Feedback

University of Nevada, Reno
Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy in Special Education
by Virginia L. Beck Tammy V. Abernathy / Dissertation Advisor
May, 2009
UMI Number: 3362216
Copyright 2009 by Beck, Virginia L.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3362216 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
by Virginia L. Beck 2009 All Rights Reserved
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by VIRGINIA L. BECK entitled
Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers be accepted in partial fulfillment of die requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Tammy V. Abernathy, Ph.D., Advisor Christine O. Cheney, Ed.D., Committee Member JoAnn Johnson, Ph.D., Committee Member Shanon S. Taylor, Ed.D., Committee Member Steve Harlow, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative Marsha H. Read, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Graduate School
May, 2009
The Impact of Supervised The Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers Abstract This research investigates two questions (with subparts) related to the field based experiences of preservice teachers in an integrated elementary/special education teacher
preparation program at a state university. Part one of this descriptive study used a pretestposttest design for examining archived data (n=31) made up of the normally collected observations by university supervisors as well as final evaluations by lead (classroom) teachers during the three consecutive practicum experiences completed by preservice teachers. This data was also separated according to the GPAs of high, medium, and low achieving preservice teachers to evaluate differences in the three groups. Part two of the study examined surveys sent to the same preservice teachers when they were practicing teachers (n = 13) in their first or second year of teaching. The survey questioned their perceptions of the amount of time spent in their practica and the usefulness of the supervision and feedback that they had received in their recently completed training. Overall findings suggest (1) that feedback from supervisors did help preservice teachers improve their teaching skills, though the high achieving group generally stayed high and above the low achieving group; (2) that university supervisors and the lead teachers had high agreement in their evaluations of the preservice teachers; and (3) that practicing teachers generally valued the usefulness of the feedback during their extended practica experiences. Selected keywords: preservice teachers, supervision, feedback, teacher preparation program, field based experience, practicum
The Impact of Supervised Acknowledgements The dream of graduating with a Doctorate of Philosophy in Special Education began as a discussion in May of 1994 when I graduated with a Bachelor of Science
ii
degree in Elementary and Special Education. Now, IS years later, that dream has become a reality. However, the journey to the culmination of this particular dream has not been a path I walked alone. Many people helped me along the way; and, although I cannot name all of those who took steps with me on this journey, I do want to thank some of those who were instrumental in assuring that I achieved this dream. So, it is with humility that I thank the following people who have traveled with me, and who have helped me make this dream a reality. I would like to acknowledge the encouragement, assistance, and guidance that my chair, Dr. Tammy Abernathy, gave me during this process. Many times, it was Tammy who kept me on the correct path so that I could see the dream that began as a discussion come tofruition.My committee members, Dr. Christine Cheney, Dr. Steve Harlow, Dr. JoAnn Johnson, and Dr. Shanon Taylor went the extra mile during the time that I worked on this dissertation. Thank you. I would like to thank the members of my cohort, Colleen Checho, Kristen DeRaad, Lois Furno, Carrie Helweg, Michelle Hinkson, and Elena Kelley, for their support. Theirfriendshipmeant and continues to mean a lot to me. Peggy Polczinski, the Field Based Instructor in the Department of Educational Specialtiesfromfall 2006-spring 2009, gathered the data for this dissertation. She was and is a goodfriend.Our excursions together during the past few years have taken us to
The Impact of Supervised iii different parts of the United States for presentations on the subject of this dissertation. Shane Christensen, a graduate assistant, who gathered the current datafromsurveys to help me with my dissertation results, worked with Peggy to help me envision this journey's end. Thank you, both. I also want to acknowledge all of the preservice teachers with whom I have worked. I learned morefromthem than they ever learned from me. Nick, Kellee, and Shandell were three preservice teachers who helped to write the survey questions that were a part of this study. They are representatives of some the strong preservice teachers who are now teachers who are dream weavers for children. Bless you. I want to thank Dense Wigand who gave a lot of her time and energy to be a sounding board, an on-the-spot editor, and a goodfriendto help me see the end of this journey. Thank you for always being there. Also, my gratitude goes to Carolyn Zimmerman and Christine Flood who encouraged me to complete this journey. Also, my thanks my family for their love and support of my dream over the years. I could not have done this without them. Stacy and Ryan (Cassidy and Nathan), Wendymy editor extraordinaire-and Steven, and Rick and Jeanie (Kenzie and Maddie) have been my staunch supporters making sure that I slept, ate, and took breaks during this journey. My sister, Linde, was the organizer, errand runner, editor, and overall dream catcher of my dreams, often encouraging me to continue my journey when no one else could. My family believed in me throughout this journey. I love you all. Finally, I want to acknowledge my husband, Rich, who was the main reason this dream began in 1994, and my father and mother who helped me keep my dream alive for many years. The three of them have moved on, but continue to be an inspiration to me.
