1. Gretchen McAllister Hoda Harati Claudia R. Rodas Northern Arizona University Presentation at the Annual AACTE conference Las Vegas, 2016 Examining long term growth in candidate’s culturally responsive teaching: Using the CRTSE as a form of accountability

2. Goals for this session Examine the CRTSE as a possible accountability tool for examining growth in regards to culturally responsive practice; discuss the value of using instruments to examine longitudinal growth; Sharing ideas from colleagues on other approaches to capturing growth in working with children from diverse backgrounds. Agenda Issues Overview of CRTSE Our use of it & some findings Tensions and opportunities Discussion among participants

3. The Issues ELL and students of color have been under served in public schools Disproportional placement in special education High demand for qualified teachers ELLs and students from diverse backgrounds lag behind their white counterparts in many academic areas Research needed to examine growth in the area of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) for larger programs 500+ and overtime

4. Overview of Culturally Responsive Teacher Self Efficacy instrument (Siwatu, 2007; Dawson, 2008) Prompted to use to address cross cutting theme of diversity Interested in following each candidate over the course of their program and into first three years of teaching Examination at unit level with repeated measure Theoretically grounded in Bandura’s teacher efficacy work which predicts future behavior based on a teacher’s confidence in regards to specific tasks Based on CRP theory and reflective of range of practices and levels of CRP Self-report instrument delivered through an online survey tool Instrument provides I am able to + skills statements Measures candidates’ perceived competency in relation to CRP Students rate themselves on a scale of 0-100

5. SAMPLE OF CRTSE SURVEY RESULT

6. Administration of instrument  Application, pre/post student teaching  4 semesters of paired data examined  Significant difference between pre and post student teaching at the P<.05 level, n=279, paired t-test  Typical patterns of efficacy: High, low, medium reflective of gap of perceived competency and actual skills  Reliability (r=.97) Brief overview of findings to data

7. Item analysis (as suggested by Siwatu) reveal more intimate required of cultural and linguistic knowledge, the lower their scores across all programs in comparison with other items. 17. I am able to teach students about their culture’s contributions to science. 29. I am able to design a lesson that shows how other cultural groups have made use of mathematics. 18. I am able to greet English Language learners with a phrase in their native language. 31. I am able to communicate with the parents of English Language Learners regarding their child’s achievement. 41. I am able to teach students about their cultures’ contributions to society. 22. I am able to praise English Language learners for their accomplishments using a phrase in their native language. Example of lower efficacy items

8. Unit level, repeated measures instrument Led to stronger data infrastructure and multiple variables over time Correlate with an increasing number of variables TAP (newly administered), Signature assignments Exit survey Student teaching contextual variables Prior course work and learning experiences such as study teaching Fostering discussions around growth over semesters and programs, rather than semester by semester and on individual assignments Opportunities

9. Faculty responses to instrument mixed Not all faculty see its value and critique the essentializing of CRP Possible fear of examining scores or responses in light of own courses Other faculty favor use of instruments and more positivist approach, Glitchy data gathering process which is recently strengthened As of yet, not allowed to move into years 1-3 due to development of multiple assessments Relationship between development of infrastructure for compliance and data analysis, and research desires Tensions

10. In your groups discuss the following Should we use such quantitative self report tools to examine change over time? What do you see as the value in this particular instrument? What are you doing to measure change over time in regards to candidates working with children from diverse backgrounds?

11. Thank you

12. NAEP Mathematics Scores (2013)

13. NAEP Reading Scores (2013)

14. NAEP Mathematics Scores for Students with Disabilities (2013)

15. NAEP Reading Scores for Students with Disabilities (2013)