Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

How effective is our Elementary Teacher Education Program? Two Projects: AGILE Teacher Work Sample: Georgia A. Cobbs Trent Atkins The University of Montana.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "How effective is our Elementary Teacher Education Program? Two Projects: AGILE Teacher Work Sample: Georgia A. Cobbs Trent Atkins The University of Montana."— Presentation transcript:

1 How effective is our Elementary Teacher Education Program? Two Projects: AGILE Teacher Work Sample: Georgia A. Cobbs Trent Atkins The University of Montana

2 Background “The current political climate with its attention to teacher and student accountability and the shift in schooling from a norm-referenced, textbook driven system to a learner-centered, standards-based system has highlighted the need for a framework like work sampling that offers fodder for potential theoretical and empirical connections between preparation, teaching practices, and P-12 student learning”(Girod, Schalock & Cohen, 2006). “The current political climate with its attention to teacher and student accountability and the shift in schooling from a norm-referenced, textbook driven system to a learner-centered, standards-based system has highlighted the need for a framework like work sampling that offers fodder for potential theoretical and empirical connections between preparation, teaching practices, and P-12 student learning”(Girod, Schalock & Cohen, 2006).

3 Teacher Education Needs Teacher education under scrutiny Teacher education under scrutiny How to link teacher preparation to practice to K-12 learning? How to link teacher preparation to practice to K-12 learning? Complex correlation (Berliner, 2002) Complex correlation (Berliner, 2002) Need for congruence between Higher Education and PK-12 Need for congruence between Higher Education and PK-12 Need to improve literacy instruction preparation Need to improve literacy instruction preparation How to measure effectiveness? How to measure effectiveness?

4 Basis for AGILE & TWS Need to blur the line between Need to blur the line between general education & special education general education & special education Many barriers in PK-12 are same issues in higher education Many barriers in PK-12 are same issues in higher education Ultimately, many of the issues in PK- 12 are responsibility of higher education Ultimately, many of the issues in PK- 12 are responsibility of higher education

5 AGILE Guiding Questions Does training, engagement and ongoing support in RTI have a positive impact on : Does training, engagement and ongoing support in RTI have a positive impact on : #1 Student-teacher view of self-efficacy? #2Student-teacher view of measurement? #3Student-teacher knowledge of the principles of Effective Instructional Practices?

6 AGILE Guiding Question cont #4K-3 student reading skills? #5K-3 student spelling skills? #6K-3 student early numeracy skills? #7 K-3 student math computation skills?

7 AGILE Methods 2 professors met w/ (3) student teachers about 3-4/ month 2 professors met w/ (3) student teachers about 3-4/ month Collected data about every 2 weeks on Elem students Collected data about every 2 weeks on Elem students If students were not improving modify instruction If students were not improving modify instruction No specific strategies prescribed (RTI) No specific strategies prescribed (RTI)

8 Math Computation

9 Oral Counting

10 K-3 Student Data cont.

11 Implementation Highlights School placements have been easier School placements have been easier Schools appreciate the training we are providing to students Schools appreciate the training we are providing to students More meaningful, transactional relationship with schools More meaningful, transactional relationship with schools Student-teachers are receiving more focused university supervision from UM faculty (Darrell and Trent) Student-teachers are receiving more focused university supervision from UM faculty (Darrell and Trent)

12 AGILE Epiphanies The complete lack of training in intervention strategies The complete lack of training in intervention strategies Taking on assessment and evidence-based intervention strategies during student teaching is too much Taking on assessment and evidence-based intervention strategies during student teaching is too much Assessment and evidence-based intervention strategies must be integrated into the teaching preparation curriculum Assessment and evidence-based intervention strategies must be integrated into the teaching preparation curriculum

13 Oregon Teacher Work Sample Developed over the last 20 years Developed over the last 20 years Standardized a method for TWS Standardized a method for TWS Over 1,000 Student teachers Over 1,000 Student teachers 10,000 K-12 students 10,000 K-12 students

14 Why TWS at UM? To prepare teachers to make a difference in the learning of children To prepare teachers to make a difference in the learning of children Teach Teacher Candidates to make data driven decisions. Teach Teacher Candidates to make data driven decisions. Help to ensure teachers meet ethical obligations Help to ensure teachers meet ethical obligations To validate effectiveness of Teacher Ed programs To validate effectiveness of Teacher Ed programs

15 Purpose of TWS Effort to move the Teacher Education Program into a new era Experience of documenting teaching effectiveness Measure knowledge & skill gains of PK-12 students Assess using a pre/post action research design.

