1 / 38

Wayne State University College of Education TEAC: Inquiry Brief Proposal Presentation

Wayne State University College of Education TEAC: Inquiry Brief Proposal Presentation. Presented by the TEAC Advisory Committee April 24 , 2012. Overview. Program Overview Claims & Rationale Methods of Assessment Results, Discussion, Plan Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Auditor’s Comments.

ivo
Download Presentation

Wayne State University College of Education TEAC: Inquiry Brief Proposal Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wayne State UniversityCollege of Education TEAC: Inquiry Brief Proposal Presentation Presented by the TEAC Advisory Committee April 24, 2012

  2. Overview • Program Overview • Claims & Rationale • Methods of Assessment • Results, Discussion, Plan • Claim 1 • Claim 2 • Claim 3 • Auditor’s Comments

  3. Program Overview • Background and History • Distinguishing Features of the Program • Requirements for Admissions & Graduation • Demographics of Initial Certification Candidates • Description of Faculty • Logistics of Program

  4. Claims & Rationale • Claim 1: Initial Certification Completers understand subject matter knowledge they will teach (Learning to Learn, Multicultural, Technology). • Claim 2: Initial Certification Completers have pedagogical knowledge (Learning to Learn, Multicultural, Technology). • Claim 3: Initial Certification Completers know how to teach in a caring and effective matter (Learning to Learn, Multicultural, Technology).

  5. Methods of Assessment • Sources of Measure • Surveys (performance assessments, WSU surveys, MDE surveys, observations) • Course Grades (methods & total GPA) • Ratings of Capstone Conversation • Scores on MTTC • Research Design • Reliability and Validity Factors

  6. Claim 1:Subject Matter Knowledge Subcommittee: Janet Andrews, MarianeFahlman, Chavon Jackson, Jo-Ann Snyder, Cheryl Somers,

  7. Initial Certification Completers understand subject matter knowledge they will teach. • Learn and understand the subject matter they hope to teach.

  8. Competencies & Data Sources • Competencies: 1, 2, • Data Sources: • Unit Plan • University Supervisor Final Eval. Observation • Cooperating Teachers Final Eval. Observation • WSU Student Exit Survey • MDE Supervisor Survey • GPA • MTTC

  9. Performance Assessments and Observation Data

  10. Claim 1: Findings • Finding 1 – based on unit plan assessment, 95% of students demonstrated knowledge of subject matter at the proficient or exemplary level • Finding 2 – both cooperating teachers and college supervisors rates 93% proficient or exemplary in knowledge of subject matter

  11. Claim 1: Findings • Finding 3 – all teacher candidates receive a grade of C or better in all subject matter courses. • Finding 4 – all teacher candidates successfully complete the MTTC.

  12. Findings of CCT: LEARNING TO LEARN • Receiving passing grades in 100 % of content area classes is evidence that strategies for learning were at their command • Successful completion of the MTTC test demonstrated their mastery of content material again evidencing their ability to learn

  13. Discussion of Content Knowledge (claim 1) • The data we examined suggests that our candidates have learned and do understand the subject matter when they leave us. • Our data sources for cross-cutting themes appeared to be too narrow. • Additionally we have data we have not examined for cross-cutting themes (e.g. mc course, tech course).

  14. Implications for Content Knowledge (claim 1) • Need better documentation of how students use technology to develop concepts in their discipline. • We need to include other sources that demonstrate evidence of this such as: • DIVERSITY: • University Foreign Culture requirement, • COE Multicultural requirement, • COE inclusion requirement, • TECHNOLOGY • Computer literacy requirement, • Technology course in every curriculum • E-Portfolios • Blackboard • LEARNING TO LEARN: • What else can we do?

  15. Claim 2:Knowledge of Pedagogy Subcommittee: Oscar Abbott, Abby Butler, Bev Schneider, David Whitin, Phyllis Whitin,

  16. Initial Certification Completers have pedagogical knowledge: • They organize for effective instruction by establishing a safe and orderly environment that is conducive to learning and creative and critical thinking. • They utilize school, community, and technological resources and integrate content across the curriculum. • They use a range of assessment strategies to inform ongoing instruction.

