FS-NYCETP

1. FS-NYCETP Follow-up Study of the New York Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation Dr. Bert Flugman, Principal Investigator Dr. Barbara Schroder, Project Director Center for Advanced Study in Education, CUNY Graduate Center Dr. Serigne Gningue, Lehman College Director

2. Background • The New York Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (NY-CETP) took place at 6 New York City colleges between 1996 and 2000. Its major accomplishment was the re-design of 30 math and science courses for undergraduate education majors, following NSF principles of reform.

3. Goals • FS-NYCETP was funded by NSF beginning in August, 2001, to examine the impact of NY-CETP at 3 of the 6 original colleges (Brooklyn College, Lehman College, and City College, all part of the City University of New York system). • Its umbrella research question is: • How are our undergraduate elementary education graduates doing teaching math and science?

4. Sub-questions are: • How does participation in CETP courses affect attitudes, knowledge, and classroom performance of preservice teachers during college and first year of teaching? • How can new modes of teacher training narrow the performance gap among students with different levels of prior academic achievement? • How do new approaches to teacher training (CETP) hold up to the pressures of urban school environments?

5. The Colleges • All are senior colleges of the City University of New York, and prepare teachers to teach in New York City public schools. • Their undergraduate education students are predominantly urban, african-american, and latino. They are older (most between 26 – 40 years old), and 40% are immigrants.

6. Study Cohorts College A: • Undergraduate elementary education majors who were “rising student teachers” in AY 2001. All had taken between 2 and 9 CETP math, science and education classes. • Teaching Fellows (comparison group); baccalaureate degree holders following an “alternate route” to certification -- have taken no CETP classes. College B: • Undergraduate elementary education majors who were “rising student teachers.” Had taken between 1 and 4 CETP classes in math and science. College C: • Undergraduate elementary education minors who were “rising student teachers.” Had taken between 0 and 2 CETP classes in science or science education.

7. Data Collection Activities, 2002-2003 • Core College Student Surveys (for 3rd year), to approximately 550 students in 26 CETP’ed classes. • Core Faculty Surveys to apprx. 45 teachers and administrators involved with CETP reform. • Projected Teaching Strategies Survey, accompanying college student surveys, to approximately 500 Education Majors. (2nd year)

8. Data collection activities, 2002-2003, cont. • Maintained CUNY student records database on 298 student teachers and 97 teaching fellows. (“CETP study cohort”). • Observed 52 student teachers and 15 Teaching Fellows of above cohort using CETP’s Classroom Observation Protocol. • Observees and the principals of their schools completed surveys.

9. Data collection activities, 2003-2004 • Follow student teachers (and Teaching Fellows) into their first full year in the classroom, repeating observations and surveys, and collecting lesson plan and assessment samples. • Student achievement data - math and science city and state test scores - will be collected for their classes. • Survey principals of observees’ schools.

10. Study Population N’s

11. Overall Findings to Date • 86% of education students intended to use reform strategies regularly, when asked before they began their own teaching. (Average score of 30 or above on “Reform strategy scale”) • The most popular strategies were: “students have enough time to learn what is required”, “…work on problems related to the real world” and “…assessment results are used to modify instruction.”

12. Overall Findings to Date, cont. • Only 46% of observed student teachers and teaching fellows reported using these reform strategies regularly. (Average score of 30 or above on “Reform strategy scale”)

13. Overall Findings to Date, cont. COP Ratings, 2002-03

14. Findings to Date, cont. • The average capsule rating on the COP was 4.8. (on a scale ranging from 1 “ineffective instruction” to 8 “exemplary instruction”) • 52 observees, or 78%, scored at least at the “Beginning Stage of Effective Instruction.”

15. Towards analyzing results: Observees (67) by number of CETP classes.

16. 2002-3 Observees: COP Capsule Ratings by number of CETP classes

17. Observing Lehman College’s Teacher Candidates: Common Trends I. Context • At Lehman College, a Teacher Candidate (TC) may obtain New York State Initial Certification in two ways:

18. The TC may be an undergraduate student. All undergraduate TCs at Lehman College have a liberal arts or sciences major. To be certified, they have to complete a 4course minor program followed by a Methods’Course and Student Teaching for a total of 23-26 credits.

