1. Classroom Management Self-efficacy in a Teacher Preparation Program Presentation at NERA, October 2013 University of Connecticut - Neag School of Education Mary E. Yakimowski, Director of Assessment Brandi Simonsen, Assistant Professor Yujin Kim, Graduate Student

2. 2 P URPOSE Self-efficacy of classroom management of students in within a teacher education program The purpose of this study is to 1)discuss the history of classroom management course, in general, and this teacher education program, in particular; 2)share the tool to collect self-efficacy and report overall and by field results; and 3)interpret findings and deliver recommendations for this teacher preparation program.

3. Departments of:  Curriculum & Instruction  Educational Leadership  Educational Psychology  Kinesiology Unit of:  Teacher Education N EAG S CHOOL OF E DUCATION Integrated Bachelors/Masters (IB/M) Program Entering students in the Junior year Exiting with a Masters’ Special feature - Students participate in 1,200 hours in Clinics, Student Teaching, and Internship Teacher Certification Program for College Graduates (TCPCG) Program Masters level students Training for Secondary Education Special feature - Shortages areas (Mathematics, Science, Special Education) is a focus

4. Teacher Education Assessments Common Entrance Survey Common Exit Survey Alumni Survey Employer Survey Clinic Evaluations Clinic Feedback Survey Clinic, Student Teacher, Internship Evaluations PDS Feedback Survey Teacher Interest Survey

5. Special Interests Common Core Classroom management ELL Students with disabilities Working with parents Graduates placement Pupil performance

6. Review of Literature Classroom management has been a concern for this program and plaguing teacher and learning process over the century (Hicks, 2012) A common cause of teacher attrition during the first five years is classroom management (Merrett & Wheldhall, 2003; Rosas & West, 2009) Recent research (e.g., Poulou, 2007) has indicated that teachers’ ability to achieve desirable outcomes with classroom management is important Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977) is looked to for insight Self-efficacy plays a major role in novice teachers’ beliefs on classroom management (McNeely & Mertz, 1990)

7. Methods Quantitative mode of inquiry Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001)’s self-efficacy scale The three moderately correlated factors of this scale are: Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management. As this study was about classroom management, we used items #1, 6, 7, and 8 and calculated the unweighted means of the respective items Reliability of the full scale.90; for the factor corresponding to classroom management, the reliability was.86.

8. Methods Study used a purposive/convenient sample - candidates who were graduating in May 2013 Incorporated as part of the Common Exit Survey Field of the candidates was also reported. The research question investigated is: What is the self-efficacy in classroom management, and are there any differences among field (elementary, special education, other [secondary fields, agriculture, foreign language])

9. 3456789M How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.89%) 9 (5.66%) 24 (15.09%) 52 (32.70%) 40 (25.16%) 30 (18.87%) 7.3 How much can you do to help your students think critically? 0 (0.00%) 3 (1.89%) 11 (6.92%) 41 (25.79%) 50 (31.45%) 54 (33.96%) 7.9 How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 2 (1.26%) 5 (3.14%) 8 (5.03%) 20 (12.58%) 46 (28.93%) 43 (27.04%) 35 (22.01%) 7.3 How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.89%) 5 (3.14%) 19 (11.95%) 51 (32.08%) 53 (33.33%) 27 (16.98%) 7.4 To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior? 0 (0.00%) 3 (1.89%) 6 (3.77%) 19 (11.95%) 51 (32.08%) 80 (50.31%) 8.3 How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.63%) 0 (0.00%) 11 (6.92%) 30 (18.87%) 63 (39.62%) 54 (33.96%) 8 How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students? 0 (0.00%) 2 (1.27%) 11 (7.01%) 56 (35.67%) 50 (31.85%) 36 (22.93%) 7.6 How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly? 1 (0.63%) 2 (1.26%) 3 (1.89%) 11 (6.92%) 26 (16.35%) 57 (35.85%) 59 (37.11%) 7.9 How much can you do to help your students’ value learning? 0 (0.00%) 3 (1.89%) 12 (7.55%) 47 (29.56%) 59 (37.11%) 38 (23.90%) 7.7 How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught? 0 (0.00%) 1 (0.64%) 2 (1.27%) 6 (3.82%) 39 (24.84%) 63 (40.13%) 46 (29.30%) 7.9 To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? 0 (0.00%) 3 (1.89%) 11 (6.92%) 38 (23.90%) 57 (35.85%) 50 (31.45%) 7.9 Results

10. MSDN FieldElementary 7.700.6541 Secondary 7.590.8793 Special Education 7.720.6325 Total 7.640.78159 Table 1. Number of Participants and Mean and Standard Deviation on the Total Self-efficacy Instrument

11. Results Source Type III Sum of SquaresdfMSFSig. Partial Eta Squared Noncen. Paramet Observ Power b Corrected Model.589 a 20.290.480.620.010.970.13 Intercept 7048.831 11559.620.000.9911560.1 Field 0.5920.290.480.620.010.970.13 Error 95.131560.61 Total 9374.53159 Corrected Total 95.71158 a. R Squared =.006 (Adjusted R Squared =-.007) b. Computed using alpha =.05 Table 2. ANOVA Source Table Examining Field on the Dependent Variable – Overall Self-efficacy

12. Results MSDN CandidateElementary 7.810.68 41 Secondary 7.640.92 93 Spec Ed 7.800.63 25 Total 7.710.82 159 Table 3. Number of Participants and Mean and Standard Deviation on the Self-efficacy toward Classroom Management Factor

13. Results Source Type III Sum of SquaresdfMSFSig. Partial Eta Squar ed Noncent. Paramet er Obser Power b Corrected Model 1.017 a 20.510.750.470.011.510.18 Intercept 7195.2217195.210666.60.000.9910666.61 Field 1.0220.510.750.470.011.510.18 Error 105.231560.68 Total 9559.56159 Corrected Total 106.25158 a. R Squared =.01 (Adjusted R Squared =-.003) b. Computed using alpha =.05 Table 4. ANOVA Source Table Examining Self-efficacy toward Classroom Management Factor

14. Fairness <> Classroom Management Fairness, the NERA’s 2013 conference theme, includes in dealings with classroom management across fields represented by different classroom teachers. The impetus to administer this scale within our Common Exit Survey was brought forth only after similar surveys found that more information on classroom management was desired by our candidates. As, such, we implemented a mandatory class in the area. Now, we are measuring self-efficacy. Thus, through this scale we sought to broaden our understanding of the needs of teacher candidates’ in-service preparation programs.