assessing the continued efficacy of a university center model of teacher preparation program
DESCRIPTION
Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program. Diana Lys Kristen Cuthrell Laura Bilbro -Berry. Purpose of the study. Builds upon - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ASSESSING THE CONTINUED EFFICACY OF
AUNIVERSITY CENTER MODEL OF TEACHER
PREPARATION PROGRAM
Diana LysKristen Cuthrell
Laura Bilbro-Berry
![Page 2: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Builds upon
Strand 2 – Demonstrating Effectiveness and Relevance by engaging in the process of continuous program improvement.
Prior research which noted the need for more valid and reliable assessments upon which to base program pathway comparisons.
As a new teacher performance assessment – edTPA – is implemented, do candidates in different program pathways continue to have comparable outcomes?
![Page 3: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
ANTECEDENT RESEARCH-UNIVERSITY CENTER MODEL Boyd, Lankford, Loeb and Wyckoff (2005)–
geography of first employment to hometown and/or college
Lorenzo (2005) – co-location models provide level access
Grady (2005) and Vaughan (2006) – barriers to community college transfer
Locklear (2007) and Locklear et al (2009) – university center models as comparable preparation programs
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them (2009) – reasons for leaving college early; lack of persistence
![Page 4: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
ANTECEDENT RESEARCH:TEACHER PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS When assessing preservice teachers, it is important to
evaluate their knowledge and skills, student learning, professional dispositions, and reflective practices (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Performance assessments provide documentation of the teachers performance, note progress toward reaching the program goals, and dissect the program’s strengths and (Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Portfolio assessments are one type of performance-based assessment, used for formative, summative, and predictive assessment (Bannink, 2009).
Portfolio assessment may be beneficial for certain aspects of the teaching certification process, such as documentation of planning and examples of instruction, but may not be valid for the assessment of teacher competencies (Yao, Thomas, Nickens, Downing, Burkett, & Lamson, 2008).
![Page 5: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
TRADITIONAL ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROGRAM OVERVIEW Includes face to face coursework in pedagogy,
knowledge, and skills . Majority of junior and senior level coursework
includes practica experiences; many supervised by faculty.
Spirally instruction is woven throughout program courses in observational skills, planning for diverse learners, research based instructional strategies, Common Core curriculum, classroom assessment, and differentiation.
Emphasis on classroom management occurs at the senior level.
Candidates participate in a year long internship: Senior 1 (1 day a week) and Senior 2 (5 days a week)
![Page 6: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
UNIVERSITY CENTERPROGRAM OVERVIEW Five hub site community colleges, each with
several spoke site CCs creating regional consortia
Each hub site has an IHE employee that works full-time on the CC campus, recruiting, advising, marketing in the region
Cohort model used; 14 current cohorts exist On-line delivery; same program taught by
same faculty Part-time delivery model requires 3 ½ years
to finish “2” 443 graduates; 77% teaching within N.C.;
95% teaching in rural eastern N.C.
![Page 7: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
IMPLEMENTING EDTPA IN A LARGE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROGRAMComparing Program Pathways
![Page 8: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
BRIEFLY, WHAT IS EDTPA? Capstone, summative performance assessment
portfolioLinks theory to practiceIncludes 3-4 tasks requiring candidates to plan,
instruct, and assessCandidates must video record themselves teaching
lessons they plan for a specific group of students. Nationally validated instrument developed at Stanford
University as a measure of teaching proficiency at the pre-candidate level
Results are summative for candidate and formative for programs
Currently over 25 states and 180 teacher preparation programs have adopted or considering adoption of the edTPA
![Page 9: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
HOW IS EDTPA SCORED? 2012 TPA Field Test Handbooks Evaluators rate candidates’ performances on
planning, instruction, assessment, analyzing teaching, and academic language in 12 rubrics.
Each item based on a 5 point scale: 5= stellar candidate4= solve foundation, knowledge & skills3= acceptable levels to begin teaching2= some skills, more practiced needed1= struggle candidate not ready
![Page 10: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
HOW WERE CANDIDATES PREPARED FOR EDTPA? Revised teacher education curricula was
aligned with: Common Core State Standards 21st Century Skills
ISLES modules developed as part of TQP Grant Curriculum Reform ISLES 3 aligns with edTPA Task2
Instructional Coaching Support for Candidates in Partner Districts
![Page 11: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
SAMPLE AND DATA ANALYSIS
![Page 12: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
STUDY SAMPLE AND METHODS Utilized preexisting integrated assessment system
databases on candidate performance, competence and descriptive characteristics.
JMP Pro 9 provided the ability to compare the two sections using matching student ID analysis.
Sample included 132 elementary education degree completers (74 Non-WPE and 58 WPE) Fall 2012 semester .
Dataset included teacher performance data: edTPA assessment scores, test scores, GPA, internship grades, and demographic data.
90 participants were randomly selected for analysis, 45 WPE and 45 WPE candidates.
