Transcript Research Up-date - Teacher education

TQP Update
Columbus Airport Marriott
Columbus, Ohio
April 21, 2006
Today’s Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Brief overview of TQP
Sample findings from Cohorts I and II
Benefits to IHEs
Dissemination of data to IHEs and public
Time for discussion
TASK FORCE COMMITMENT TO QUALITY OHIO
TEACHER EDUCATION
• “Charged with the responsibility for preparing individuals to become
teachers for Ohio’s children, we express our long standing and
enduring commitment to ensure that every teacher licensed in Ohio
is prepared to be competent, caring and committed to student
learning. Recognizing and valuing our differing missions, sizes,
locations, and students, we who are educators in both public and
independent colleges and universities alike have used and will
continue to use data, Ohio teacher licensure standards, systemic
reviews, guidelines of learned societies, wisdom of practice, and
other evidence to evaluate and strive to maintain high quality
teacher education programs in this state.”
Signed by Public and Private Chairs for All 50 Institutions
TQP Research
Questions
1. Do variables of teacher background, initial preparation,
and on-going professional learning relate to teacher
practices, student learning and achievement?
2. How do specific elements of teacher preparation and
aspects of school contexts impact novice teachers’
development during their first three years of teaching?
3. Do HVATs have characteristics, instructional practices,
and understandings that differ from other teachers along
the value-added continuum?
4. What specific school contexts are associated with HVA
novice and experienced teachers?
TQP Leadership Team
William Loadman, Ph.D
Ohio State University
Sandra Stroot, Ph.D
Ohio State University
Ohio Teacher Education
Graduates
Kent Seidel, Ph.D.
University of Cincinnati
SEM Sample
AEL
Stephanie Cappel, Ed.D.
University of Cincinnati
Novice
Patricia Hart, Ph.D
University of Dayton
Judith Wahrman, Ph.D.
University of Findlay
Robert Yinger, Ph.D
University of Cincinnati
Sonja Smith, Ph.D
Mount Vernon
Nazarene University
’03-‘04
Cohort I
’04-‘05
Cohort II
’05-‘06
Cohort III
’06-‘07
Cohort IV
’07-‘08
Cohort V
FY 2004
Pre-service
Hard copy
N=1544
FY 2005
In-service
HC/Web
N=1051
FY 2006
In-service
Web
FY 2007
In-service
Web
FY 2008
In-service
Web
Pre-service
HC
N=4941
In-service
HC/Web
In-service
Web
In-service
Web
Pre-service
HC/Web
N=1500+
In-service
HC/Web
In-service
Web
Pre-service
HC/Web
In-service
HC/Web
Pre-service
HC/Web
Ohio teacher preparation programs are attracting
academically talented students
22.52
23
22
21.4
21
21
ACT
Score
20
19
18
National
State
Teacher Completers
Total
Cohort I and II Teacher Completers GPA Scores
4.00
3.50
3.47
3.46
3.50
GPA Scores
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
GPA
Private
Public
Total
Most Ohio teacher preparation graduates
are still white and female
100
93
93
90
85
77
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
17
20
10
0.3 0 0 1
3
7 7
0.6 1 0.2 2
5
0.9 2 0.4
0
American
Black/African
Indian/Alaskan
American
Ohio TQP Completer Profile
Asian
American
Ohio Student Profile
Hispanic
Ohio Teacher Profile
Caucasion
National Teacher Profile
2003-2005 Demographic Data: Frequency Count by Gender and Private/Public Status
6000
5329
5000
Frquency
4000
2812
3000
1660
2000
821
1000
0
Male
Female
Gender
Public
Private
Finding 1: Teacher preparation graduates feel well
prepared to assess student learning
5
4.08
4.1
3.96
4
3.64
Mean
3
Score
2
1
Preparation in
Assessment
Use a variety of reading
assessments
Evaluate if students are
learning
Work with parents and
families
Finding 2: Teacher preparation graduates feel less
prepared to work with special needs and minority
children
5
3.84
3.71
4
3.46
Mean
3
Score
2
1
Foundation in
Addresses special
meeting the needs of learning needs