16 TWS Research Questions Q1 At what grade was the most impact made? Q2 Was there an impact difference between male and female students? Q3 Is there an impact difference among the types of students? Q4 Is there an impact difference among the types of lessons?

17 Methodology Senior level Math Methods Senior level Math Methods Required assignment in methods Required assignment in methods Teach a math lesson with a pre-post assessment Teach a math lesson with a pre-post assessment me the spreadsheet of data me the spreadsheet of data Answer assigned questions Answer assigned questions

18 Math Lesson (Researcher coded) Book Book Manipulative Manipulative Technology Technology Book/Manipulative Book/Manipulative Book/Technology Book/Technology Technology/Manipulative Technology/Manipulative Other Other

19 Data Collection Assignment to my UG/G Students (N=102) Assignment to my UG/G Students (N=102) Part of their requirements for my course Part of their requirements for my course Report back to me Report back to me Some worked in pairs Some worked in pairs Data incomplete or no clear pre-post (narrative no test scores) Data incomplete or no clear pre-post (narrative no test scores) Final Teacher Candidate Data N=76 Final Teacher Candidate Data N=76

20 Suggestions for Assessment Same for both the pre & the post assessment. Or two assessments should be very similar These could be chapter or unit test included within a curriculum. In other cases you may be asked to use an assessment that is not part of a specific curriculum. In other situations, you may need to create your own assessment.

21 Data Reporting StudentMale/FemaleEthnicityLearning NeedsPost-AssessmentPre-Assessment% Change Student #1 Student #2 ANONYMOUS results to me Set up a spreadsheet like below

22 Demograhpics

23 N=1169 Elementary Students Gender Ethnicity Needs Male603 (51.6%)Native13NIN937 (80.2%) Female528 (45.2%)Asian7G & T62 (5.3%) Unknown38 (3.3%)Black3SpEd94 (8%) Total1169Latino4ELL2 (.2%) Caucasian311Unkn74 (6.3%) Unknown831Total1169 Total1169

24

25 Demographics

26

27 Mean Score Differences by Grade Level Report Change GradelevelMeanNStd. Deviation Kinder st st/2nd Combo nd rd th th th th/6th Combo Total

28 Findings for GRADE LEVEL To conduct analyses, grade were grouped into three categories: Early (K,1, and 2), Middle (3 and 4), and Late (5 and 6). To conduct analyses, grade were grouped into three categories: Early (K,1, and 2), Middle (3 and 4), and Late (5 and 6). When grouped this way, there were slight differences in mean scores Early (17.25), Middle (17.54), and Late (20.05). When grouped this way, there were slight differences in mean scores Early (17.25), Middle (17.54), and Late (20.05). No statistically significant differences found. No statistically significant differences found.

29 Mean Differences by GENDER Report Change GenderMeanNStd. Deviation Female Male Total

30 Findings for Gender Females (18.65) scored slightly higher than male (16.63) students. Females (18.65) scored slightly higher than male (16.63) students. Differences were not statistically significant. Differences were not statistically significant.

31 Mean Differences by ETHNICITY Report Change ETHNICITY2MeanNStd. Deviation Diverse Non-Diverse Total

32 Findings for ETHNICITY To conduct analyses, the ethnicity variable was dichotomized. To conduct analyses, the ethnicity variable was dichotomized. “Non-diverse” students (20.78) scored higher than diverse students (18.41). “Non-diverse” students (20.78) scored higher than diverse students (18.41). Differences were not statistically significant. Differences were not statistically significant.

