Using NExT Survey Data to Inform Policy, Practice, and Cross-Institutional Collaboration

1. Using NExT Survey Data to Inform Policy, Practice, and Cross-Institutional Collaboration Sarah Anderson, Mayville State University Dayna Jean DeFeo, University of Alaska Anchorage Stacy Duffield, North Dakota State University Keri Ferro, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission

2. Introductions • Sarah Anderson, Mayville State University • Dayna Jean DeFeo, University of Alaska Anchorage • Stacy Duffield, North Dakota State University • Keri Ferro, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission

3. Overview of

4. Higher Education Partners Saint Cloud State University • Valley Partnership • Minnesota State University, Moorhead • North Dakota State University • Valley City State University University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Minnesota State University, Mankato Winona State University • Twin Cities Private • College Consortium (TC2) • Augsburg College • Bethel University • Concordia University–St. Paul • Hamline University • St. Catherine University • University of St. Thomas University of South Dakota, Vermillion

5. the Common Metrics Framework

6. The NExTCommon Metrics Framework Development of a valid and reliable set of common survey instruments Alignment of items across four surveys administered at different points in time Use of psychometrics analyses to guide survey revisions and ensure strong internal validity and reliability

7. Surveys

8. NExT Affiliates Over 60 institutions now use the Common Metrics Surveys Create an aggregate report Potential to address common problems of practice

9. Showcasing the Possibilities

10. Practice Application: Grant Proposals & Evaluation Survey data provides Needs assessment for new program justification Baseline for evaluation Reliable data for ongoing M&E

11. Policy Application: Teacher Recruitment & Retention • Context: national teacher shortage and low enrollments in TEPs Statewide teacher shortage • Incoming teacher survey allows us to: • Identify experiences that inspire candidates to become teachers • Consider their equitable distribution • Advocate for policies that expand these opportunities

12. Policy Application: Advocacy • When TEPs come under fire • Graduation numbers • Retention in the field • Other publicity • Surveys provide independent, third party data • With statewide & national comparators • TEPs can use these for advocacy to legislature

13. Balancing Our Responsibility in the Employment Context • Sharing our findings with policy makers • Completers’ reasons for not teaching • New teacher satisfaction for retention • New teachers’ ratings of preparedness associated with school resources and support

14. Possibilities & Responsibilities • TEPs responsibility: prepare competent, qualified educators • Data needed for assessment and to communicate context in which we do our work • In nationwide teacher shortage, TEPs can become scapegoats for low production & retention • Data helps us advocate for • Our students • Ourselves • Kids & families • Without data, we acquiesce much of the narrative around our work to anecdote and political agendas

15. Communities of Practice

16. Communities of Practice Share a concern, set of problems, passion about a topic, and deepen expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002)

17. Goals of Communities of Practice • Leverage expertise and resources • Improve teacher preparation programs • Learn together and from each other • Address common problems of practice • Produce increasing returns

18. What CoPs Need Forging of relationships Articulation of mission Establishment of governance Determination of roles (Duffield, Olson, & Kerzman, 2012)

19. CoPs Stages of Development

20. Connect and Collaborate

21. AACTE 2020 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom.

22. Facilitated Groups • Choose a Community of Practice Group • Group 1: Meeting needs of students with mental health needs • Group 2: Meeting needs of students with IEPs and 504s • Group 3: Meeting needs of EL students • Group 4: Using survey measures for predictive validity (Entry to Exit to TTS to SS) • Group 5: TBD • Group 6: TBD • Group 7: Organic-formed out of other groups • Facilitated Meetings: 35 minutes

23. Communities of Practice Norms We will operate in a collegial atmosphere We will work together as a community We will be fully “present” We will invite and welcome contributes from all members We will be involved to our individual level of comfort We will keep confidentiality We will be guided by the goals of our collaboration

24. Next Steps: Ensuring the Work Continues • Facilitators send email to provide contact information and summarize today’s work • Support as needed for ongoing virtual meetings • Deliverables: • Strategies and materials to address the problems of practice • Program improvement • Sharing of work to benefit the profession • Large group web-meeting in late April to plan for AACTE 2020 proposal • Publications • Support as needed for statistical data analysis

25. Thank you We look forward to continuing this work together. Sarah Anderson, Mayville State University, sarah.anderson2@mayvillestate.edu Dayna Jean DeFeo, University of Alaska Anchorage, djdefeo@alaska.edu Stacy Duffield, North Dakota State University, stacy.duffield@ndsu.edu Keri Ferro, West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission, Keri.Ferro@wvhepc.edu