Scott Kissau, PhD, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Laura Hart, EdD, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Annual Conference of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education Las Vegas, NV February, 2016

 Traditional assessments of teacher knowledge are being replaced by evidence of teaching effectiveness  Similar transformation in teacher prep programs  Performance-based assessments that provide data-based evidence that candidates are ready to teach

 Performance-based assessment  Measures teacher candidate ability: Plan Instruct Assess student learning Use best practices Have positive impact on student learning  27 different content areas (SCALE, 2013)  34 states and the District of Columbia (AACTE, 2014),

 Colleges of Education must ensure high quality internship experiences  Influential role of the Cooperating Teachers (CT)  Teacher candidates often emulate the strategies modeled by their CT (Kissau, 2014)  Placement of teacher candidates with CTs that model best practices is often challenging and flawed (Clarke, Triggs, & Nielsen, 2014)

 edTPA is a high stakes assessment spreading across the U.S.  Teacher candidates need support to successfully complete it.  Cooperating Teachers a critical source of support  Selection and training of CTs is flawed  Lack of related research

1. To what extent are the edTPA-specific vocabulary and domains addressed in the CT training modeled in the CT’s classroom practice (how did the training affect the CT’s practice)? 2. To what extent does the CT training affect the performance of student-teachers during the internship experience?

 Quantitative data Survey classroom observation instrument edTPA test scores  Qualitative data Semi-structured interviews Mixed Methodology

 15 CTs for Fall 2015/Spring 2016 participated in training  Variety of content areas and degrees of experience  3 males/12 females  Training Familiarized with expectations of edTPA Familiarized with logistical details (video- taping, consent) Familiarized with content-specific requirements Reviewed content-specific best practices Addressed how CTs may support interns  Control group of CTs Cooperating Teachers

 Teacher candidates completing internship in Fall 2015/Spring 2016  Aspiring middle or high school teachers, or K-12 ESL or foreign language teachers  Completed online survey to investigate impact of the CT training in CT practice  More data to come Teacher Candidates

 Used to investigate how the training affected CT practice minute observation sessions were conducted in the classroom of 12 CTs 6 of the CTs received training 6 did not receive training CT use of the edTPA-specific vocabulary and teaching practices addressed in the training were noted Classroom Observation Tool

Lesson Plans: The observer will review CT lesson plans spanning the 2-week period prior to the visit. “The teacher’s lesson plans …” 123 Are clearly shown to align with NCSCOS. Support a variety of student learning needs; learning differentiations for a variety of individual students are evident. Show evidence that the teacher incorporates student prior learning, interests, and culture into instruction. Show evidence that the teacher gives students regular opportunities to interact using content–specific vocabulary in meaningful ways. (“regular” is defined as at least twice per week = 4 instances in the two-week review period) Incorporate multiple forms of assessment on a daily basis to measure student learning. Classroom observation: “During the lesson, the teacher …” 123 Demonstrates positive support and respect for students. Engages students in learning activities that build upon prior knowledge and incorporate student interests and/or culture. Asks students questions to illicit responses and deepen their understanding of the content area. Adjusts his/her classroom practice during classroom instruction in response to immediate student feedback/learning needs. Implements learning differentiations for a variety of individual students. Shows evidence of using student assessment data in instructional decision-making. Provides constructive feedback to students addressing both strengths and areas of improvement Scoring Key: 1= The teaching/planning behavior does not clearly align with edTPA expectations. 2= The teaching/planning behavior is somewhat aligned with edTPA expectations. 3= The teaching/planning behavior clearly aligns with edTPA expectations.

Survey  Used to investigate how the training affected CT practice Data collected from an online survey Completed by teacher candidates at end of internship Gauged their perception of CT use of edTPA-specific vocabulary and teaching strategies

Planning My teacher’s lesson plan designs are regularly aligned to NCSCOS. My teacher’s lesson plan designs support a variety of student learning needs. My teacher’s lesson plan designs incorporate student prior learning, interests, and culture into instruction. My teacher’s lesson plan designs give students regular opportunities to interact using content–specific vocabulary in meaningful ways. My teacher’s lesson plan designs incorporate multiple forms of assessment on a daily basis to measure student learning. Instruction My teacher demonstrates positive support and respect for students. My teacher engages students in learning activities that build upon prior knowledge and incorporate student interest and or culture. My teacher asks students questions to elicit responses and deepen their understanding of the content area. My teacher adjusts his/her classroom practice during classroom instruction in response to immediate student feedback. Assessment My teacher collects and analyzes student assessment data consistently. My teacher provides specific feedback to students addressing both strengths and areas of improvement. My teacher provides individual support and feedback to students with special learning needs. My teacher assesses students’ abilities to interact using content-specific vocabulary. My teacher uses student assessment data to guide next steps in planning and instruction. SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree N=Neutral A=Agree SA=Strongly Agree

 Qualitative data were also collected via interviews to address the first research question Involved all CTs who participated in the classroom observations CTs were asked to describe:  how they supported their intern  what further support might they have provided  how the College of Education could assist them in supporting their interns Interviews

 Used to measure the effect the project had on teacher candidate performance during the internship All teacher candidates (with and without a trained CT) completed the edTPA assignment during their internship Submitted evidence was reviewed by trained Pearson scorers edTPA

 Total mean scores for classroom observation and surveys were compared between CTs who had and who had not completed edTPA training  Interview data were analyzed looking for emergent themes to explain quantitative findings  edTPA scores of the two groups of interns were compared looking at both total scores and individual tasks

To what extent are the edTPA-specific vocabulary and domains addressed in the CT training modeled in the CT’s classroom practice (how did the training affect the CT’s practice)?

GroupNumberMeanSigma Aligned Untrained Trained * Variety Untrained Trained Prior Untrained Trained Interact Untrained Trained * Assessment Untrained Trained Lesson Plan Review Untrained Trained * Note – No significant differences found between groups with respect to classroom teaching observations.

TRAINED CTUNTRAINED CT  Familiar with project  Assisted throughout development of assignment  Greatest support in planning phase (Task 1)  Least comfortable with assessment (Task 3)  Thankful for training  Wanted for US visits  Less specific/more generic feedback (topic of unit, classroom management)  Feedback primarily on finished product  Spent a lot of time trying to “figure out” what edTPA was all about  Wanted more US visits  Placed greater responsibility on ST

To what extent does the CT training affect the performance of student-teachers during the internship experience?

Possible means of further supporting teacher candidates Trained CTs Gave more familiar with project Gave more specific feedback Showed greater initiative in providing candidate feedback Interns of trained CTs Felt more supported (Task 1) Stronger performance on Tasks 1 and 3 Potential to change ways in which CTs are chosen/prepared Trained CTs critical when working with weaker teacher candidates Critical role played by US Address CAEP Standard 2 by developing strategic P-12 partnerships Discussion

 Cooperating Teachers want training  Greater attention to instruction and assessment  Provide alternate/multiple training sessions  Incorporate training into mandatory CT orientations  University supervisors also need edTPA training  Collaboration with Office of Field Experiences  Arrange CT interviews at time of classroom observation Implications and Applications