  17. Competencies & Data Sources • Competencies: 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 • Data Sources: • Community Observation • District School Curriculum Analysis • Classroom Management Plan • Lesson Plan • Unit Plan • Case Study • Cooperating Teacher’s FinalEvalObserv. • Univ. Supervisor’s Final Final EvalObserv. • WSU Student Entry Survey • WSU Student Exit Survey • MDE Supervisor Exit Survey

  18. Performance Assessments and Observation Data Percentages are proportions of students rated proficient or higher on the respective competency for each data source. *Indicates assessments given early in the program where a score of basic is considered acceptable.

  19. Findings for Pedagogy (Claim 2) • Higher percentages of proficient or exemplary ratings are found in assessments that take place later in the program. • Highest ratings (Lesson/Unit Plan) and Cooperating Teacher and Supervisor assessments indicate that candidates exit the program pedagogically well prepared. • There are lower ratings for CO, DSC, CMP, and CS. CO, DSC, and CMP reflect introductory experiences. CS is assessed later in the program.

  20. Discussion for Pedagogy (Claim 2) • CO, DSC, and CMP, with only 37 – 48% showing proficient and above performance, are indicative of a beginning level understanding when this content is first introduced. A rating of basic is considered satisfactory for these 3 assignments. • Data from 2010-2011 reflect the work of many candidates who were not exposed to the service learning component that is designed to give candidates experience working with children and community organizations. • The low Case Study scores (87% and 76%) are of more concern since it is assessed later in the program.

  21. Discussion for Pedagogy: Cross-Cutting Themes (Claim 2) • Learning to Learn is reflected in five performance assessments and two observations: CO, DSC, CS, LP, UP, and CTF, USF. • Multicultural is reflected in three performance assessments and two observations: DSC, LP, UP and CTF, USF. • Evidence for these two themes is integrated throughout students’ experiences. • Technology is only reflected in two assessments: DSC, LP. • Evidence for Technology theme is thin.

  22. Implications for Pedagogy (claim 2) • Closely monitor assessments with lower ratings, and implement changes to strengthen the program. • These results, particularly for CS, suggest modifications to our program, e.g. to incorporate into methods classes additional experiences involving formulating instructional decisions based on ongoing observational assessments. • Modules developed by SED may be useful to all initial certification candidates in their work on CMP. • Revise assessment rubrics that reflect technology in candidates’ teaching. • Initiate conversations to examine evidence of technology-integrated pedagogy at the program level for each content area.

  23. Claim 3:Caring and Effective Teaching Subcommittee: Tom Edwards, Sharon Elliott, Sharon Sellers-Clark, Bo Shen, Marshall Zumberg,

  24. Initial Certification Candidates are Caring and Effective • Caring Teaching: Reflects interest in, and concern for, students. • Effective Teaching: Results in student learning

  25. Competencies & Data Sources • Competencies: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 • Data Sources: Community Observation (CO), Classroom Management Plan (CMP), Reflective Journal (RJ), Teaching and Learning Statement (TLS), Lesson Plan (LP), Unit Plan (UP), Case Study (CS).

  26. Percentages are proportions of students rated proficient or higher on the respective competency for each data source. *Indicates assessments given early in the program where a score of basic is considered acceptable. Note: Community Observation (CO), Classroom Management Plan (CMP), Reflective Journal (RJ), Teaching and Learning Statement (TLS), Lesson Plan (LP), Unit Plan (UP), Case Study (CS)

  27. Competencies & Data Sources • Competencies: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 • Data Sources: (Con’t.) • Capstone Conversation (CC), • WSU Student Entry Survey (WSEn), • WSU Student Exit Survey (WSEx) • MDE Student Exit Survey-MDE (MSEx), • MDE Supervisor Survey (MSS), • University Supervisor Final Observation (USF), • Cooperating Teacher Final Observation (CTF).

  28. Survey and Observation Data Percentages are proportions of students rated proficient or higher on the respective competency for each data source. *Indicates assessments given early in the program where a score of basic is considered acceptable. Note: CC=Capstone Conversation;WSEn=Student Entry Survey;WSEx=Student Exit Survey; MSS=MDE Supervisor Survey; USF=University Supervisor Final Evaluation Observation; CTF=Cooperating Teacher Final Evaluation Observation.