![Page 13: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
14
AGE CHARACTERISTICS
![Page 14: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
15
ETHNICITYCHARACTERISTICS
![Page 15: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
16
FINAL INTERNSHIP GRADE DIFFERENTIALS
A A- B B+ C0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
WPE NON-WPE
GPA Compari-son
* WPE: 3.75
* Non-WPE: 3.310
![Page 16: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
18
ACADEMIC CHARACTERISTICS
N % of Total M SD Range Min Max N % ot Total M SD Range Min Max
Test ScoresACT Math 1 11.38% 19 0 19 19 7 88.62% 21.143 4.880 11 16 27ECU-Math Placement Math Lab 0 0ECU-Math Placement Orientation 0 20 100.00% 17.042 3.651 12 12 24Elem Ed Instr Pract App (5015) 44 54.45% 176.12 8.70 38.33 155.67 194 37 45.55% 175.23 10.36 37.67 154.33 192Fundamental Subj: CK (5511) 1 100.00% 158 0 158 158 0SAT Mathematics 9 19.53% 471.11 133.36 360 330 690 34 80.47% 513.82 60.05 220 390 610Sp Ed Core K Mild Mod GC(5543) 1 100.00% 174 0 174 174 0
Grades and Test Score DifferentialsWPE Non-WPE
![Page 17: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
19
EDTPA RUBRIC SCORES Assessed candidate’s performance in each
content area by comparison analysis of each rubric score.
Evaluation includes mean, standard deviation, and percent total.
Significant results: Rubric 8- Assessment: Using feedback to
guide further learning (WPE, M=3.60. Non-WPE, M=3.36)
Rubric 12-Academic Language: Developing student’s academic language and literacy (WPE, M=3.56. Non-WPE, M=3.26)
![Page 18: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
20
WPE V NON-WPE – ALL RUBRICS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AVG3.000
3.100
3.200
3.300
3.400
3.500
3.600
Student Performance Assessment as Determined in the Evaluation of edTPA Rubric Scores
Mea
n
edTPA Rubric
WPE NON-WPE
![Page 19: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
22
RUBRIC 12- ACADEMIC LANGUAGE: DEVELOPMENT STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC LANGUAGE – ALL CANDIDATES
WPE (n=45) Non-WPE (n=45)0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
2.2%8.9%
26.7%
42.2%
66.7%
44.4%12345
t-Test Results (95% CI)d-.311df-88.00P-value-.027χ² -5.149
Competence Scale
![Page 20: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
24
WPE V NON-WPE, WITH “NOT MET” REMOVED Further analysis shifted from program
pathway comparison to proficiency of candidates. To focus on proficiency, candidates who were not proficient on the edTPA were removed from the analysis.
Excluded 3 “not met” candidates to prevent skew data. WPE: N=44Non-WPE: N=43
Significant results: Rubric 8, 10, & 12
![Page 21: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
25
RUBRIC 8- ASSESSMENT: USING ASSESSMENT TO INFORM INSTRUCTION-PROFICIENT CANDIDATES
Competence Scale
t-Test Results (95% CI)d-.0263df-84.49P-value-.048χ² -2.813
![Page 22: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
26
RUBRIC 10- ACADEMIC LANGUAGE: UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED LANGUAGE DEMANDS- PROFICIENT CANDIDATES
t-Test Results (95% CI)d-.225df-76.75P-value-.062χ² -3.718
Competence Scale
![Page 23: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
27
RUBRIC 12- ACADEMIC LANGUAGE: DEVELOPMENT STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC LANGUAGE-PROFICIENT CANDIDATES
t-Test Results (95% CI)d-.034df-83.58P-value-.0017χ² -5.639
![Page 24: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
28
IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER PROGRAMS
![Page 25: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
29
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN ADDRESSING PROGRAM PATHWAYS Impact of online delivery
Feasibility of supervised practica? Level of support from faculty
How do we provide supports to DE students that are provided in face to face forums?
Candidate developmentAre DE students more effective
independent learners in working through edTPA handbooks than nonDE candidates? If so, what traits could be utilized/taught in face to face instruction?
![Page 26: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
30
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN UTILIZING EDTPA DATA Program gateways
Should we have stronger gateways in Junior level classes that are aligned with edTPA?
Candidates CharacteristicsWhat is occurring in which WPE candidates
outperform nonWPE candidates on Academic Language rubrics?
Individual Rubric Scores vs. Total AverageWhat considerations should be made when
using edTPA scores?How will this analysis change with shift to
Operational Handbooks with 15 rubrics?
![Page 27: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
31
OUR NEXT STEPS
![Page 28: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
32
WHAT’S NEXT?
1. Future research should continue to study efficacy of the model with larger population samples.
2. Future research should investigate the validity and reliability of our performance measures and assessments.
3. Future research should expand to address other recruitment and retention factors that may influence enrollments.
![Page 29: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
33
QUESTIONS?
![Page 30: Assessing the Continued Efficacy of a University Center Model of Teacher Preparation Program](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/568161e7550346895dd21246/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
34
CONTACT INFORMATIONMs. Laura [email protected]
Dr. Diana B. [email protected]
For a copy of this PowerPoint presentation, please email Dr. Diana Lys
Dr. Kristen [email protected]