33 LEARNING NEEDS Needs FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative Percent Valid NIN G&T SpEd ELL Total MissingUnknown Total

34 Percent by LEARNING NEEDS

35 Mean Differences by LEARNING NEEDS Report Change NeedsMeanNStd. Deviation NIN G&T SpEd ELL Total

36 Findings for LEARNING NEEDS To conduct analyses, due to the small number, ELL ( n = 2 ) students were removed. To conduct analyses, due to the small number, ELL ( n = 2 ) students were removed. Students in special education scored highest (22.57), students with no identified needs scored in the middle (18.19), and students who are identified as gifted and talented made the smallest gains (11.56) Students in special education scored highest (22.57), students with no identified needs scored in the middle (18.19), and students who are identified as gifted and talented made the smallest gains (11.56) Differences were not statistically significant. Differences were not statistically significant.

37 LESSON TYPE LessonType FrequencyPercentValid PercentCumulative Percent Valid Book Book/Tech Tech Tech/Manip Manipulatives Book/Manip Total

38 Percent by LESSON TYPE

39 Mean Differences by LESSON TYPE Report Change LessonTypeMeanNStd. Deviation Book Book/Tech Tech Tech/Manip Manipulatives Book/Manip Total

40 Findings for LESSON TYPE Statistically significant differences among the lesson types!!!! Statistically significant differences among the lesson types!!!! Book w/manipulatives had the most impact (statistical significance compared to all others). Book w/manipulatives had the most impact (statistical significance compared to all others). Followed by Technology combined with manipulatives (statistical significance compared to all other but the book only). Followed by Technology combined with manipulatives (statistical significance compared to all other but the book only).

41 Findings for LESSON TYPE Statistically significant differences among lesson types Statistically significant differences among lesson types Book w/ manipulatives most impact (statistical significance compared to all others). Book w/ manipulatives most impact (statistical significance compared to all others). Technology w/ manipulatives (statistical significance compared to all other but the book only). Technology w/ manipulatives (statistical significance compared to all other but the book only).

42 Findings continued Book by itself was third most impactful (statistical differences when compared to the book and technology, the book and manipulatives) Book by itself was third most impactful (statistical differences when compared to the book and technology, the book and manipulatives) Least impactful lesson types were Least impactful lesson types were manipulatives (14.49) manipulatives (14.49) technology (7.80) technology (7.80) book w/ with technology (6.47) book w/ with technology (6.47)

43 Limitations Not a standard assessment Not a standard assessment Teacher Candidates not versed in Research Design Teacher Candidates not versed in Research Design Coding of lesson type Coding of lesson type Incomplete data: unknown demographics Incomplete data: unknown demographics Error in recording/analysis by teacher candidate or researcher Error in recording/analysis by teacher candidate or researcher

44 Next Steps Make a Google Form! Make a Google Form! Standardize data collection Standardize data collection Teach Research Design to Teacher Candidates Teach Research Design to Teacher Candidates Other ideas? Other ideas?

45

46 Conclusions Book/manipulative lesson may be most effective for teacher candidates Book/manipulative lesson may be most effective for teacher candidates Need to research this more Need to research this more Trend to have teachers make more data driven decisions Trend to have teachers make more data driven decisions UM Teacher Candidates are teaching with data- driven decisions, perhaps more teachers will carry on as well UM Teacher Candidates are teaching with data- driven decisions, perhaps more teachers will carry on as well

47 Questions? Questions? Comments? Comments? Thank you! Thank you!

48 References Berliner, D. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), Berliner, D. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), Girod, M., Schalock, M. & Cohen, N. (2006). The Teacher Work Sample as a Context for Research. Paper presented at the annual meeting for AACTE, San Diego, CA. Girod, M., Schalock, M. & Cohen, N. (2006). The Teacher Work Sample as a Context for Research. Paper presented at the annual meeting for AACTE, San Diego, CA.


Download ppt "How effective is our Elementary Teacher Education Program? Two Projects: AGILE Teacher Work Sample: Georgia A. Cobbs Trent Atkins The University of Montana."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google