The Impact of Supervised
iv
The Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 1 1 4 6 7 8 10 11 11 13 16 16 16 16 17 18 18 19 19
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Overview Historical Overview of Teacher Education Present Policy on Teacher Quality Features of Effective Teacher Preparation Programs Challenges for Today's Children The Challenge of Preparing Today's Teachers Statement of the Problem Definitions of Terms . Integrated Elementary/Special Education Teacher Education Program Block Program Field Experiences or Practicum Experiences Preservice Teacher Lead Teacher Supervisor Formal Observation Final Evaluation Practicing Teacher PTPPO Survey Summary
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Overview Features of Effective Teacher Preparation Programs Importance of Preparation through Field Based Experience Preparation of Basic Teaching Skills Recruitment and Retention of Teachers Preparation to Teach in Diverse Student Populations Preparation to Teach in Diverse School Environments Requirements by NCATE and CEC Important Components of Field Based Experiences: Supervision and Time . . . . Research on Supervision of Preservice Teachers in Field Experiences . . . . Research on Amount of Time in Field Experiences The Continuum of Field Based Experiences in Teacher Preparation Programs . . Summary
20 20 20 22 23 27 30 32 34 34 35 36 38 39
The Impact of Supervised Research Questions CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Overview Research Questions Research Design Research Question #1 Research Question Pretest-Posttest Observational Design Research Question #2 Participants Participants as Preservice Teachers Participants as Practicing Teachers Setting Program Schools and Classrooms Instrumentation Research Question #1 - Instruments Research Question #2 - Instruments Validity and Reliability of Instruments Procedure Preservice Teacher Selection Observation Feedback Process Feedback Procedures Preservice Teacher Data Collection Data Analysis Data Protections Summary
41 43 43 43 45 45 46 49 49 50 50 52 . . 52 52 59 59 62 63 66 66 67 70 71 73 74 74
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Overview Results of Archived Preservice Teacher Observations Overall Results on Final Evaluations by Lead Teachers Overall Results on Formal Observations by University Supervisors Results on Formal Observations and Final Evaluations by Achievement Levels of Preservice Teachers Relationship between the Observations of University Supervisors and Evaluations of Lead Teachers (Research Question #la) Improvement of Preservice Teachers' Teaching Practices during Practica (Research Question #lb) Improvement of Preservice Teachers Who were Considered Top Third Performers, Middle Third Performers and Bottom Third Performers (Research Question #lc) Summary of Preservice Teacher Results Results from Current Practicing Teachers
76 76 76 77 78 81 82 85
86 93 104
vi
Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of the Usefulness of the Observation with Feedback Received During Preservice Teacher Education (Research Question #2a) Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of their Preparation for Full-time Teaching (Research Question #2b) Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of the Adequate Time Spent in Practica (Research Question #2c) Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of the PTPPO Amount of Observation with Feedback Item Provided during their Practica (Research Question #2d) Summary of Results of Current Practicing Teachers
95 96 97
99 100
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .. Overview and Purpose of the Study ."..... Summary, Interpretation, and Implications of Results for Each Research Question Research Question #1: Archived Data Research Question #2: Current Data Limitations of the Study Conclusions: The Ideal Practicum Experience Extended Time Diverse Settings Connections to Coursework General Supervision Overall Supervisor Final Thoughts
101 101 101 102 107 114 118 119 120 122 123 125 126
REFERENCES
129
The Impact of Supervised vii The Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Graphic Representation of the Block System: Blocks I-IV Appendix B: Studies on Features of Effective Teacher Preparation Programs Appendix C: Studies on Connecting Coursework to Field Experiences Appendix D: Key Studies on Accountability and Assessment in Preservice Teaching Appendix E: Studies on Recruitment and Retention of Teachers Appendix F: Studies on Training with Diverse Student Populations Appendix G: Studies on Diverse School Environments Appendix H: Studies on Effects of Supervision of Preservice Teachers Appendix I: Studies about Length of Time Spent in Field Based Experiences Appendix J: Examples of Research, Studies, and Literature Reviews on the Range of Time Spent in Field Experiences Appendix K: PTPPO Survey Cover Letter Appendix L: PTPPO Survey Appendix M: Formal Observation Form/Rubric for Supervisor (FO) Appendix N: Two Examples of Formal Observations (FO) for Block IV Appendix O: Final Evaluation Form Appendix P: Feedback Process Appendix Q: Data Collection Schedule for Blocks II - IV 149 150 151 153 154 157 159 .160 142 143 144 146 147 148 139 140 141
