Total13400.785456 Corrected Total145.061455
ANOVA Results for STE-SAS Total Score for Group Membership (Pre-
vs. In-Service) and Field (Elem, Secondary, Special Education)
Slide 66
SIGNIFICANCE AND FUTURE RESEARCH 1.Respondents in special
education feel significantly more confident than respondents in
both elementary and secondary education, irrespective of type of
service, in their knowledge of and confidence for these factors
Could this be the result of the redesign of the Special Education
Program? Perhaps special education teachers practice in each of the
four factors relates to higher levels of confidence? 2.Given the
significant main effect for type and the positive correlation
results, it could be implied that there may exist more complicated
relationship in specific areas such as instructional
flexibility/individualization or general teaching/assessment tasks.
More research is necessary 3.Findings are significant as teacher
education programs reevaluate curricula toward evidence- based
models of service delivery such as RtI. How does the teacher
education program use this data to drive course revision? How might
qualitative examination of students in individual programs yield
deeper understanding? How are practitioners implementing
evidence-based practices in relationship to confidence? 4.The
findings raise important questions about the changing role of the
special educator in K-12 schools, signaling a potential change in
how schools leverage interventionists to support multiple tiers of
school-wide support.
Slide 67
Dr. Rachael Gabriel Neag School of Education Assistant
Professor, Reading/Language Arts The Pupil Performance Studies
Slide 68
OUR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Integrated Bachelors/Masters
(IB/M) Program Entering students in the Junior year Exiting with a
Masters Special feature - Students participate in 1,200 hours in
Clinics, Student Teaching, and Internship Teacher Certification
Program for College Graduates (TCPCG) Program Masters level
students Training for Secondary Education Special feature -
Shortages areas (Mathematics, Science, Special Education) is a
focus
Slide 69
A Great Education Begins with Great Teachers Teachers for a New
Era (TNE) - An initiative designed to improve teacher quality by
reforming outstanding teacher preparation programs
Slide 70
D ESIGN P RINCIPLES 1.Emphasize to preservice teachers the
importance of demonstrating student achievement through evidence.
2.Fully integrate faculty from the liberal arts and sciences,
enriching future teachers' general and subject matter knowledge. 3.
Support will be extended to beginning teachers from their
individual colleges and universities.
Slide 71
Examining K-12 performance to inform teacher preparation These
studies examine achievement patterns of 3rd-8 th grade pupils of
graduates of our Teaching Education Program in Reading and in
Mathematics
Slide 72
L ITERATURE R EVIEW There are significant interests in
examining growth achievement models (e.g., Barone, 2009)
High-quality teacher education programs take on an important role
(Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005; Darling-Hammond,
2006) Lack of empirical evidence connecting teacher education
programs with student outcomes (Crowe, 2010; Grossman, 2008)
Slide 73
P URPOSE OF T HESE S TUDIES Examine the impact of teacher
education programs on pupil performance in content areas (i.e.,
reading, mathematics) Compare a program of interest (that is UConn
Neag School of Education) with other programs to investigate the
impact of unique characteristics
Slide 74
S AMPLING 5 public school districts in Connecticut
Approximately 12,00 students from grades 3 through 8 I
NSTRUMENTATION The fourth generation of Connecticut Mastery Test
(CMT-4) Grades 3 through 8 in the spring at each year
Slide 75
D ATA A NALYZED Total (Raw) Score Domain Scores Strand Scores
Proficiency Level Scores Vertical Scale Scores
Slide 76
Research QuestionsScoresTypeOther Is overall achievement for
teachers prepared by UI alumni any different from pupils of alumni
from other institutions? Overall raw score Descriptive, t-test 1
year Is performance in the domains different for pupils taught by
teachers from the UI any different than the performance of pupils
taught by alumni from other institutions? (Math only, not Reading)
Domain scores Descriptive, t-test 1 year Is performance on the
strands any different for pupils taught by teachers from the UR any
different than the performance of pupils taught by alumni from
other institutions? StrandsDescriptive, t-test 1 year Is the
pattern in pupil proficiency status for those educated by UI alumni
any different from pupils of alumni from other institutions? Prof
level Proportion analysis 1 year Is overall achievement for those
taught by UI alumni different after controlling for initial
differences in earlier achievement? Vertical scale ANCOVA2
years
Slide 77
Overall Score in Mathematics UConn Alumni Pupil Performance
Overall Mean was 106 (SD = 22.8) Those not taught from UConn
Overall Mean was 95.3 (SD = 26.8)
Slide 78
D OMAIN 1 N UMERICAL / P ROPORTIONAL Similar results attained
across each domain in mathematics We also looked at strands within
domain UCONN (UI-University of Interest) 53.3 Non-UCONN (Non-UI)
46.4
Slide 79
Domain 1 - Strand Score Results
Slide 80
P ROPORTIONAL A NALYSIS S HOWING P ROFICIENCY L EVEL IN M
ATHEMATICS Non-UIUI Level% Below Basic 9.1 4.2 Basic10.7 4.4
Proficient20.415.4 Goal32.636.2 Advanced27.239.8
Slide 81
Groups n Unadjusted 2007-2008 Unadjusted 2008-2009 Adjusted
2008-2009 Non-UI 9072 513.0 541.3542.6 UI 816 534.2 564.2549.1 Fp
Between-Subjects Effects Intercept 3914.30.001*** MAVS2007-2008
32283.60.001*** Teacher Group 36.6 0.001*** M ATHEMATICS P UPIL P
ERFORMANCE AS M EASURED BY V ERTICAL S CALE S CORES
Slide 82
UINon-UIOverall NMSDNM NM Overall Score
96432.45.11064429.86.71160830.06.7 Strand 1
8398.71.874537.92.482928.02.4 Strand 2
8398.21.774537.32.182927.42.0 Strand 3
8396.21.474535.41.882925.51.8 Strand 48399.42.074538.02.482928.22.4
Overall and Strands Scores in Reading Strand 1: Forming a General
Understanding, 2: Developing Interpretation, 3: Making Reader/Text
Connections, 4: Examining the Content and Structure
Slide 83
An example of CMT-4 reading strands for UI and non-UI
groups
SourceSSdfMSFSig. Corrected Model
21593277210796638.709130.48.001 Intercept
500171415001714.214229.84.001 Covariate (2007-08 Rd)
21166675121166675.9917900.19.001 UI vs. Non-UI
16484116484.6013.94.001 Error 13987591118291182.48 Total
295813867511832 Corrected Total 3558086811831 ANCOVA Results:
Reading Pupil Performance on the Adjusted Vertical Scale Scores
Based on Initial Differences R Squared =.607 (Adjusted R Squared
=.607)
Slide 87
Dr. Marijke Kehrhahn Neag School of Education Associate Dean
Where This Leads Us Generating Ideas from You
Slide 88
Where we have been Alumni Survey Employer Survey District/CSDE
Examination Evidence-based Studies Pupil Performance Studies Where
we think we have more to do Help us determine what we should
further explore
Slide 89
As Education Secretary Duncan discussed the goal from Obama
administrations Race to the Top legislation at an annual meeting of
the American Association of College of Teacher Education in
February of 2010 in Atlanta, To put it in the simplest terms, we
believe teacher-preparation programs should be focused on results.
We continue to strive to build an evidence-based teacher
preparation model for our own teacher preparation program directly
linked to pupil academic performance.