children with
and/or difficulties
disabilities
Address the needs
of students from
diverse cultural
backgrounds
Finding 3: Teacher preparation graduates feel well
prepared to teach reading…less so in mathematics
5
4.03
4
3.19
Mean
3
Score
2
1
Solid foundation in reading
Solid foundation in mathematics
Finding 4: Teacher preparation graduates report
positive clinical teaching experiences
5
4.29
4.13
4
Mean
3
Score
2
1
Had opportunities to observe
Had opportunities to have
outstanding veteran teachers outstanding veteran teachers
explain their teaching
of
pe
rs
on
er
ac
tio
w
ns
n
er
ac
tio
ith
w
ith
st
ud
en
t
s
co
l le
ag
a
O
l/p
ue
pp
r
o
s
or
fe
tu
ss
ni
io
tie
na
s
lc
fo
ha
rp
ll e
ro
ng
fe
e
ss
io
na
la
dv
an
ce
m
G
en
en
t
er
al
w
or
k
co
nd
iti
on
s
Sa
la
ry
/fr
in
ge
be
ne
fit
s
Le
ve
l
In
t
In
t
Finding 5: New Ohio teachers rate highly the work of
teaching… but not their working conditions
7
6.18
6
5.76
5.59
5.03
5.02
5
Mean
4
Score
3
2
1
4.82
Finding 6: New Ohio teachers report that their mentors
spend little time observing in their classrooms
Hours a mentor spends observing in your classroom in an
average week
515
600
500
372
400
300
116
200
117
12
100
0
None
< 1 Hour
1 - 3 Hours
3 - 5 Hours
> 5 Hours
Finding 7: New Ohio teachers spend little time with their mentors
Hours spent with a mentor in an average week
469
500
311
400
300
200
113
67
63
100
0
None
< 1 Hour
1 - 3 Hours
3 - 5 Hours
> 5 Hours
Alignment of Teacher Quality Partnership Survey Items and NCATE Indicators*
Standard
Indicator from BOE
Appreviated Planning
Instrument
Preservice Item
A2 My program was coherent.
Conceptual
Framework
Conceptual
Framework
1
Coherence
Commitment to technology
IHE Score
Inservice Item
A2 My program was coherent.
A4 I had the opportunity to develop
understandings about teaching that were
consistent across courses and clinical
experiences.
A3 The criteria by which I was evaluated as
a student teacher were consistent with that
I was taught in my methods courses.
A29 My cooperating teacher that I spent
most time with knew very little about my
program's goals, requirements, or
expectations.
B8 How well did these experiences prepare
you to use technology in instruction
A5 My program required a strong
Content Knowledge:
disciplinary preparation that incorporated an
Candidates know the subject
understanding of a subject matter(s)' core
matter to be taught
concepts.
A7 My program gave me a solid foundation
in mathematics.
A8 My program gave me a solid foundation
in reading.
A9 My program was rigorous and
academically challenging.
B8 How well did these experiences
prepare you to use technology in
instruction
G16 Understanding of technology
A3 My program required a strong
disciplinary preparation that incorporated
an understanding of a subject matter(s)'
core concepts.
A5 My program gave me a solid
foundation in mathematics.
A6 My program gave me a solid
foundation in reading.
A7 My program was rigorous and
academically challenging.
A11 Content in my program was supported
by theoretical and empirical studies.
A9 Content in my program was supported
by theoretical and empirical studies.
B12 How well did these experiences
prepare you to plan instruction by using
knowledge of learning, subject matter,
B12 How well did these experiences
prepare you to plan instruction by using
knowledge of learning, subject matter,
IHE Score
Institutional Representatives –
TQP and IHE Liaisons
• Fall OCTEO – share reports on all data
collected to date
• Spring OCTEO – progress reports and
interaction with TQP leadership team
Dissemination of Findings
• IHE reports
– NCATE/survey data
– Longitudinal report/Cross sectional report
• District reports
– Inform mentorship and PD programs
– Correlate with other data from ODE/district
• Statewide reports
– http://www.tqpohio.org
– Share at state and national conferences
Comments?
Questions?
Suggestions?