  29. Findings for Caring & Effective (Claim 3) • Percentage of proficient and exemplary ratings tends to be higher on assessments that occur later in the program. • Highest percentages of students rated proficient and exemplary on items related to caring and effective teaching occurred in the MSS, USF, and CTF. • There are only small differences in the percentages of students rated proficient and exemplary on the WSEx and MSEx compared to the USF and CTF. • Lowest percentages of proficient and exemplary ratings occurred on the CO and CMP, both of which occur early in the program. (It is also noteworthy that a rating of “basic” is considered satisfactory on those two assessments.)

  30. Findings for Cross-Cutting Themes in Caring & Effective Teaching • Caring & Effective Teaching: Data drawn from 7 performance assessments, 4 surveys, and 2 observations across 6 competencies. • Learning to Learn data was drawn from • Four of the performance assessments (CO, RJ, TLS, LP) across Competencies 7 & 10. • Three (CC, WSEn, WSEx) of the surveys in Competency 6. • Both of the observations in Competency 6 (CTF, USF)

  31. Findings for Cross-Cutting Themes in Caring & Effective Teaching • Caring & Effective Teaching: Data drawn from 7 performance assessments, 4 surveys, and 2 observations across 6 competencies. • Multicultural Perspective data was drawn from • Six of the assessments (CO, RJ, TLS, LP, UP, CS) across Competencies 5, 6, 7, & 10. • All four of the of the surveys across Competencies 5 and 7. • Both of the observations across Competencies 5 and 7

  32. Findings for Cross-Cutting Themes in Caring & Effective Teaching • Caring & Effective Teaching: Data drawn from 7 performance assessments, 4 surveys, and 2 observations across 6 competencies. • Technology data was drawn from • Three of the assessments (TLS, LP, UP) in Competency 4. • Three of the surveys (WSEn, MSS, WSEx) across Competencies 3, 4, and 6. • There was no data addressing issues of caring & effective teaching from either either observation that provided direct evidence of technology.

  33. Findings for Cross-Cutting Themes (CCTs) in Caring & Effective Teaching • There was data for each of the CCTs embedded in the data for Caring & Effective. • The data that was there supports each theme. • Multi-Cultural Perspective had the most supporting data. • Technology had the least supporting data. • Technology is not addressed directly in either the CTF or USF.

  34. Discussion: Caring & Effective Teaching • Our analysis of the data revealed a clear trend in the growth of the proportion of candidates rated proficient or higher on the performance assessments in areas related to caring & effective teaching. • This analysis suggests that our program completers grow over time in their ability to provide caring and effective teaching. • The vast majority reach proficient or exemplary ratings. • The evidence we have supports the claim that we prepare teachers who are caring & effective.

  35. Discussion: CCTs in Caring & Effective • Regarding the cross-cutting themes, the evidence • of a multi-cultural perspective is strongest, because it comes from more data sources and addresses more of the related competencies. • of learning to learn is adequate , • of technology is weakest, coming from only a few data sources, one of which is self-reported.

  36. Implications for Caring and Effective Teaching • Revisit the rubrics of those performance assessments with the lowest percentages of proficient and exemplary ratings to ensure that the rubrics are providing the information we seek. • Consider revising the rubrics for all of the performance assessments so they provide more information about our candidates technological proficiency in the service of pedagogy. • Revisit the CMP rubric to learn why no data related to caring & effective teaching from that source supports any cross-cutting theme. • Revise the observation reporting forms to provide information on technology.

  37. Small Group Discussion 1. Do we have the evidence to support these claims? Why/Why not? 2. What are the strengths of the evidence? 3. What might be missing? 4. Other assessments/tools we should consider to assure: • Subject Matter Knowledge • Pedagogical Knowledge • Caring & Effective Teaching With the 3 cross cutting themes: • Learning to Learn • Multicultural Perspectives • Technology

  38. Auidtor’sComments

More Related