Transcript Research Up-date - Teacher education

Field Directors’ Forum
Spring Meeting
Columbus Airport Marriott
Columbus, Ohio
April 19, 2006
http://www.tqpohio.edu
Goals for Today
• Overview of TQP as a unique Ohio
collaborative research project
• Selected findings - TQP Preservice Survey
• Selected findings -TQP Inservice Survey
• Discussion and Questions
Factors and Forces
• Higher Education Act
– Title II Report on Teacher Quality
• Ohio Report Card Task Force
– OCTEO Focus Groups
• Decision to research indicators of quality teacher
preparation programs, including graduates’ ability to
facilitate student learning.
• Ohio’s Standards-based Curriculum Aligned with
Required Statewide Grade Level Exams
• Desire to increase the ability of P-12 students to pass
grade level exams
• Value-added Assessment and Structural Equation
Modeling
Stakeholders and
Participants
• 50 Ohio Teacher Preparation Institutions
• Faculty
– Principal Investigators
– Research Design Teams
– Field Researchers
• Ohio Advisory Board
• External Audit Panel
• District Partners
• Battelle for Kids (Liaison to SAS)
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
Student teaching evaluations consistent with methods courses
2455
2500
2000
1624
1500
1000
500
110
301
361
0
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.24
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
Consistent Understandings
2288
2500
1967
2000
1500
1000
500
51
196
368
0
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.28
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
Observed and Worked with Several Teachers
3282
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1138
63
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.51
180
219
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
Opportunities to Work with Successful Teachers with Inclusion
2685
3000
2500
2000
1380
1500
1000
500
130
322
358
0
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.27
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
Opportunitites to Observe Outstanding Veteran Teachers
2713
3000
2500
2000
1381
1500
1000
500
125
294
359
0
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.29
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
Outstanding Teachers Explain Teaching - Why and How
2359
2500
2000
1470
1500
1000
500
170
376
499
0
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.12
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
CT Knew Little about TP Program
2180
2500
2000
1173
1500
1000
674
274
548
500
0
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 3.89
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
CT Taught Different from Professors
1402
1500
1238
976
749
1000
476
500
0
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 3.44
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
CT Was an Excellent Teacher
3169
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1007
146
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.42
192
326
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Strongly Agree
CT Was a Worthy Role Model
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
3282
166
Strongly
Disagree
Mean = 4.44
180
304
Neither
Disagree/Agree
909
Strongly Agree
E s s e nt i a l l y , I t e a c h t he wa y I wa s t a ught by . . .
3.82
3.98
4
2.28
2.32
3.49
2.61
2
0
ES
MS
HS
Methods
CT
Other
I Use the State's Curriculum Fram ew ork
2444
2500
1512
2000
1500
707
1000
500
44
142
0
Not At All
Mean = 4.27
Poorly
Adequately
Well
Very Well
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
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
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
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
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
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
New Ohio teachers spend little time with their mentors
Hours spent with a mentor in an average week
469
500
400
311
300
200
113
67
63
100
0
None
< 1 Hour
1 - 3 Hours
3 - 5 Hours
> 5 Hours