Mary E. Yakimowski and Mary Truxaw Presentation at the annual meeting for the

1. Office of Assessment Educational Research for the Good of SocietyExploringPre-service Teacher Education:Impact of Higher Education Institutions on Pupil Mathematics Performance Mary E. Yakimowski and Mary Truxaw Presentation at the annual meeting for the Northeastern Educational Research Association Rocky Hill, Connecticut October 2011

2. Linking to Other Presentations Rhode Island Massachusetts Connecticut Perspectives “Facts” Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Private Schools Public Schools

5. Focus on how the UConn Neag School of Education is examining K-12 performance More specifically, we would like to examine the patterns of Connecticut’s grade 3-8 pupils of graduates of our Teaching Education Program as part of our Neag Assessment Plan through our Teachers for a New Era project

6. Literature Review • Teachers have been found to be critically important in students’ mathematical learning and performance (Ball, 2003; Ball, Lubienski & Mewborn, 2001; Fennema & Franke,1992; Shulman, 1987) • There are significant interests in examining growth achievement models (e.g., Barone, 2009) • High-quality teacher education programs take on an • important role (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006) • Lack of empirical evidence connecting teacher education programs with student outcomes (Crowe, 2010; Grossman, 2008)

7. Purpose of This Study • Examine the impact of teacher education experiences at higher education levels on pupil performance in mathematics. • Differences on pupil performance in mathematics between UI group vs. Non-UI group

8. Sampling • 5 public school districts in Connecticut • 12,047students from grades 3 through 8 Instrumentation • The fourth generation of Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT-4) mathematics portion • Grades 3 through 8 in the spring at each year

9. 5 domains and 25 corresponding strands in CMT-4 math test are tested: • Numerical and Proportional Reasoning • Geometry and Measurement • Working with Data: Probability and Statistics • Algebraic Reasoning: patterns and functions • Integrated Understanding

10. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Numerical and Proportional [NP] 1. Place Value 2. Pictorial Representations of Numbers 3. Equivalent Fractions, Decimals and Percents 4. Order, Magnitude and Rounding of Numbers 5. Models for Operations 6. Basic Facts 7. Computation with Whole Numbers and Decimals 8. Computation with Fractions and Integers 9. Solve Word Problems 10. Numerical Estimation Strategies 11. Estimating Solutions to Problems 12. Ratios and Proportions 13. Computation with Percents Geometry and Measurement [GM] 14. Time 15. Approximating Measures 16. Customary and Metric Measures 17. Geometric Shapes and Properties 18. Spatial Relationships Working with Data: Probability and Statistics [DPS] 19. Tables, Graphs and Charts 20. Statistics and Data Analysis 21. Probability 24. Classification and Logical Reasoning Algebraic Reasoning: Patterns and Functions [AR] 22. Patterns 23. Algebraic Concepts Integrated Understanding [IU] (May include content from one or more of the four domains) 25. Mathematical Applications __________________________________________________________________________

11. Specifically, our objectives are to: 1. Measure the impact of teacher education experiences in higher education on pupil performance in mathematics. 2. Interpret the findings and provide recommendations for a modified model to evaluate teacher preparation programs in higher education institutions.

12. Overview of Results • Total (Raw) Score • Domain Scores • Strand Scores • Proficiency Level Scores • Vertical Scale Scores

14. Overall score UI was 106 (SD = 22.8)Non-UI of 95.3 (SD = 26.8)

15. Domain1 – Numerical / Proportional UI 53.3 Non-UI 46.4similar results for each domain

16. Domain 1 - Strand Score Results

17. Domain 1 - Strand Score Results

18. Domain 2 - Strand Score Results CMT-4Geometry and Measurement [GM] domain’s five strand scores for two teacher groups.

19. Overview of Findings to Each Research Qs

20. Proficiency Level

21. Vertical Scale Results

22. Discussion • Two groups • Limitations • Modified • Impact of programs • Future Research

23. As noted by Education Secretary Duncan … at an annual meeting of the American Association of College of Teacher Education in February of 2010 in Atlanta, saying, “To put it in the simplest terms, we believe teacher-preparation programs should be focused on results.” Aligned with charge, we do contend that we must continue to strive to build an evidence-based teacher preparation model, which is directly linked to pupil academic performance; however, it is simply one piece as a puzzle to really evaluate a teacher education program.

24. http://www.education.uconn.edu/assessment/

25. Exploring Pre-service Teacher Education:Impact of Higher Education Institutions on Pupil Mathematics Performance Mary Truxaw and Mary E. Yakimowski