19. Such program integrates practice with theory. All courses include as a central component, field-based experiences at schools and community agencies (100 hours must be completed before student teaching). CETP students fall under this category.

20. The TC may be a graduate student in education in Secondary Education (Math, Science, Social Studies, etc…), in Elementary Education, or in Special Education, who: • May be already holding a teaching certificate (Provisional or Initial) and is seeking a Master's degree which will lead him/her to Permanent or Professional certification. His/her program of studies is mostly content-based and does not require Student Teaching or Internship.

21. May be holding some type of temporary certificate, is teaching, and is seeking Initial certification. His/her program requires Internship. • FELLOWS and TOPS, who holda Transitional B certificate, fall under this category (Theyare mentored for 2-3 years through monthly observations).

22. May not hold any type of certificate, is not teaching, and is seeking Initial certification. His/her program requires Student Teaching.

23. Student teachers and Interns are observed at least four times during the semester. They also attend bi-weekly seminars. • I am involved in: • the supervision of student teachers and interns in Secondary Education, • the mentoring of TOPS/FELLOWS, and • the observations of CETP students.

24. What follows represents a summary of what I have observed and tried to address after my first observation. • TCs are evaluated in each of five competencies: • ClassroomManagement, • Instruction Planning, • Instruction Delivery, • Assessment, and • Human Relations/Communication Skills. (The tool was adapted from assessment developed by Towson University and Baltimore County Schools)

25. II. Observational Findings • The COP measurement instrument focuses more on Instruction Planning and on Instruction Delivery than on the other competencies. Nevertheless, once in the classroom, one cannot ignore the other four competencies.

26. Management The TC is expected to: • Display an understanding and implement components necessary of effective classroom management (high expectations for student success and consistency in dealing with students) • Establish standards of conduct that are clear to all students. • Respond to behavior in an appropriate and consistent manner • Establish routines that are evident and maximize instructional time. • Interact with students in a caring and respectful manner.

27. ManagementGeneral Findings: • CETP TCs seem to have less management problems. Is it because students are still young? • In many CETP classes: students that cause problems are usually isolated in a corner and given a task so that they won't disturb. • Most TCs ignore some students' misbehavior and work habits: some students do other things without the teacher’s awareness: reading a book, drawing, copying some other work, throwing papers, spit balls, etc…

28. Management General Findings: cont’d. • The rate of misbehavior seems to increase as the grade level increases, and attains its climax in middle school classes. • HS students care more about grades being reducedbecause of conduct than MS students. • MS students care more about some types of punishment: Lunch, Gym, or after-school Detention (if the school allows such policies) or not going on a trip. • I often advise teachers to establish some type of mechanism to address students' inappropriate behavior, depending on the level.

29. Instruction Planning The TC is expected to: • Select appropriate curricular standards and outcomes based on formal and informal student assessment • Write an effective lesson plan • Plan meaningful performance tasks appropriate to the linguistic, cultural, and developmental levels of the students. • Plan collaboratively with the cooperating teacher and other classroom instructional support personnel. • Develop a long-range unit plan.

30. Instruction Planning General Findings • The plans written usually look great on paper because most TCs: • list all the required components • spend a lot of times designing them. • However, TCs tend to: • link the lessons to too many standards • list too many objectives, and consequently • write lesson plans that are too long. How many Science or Mathematics ideas can one teach in one period? • More cognitive tasks are seen in CETP classes than in MS or HS classes. However, students rarely reach Cognitive Level 3 (Knowledge Representation). • HS teachers, for the most part, still teach traditionally.

31. Instructional Delivery The TC is expected to: • Effectively implement the lesson plan and demonstrate mastery of content • Use a variety of instructional strategies and groupings appropriate to instructional goals • Ask questions which require the use of higher level thinking skills and use sufficient wait time • Provide all learners with opportunities to participate.

32. Instructional Delivery Findings • Time management is usually a big issue. TCs are often easily distracted by students' behavior, and by some students’ questions that deviate from the topic. • Sometimes, the TC realizes that students do not have a prior knowledge on a concept and wants to review it right there before moving on. He/she consequently often runs out of time.

