1. Dr. S. Michael Putman University of North Carolina at Charlotte Michael.Putman@uncc.edu

2.  Teacher Preparation Theory-Practice Disconnect  Ball, Sleep, Boerst, & Bass, 2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008 Field Experiences  Zeichner, 2010  Capraro, Capraro, & Helfeldt, 2010  Teaching Efficacy Bandura, 1997 Posnanski, 2007; Clift & Brady, 2005  Teaching Efficacy and Field Experiences Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008 Oh, et al., 2005; Zeichner & Conklin, 2005

3.  What is the impact of variations in programmatic delivery on the teaching efficacy of teaching candidates?  How do programmatic variations impact teaching candidates’ efficacy for classroom management, instructional strategies, and student engagement?

4.  Elementary education majors admitted to the teaching curriculum  Combination of convenience and purposive sampling techniques (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).  Two courses: foundations and practicum  Independent variable - specific delivery format looping (n = 25; 7 self-removed) blocked (n = 16) traditional (n = 25)

5.  The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen- Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) Two versions of the TSES – long form (24 items) and short form (12 items) TSES score - sum of most positive responses on items written along a 9-point continuum from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal)  Example: How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? Includes domain-specific subscales to measure efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management High overall reliability for scale ( α =.90) and sub-scales:  student engagement ( α =.86)  instructional strategies ( α =.81)  Management ( α =.86)  Measurement at beginning of foundations and end of practicum for three delivery formats

7. 1 st admin (n = 16)2 nd admin (n = 16) TSESMSDM Mean Score Differences t-test (df=30) Total Score67.068.3283.638.8316.575.46** SE25.564.0829.813.764.253.06** IS17.502.7323.252.355.756.38** CM24.003.8330.563.756.564.89** Note.SE = Student Engagement; IS = Instructional Strategies; CM = Classroom Management *p <.05, **p <.01

9.  ANOVA #1 to investigate differences on scores at first administration Independent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional) Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p <.01  Total score (F = 23.65)  Classroom management (F = 14.97)  Instructional strategies (F = 19.12)  Student engagement (F = 18.07) Post hoc analysis - Tukey’s HSD  Candidates enrolled in looping section signficantly higher in overall efficacy and for each domain-specific subscale

10.  ANOVA #2 to investigate differences on final administration Independent variable: context (looping, blocked, traditional) Statistically significant differences based on group membership at p <.01  Total score (F = 16.89)  Classroom management (F = 9.14)  Instructional strategies (F = 23.97)  Student engagement (F = 10.75) Post hoc analysis - Tukey’s HSD  Traditional program was significantly lower than looping and blocked groups

15.  Blocked Section benefited from: Multiple opportunities to implement instructional and management strategies described in coursework immediately in context  Mastery and vicarious experiences  Theory to practice connection Continuity and coherence between program purposes and field experiences (see Hammerness et al., 2005)  Vicarious experiences  Reinforces selecting competent, skilled teachers for practicum Direct access to a university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and peers at several points during the day  Social Persuasion  Access

21.  Ball, D., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. ( 2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458-474.  Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith, & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.  Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.  Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-205.  Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358-389). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

22.  Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179.  Oh, D. M., Ankers, A. M., Llamas, J. M., & Tomjoy, C. (2005). Impact of pre- service student teaching experience on urban school teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 82-98.  Posnanski, T. J. (2007). A redesigned Geoscience content course’s impact on science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(2), 152-157.  Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783- 805.  Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.  Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89-99.  Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 645- 735). New York: Routledge.