33. Instructional Delivery Findings • Even though students are put in groups, the TC ends up doing all the talking (This was noticed even in classes that use IMP). • The TC does not really control what goes on in every group; disruptive behavior by one member leads to disruption in the group, which usually goes unnoticed. The TC is often near the blackboard and seldom moves around to see what students are doing. *IMP is a standard-based program.

34. Instructional Delivery Findings • TCs have the most urgent need in questioning techniques: • How they question and the type of questions asked often confuse students even for the simplest ideas. • One question can be repeated three to four times in a different way before they call on someone to respond. • They rarely validate students’ responses properly (Always in a hurry to move to another question) • Rarely ask students to make conjectures.

35. Instructional Delivery Findings • Very often, TCs unconsciously turn to students who tend to raise their hands and already know the answers. • Rarely do they call on someone who is just sitting and doing his/her work, or not participating. • Rarely send students to the board.

36. Assessment The TC is expected to: • Employ a variety of assessment approaches, which match instructional goals. • Have established and clearly communicated assessment criteria to students. • Provide assessment feedback to students that is accurate and relevant.Use self-assessment to evaluate and improve instruction

37. AssessmentFindings • The following conversation usually goes on after the observation • How do you think the lesson went? • TC: I think it went pretty well. They all understand what was taught. • Did all students understand the concept? • TC: May be not all but most of them did. • Can you list me a few students that you thought did well? • Well Eric and maybe Barbara...(The doubt starts to set in). • Are you sure that most students who were engaged in their task understood it?

38. Assessment Findings • That's usually how we start discussing different ways of assessing students in class during the lesson. • For many TCs, it’s only through the tests given that they really assess students’ learning and understanding of the concepts taught.

39. Assessment Findings • As a mean of self-assessment, TC has to also submit a self-evaluation using the Division-wide Internship/Student Teacher Assessment tool. • Throughout the Internship/Student Teaching experience, TCs also keep a daily journal, emailed weekly to the supervisor, to reflect on their practices and on school issues.

40. Human Relations/Communications SkillsThe teacher is expected to: • Practice effective human relations/communication skills with colleagues, parents, and children. • Demonstrate exemplary professional behavior. • Maintain a positive relationship with all students and show flexibility towards individual student’s needs. • Speak and use a clear and accurate language. • Practice effective human relations/communication skills through a supportive/cooperative relationship with colleagues. • Demonstrate professional behavior. • Model respect for diversity within the school community.

41. Human Relations/Communications SkillsFindings • We deal with a large number of teachers that speak a language other than English. However, lesson plans are well written and students usually have no problems understanding what they say.

42. Human Relations/Communications SkillsFindings • Emphasis is on attendance, punctuality, school dress code, preparedness, awareness of school issues etc… • Relationships with colleagues are usually cordial. • Except for one CETP student who did not get along with her cooperating teacher because of the way the cooperating teacher handled students who were giving her a difficult time. We ended up changing the TC placement. • Otherwise, CETPs are usually well liked by students.

43. III. Conclusions • CETPs,TOPS, and FELLOWS all agree that good classroom management is the key to teaching. • For TCs, what they learn in classes and through fieldwork observations do not match what they learn when they start teaching. • TCs are usually better during my second observation. I try to observe them teach the same class to see if the strategies we draw together work.

44. Conclusions Cont’d • Follow-up conferences and observations are essential to teacher training. • Support mechanism has to be in place from the first month (if not the first week) of school to help new teachers. • Assessing students in one observation alone (as done using the COP for CETP) is not sufficient.

45. What other data do we have? • Undergrad background: • College grades, courses, overall gpas, math and science courses and cums, etc. • New York State teaching license exam results: LAST • School context variables: • Principal survey responses • Teacher survey responses • Observers comments • COPs: activities, student engagement, cognitive levels, etc. • Lesson plans and assessment plans

46. What should we focus on?Which of these variables are most interesting to you, and why?

47. What happened to last year’s observees? (n=67)

48. How are other schools of education tracking and evaluating the performance of their graduates?