The Impact of Supervised viii The Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Cohort Progression from Blocks II through IV Table 2: Domains of Professional Competence Table 3: Example of the Quantity of Observations and Feedback Opportunities Provided to Preservice Teachers by Semester Table 4: Demographics from Practicing Teachers Who Returned the PTPPO Survey Table 5: Accountability Report of Data from Elementary School A during Block II Practicum Placement Table 6: Accountability Report of Data from Elementary School B during Block III Practicum Placement Table 7: Accountability Report of Data from Elementary School C during Block IV Practicum Placement Table 8: Example of the Way in Which Preservice Teachers were Placed in Practicum Classes Table 9: Characteristics of Teaching Table 10: Interrater Reliability on Formal Observations between a Supervisor and an NGSS Table 11: Formal Observation Training Schedule for New Graduate Student Supervisors (NGSS) Table 12: Mean and Standard Deviation for Lead Teacher Final Evaluations of Practicum Students by Block (n=31) Table 13: Mean and Standard Deviation of Formal Observations by Blocks and Items (n=31) Table 14: Performance of Preservice Teachers by Achievement Levels for Formal Observations and Final Evaluations for Blocks II, III, and IV 58 61 15 18
48 51 54 56 57
65 70 77 79 81
The Impact of Supervised ix
Table 15: Correlations of Formal Observations by Supervisors and Final Evaluations by Lead Teachers: Blocks II, III, and IV 83
Table 16: Regression Results for Predictors of Lead Teacher Final Evaluation . . . . 85 Table 17: Formal Observations for Block II to Block IV by Preservice Teacher Achievement Levels Table 18: Rate of Improvement between Each Block by Achievement Levels Table 19: Overall Mean Scores for Usefulness Items from the Returned PTPPO Surveys (n=12) Table 20: Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Observations Table 21: Supervision of Blocks for Preservice Teachers in this Study during Semesters Spring 2006 to Fall 2007 Table 22: Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Supervisors Ill 112 95 108 87 88
Table 23: Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Variety of Experiences 122 Table 24: Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Connections to Coursework 123 Table 25: Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Feedback......... 124
The Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Main components of the blocked field based experiences Figure 2: Continuum of teacher preparedness from findings from Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow Figure 3: Continuum of field based experiences Figure 4: Flow chart of the study Figure 5: Summative formal observations from Block II to Block IV by achievement levels Figure 6: Planning (PL) composite scores by achievement levels and blocks Figure 7: Teaching (Teach) composite scores by achievement levels and blocks . . . . 89 90 91 29 39 46 12
Figure 8: Professionalism (Prof) composite scores by achievement levels and blocks . 92 Figure 9: Mean scores for PTPPO usefulness items by achievement levels Figure 10: Mean scores for PTPPO preparation item by achievement levels Figure 11: Mean scores for sufficient time item by achievement levels Figure 12: Mean scores for PTPPO quantity of observations item by achievement levels 96 97 97
99
The Impact of Supervised The Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers CHAPTER ONE Introduction Overview
The quality and relevance of university-based teacher preparation has become the subject of increasing debate in recent years (Levine, 2006; Teach for America, 2008). Changes in law and policy emphasizing teacher quality and content knowledge have facilitated necessary changes in university teacher education programs. Recent federal policies, such as Title II of the Higher Education Act, professional accreditation requirements, and licensure regulations in many states have prompted teacher preparation programs to reconsider traditional practices of training future teachers. Further, the recent trend toward data-driven decision making in public schools has encouraged teacher educators to evaluate existing programs in order to meet the needs of a changing elementary and secondary student population. Historical Overview of Teacher Education The education of America's children is a public interest. As such, education and all of its components (teaching, teacher education, leadership, professional development, etc.) has consistently been the subject of public scrutiny. For example, practices related to teachers' preparation and roles that reflected the public interest in the mid 1800s included:
Teachers taught during the winter and summer so that the children could help with planting and harvesting in the spring and fall.
Teachers sharpened pens by whittling nibs for use by children in their classrooms. Chalkboards and chalk were teaching technologies.
Teachers taught few subjects, but were able to spend a long time on each subject. For example, teachers instructed how to do the basics of arithmetic to children by using the numbers one through ten as their lessons for a complete year. (The History of Haine, 2008).
By the 1900s, education was moving into a time of more federal and state mandates and recommendations. Highlights of the changes seen in the Twentieth Century included the following: Teaching standards were raised and teachers, through college preparation courses, had to be certified or licensed to teach. Teachers were required to be prepared in the teaching of reading, writing, and math, as well as in other subjects such as science and history. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) was founded in 1954 as an independent agency to accredit teacher education programs. The launch of the Soviet satellite "Sputnik" in 1957 spurred higher curriculum standards for science and math education and was the precursor to many school reforms, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
The Impact of Supervised and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001. Sputnik resulted in changes in teacher preparation policy (Schrag, 2007). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 funded resources for professional development and educational programs such as Title I. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA or PL 94-142) of 1975 mandated that if public schools received federal funds, then they must provide equal access for children with disabilities, a free and appropriate
public education (FAPE), and provide and create Individual Educational Plans (IEPs) as well as procedures for disputes. This act has been reauthorized several times. In 1990 it was renamed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and in 2004 the name was modified to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. A variety of regulations have been added since its original passage, including stronger language regarding students with disabilities' access to the general education curriculum. A Nation at Risk: the Imperative for Educational Reform, the presidential commission's report of 1983, was a response to the belief that the educational system had not been adequately preparing students for the modern workforce. It surveyed studies that compared the U.S. system of education to other nations' systems and made a long list of recommendations for changes, including stricter content levels for high school graduation with four years of English, math and science; higher standards for admission to colleges; longer
The Impact of Supervised school hours and school years in the public schools; and demonstration of teacher competence (A Nation at Risk, 1983). The Regular Education Initiative, introduced by Assistant Secretary of Education Madeline Will in 1986, pronounced that all general education teachers be fully equipped to teach students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Smith & Dowdy, 1998). The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was established in 1987 as a result of A Nation at Risk. Teachers began working toward national certification for experienced teachers. The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), made up of state agencies and national education organizations, was established in 1987 with the goal of working on the "reform of preparation,
licensing, and on-going professional development of teachers" (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, 2007, p.l). INTASC created standards for areas of teacher licensing, and, in addition, standards were created for "principles for quality teacher preparation programs" (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, p.2). Present Policy on Teacher Quality In 1976 the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) formed a partnership to evaluate the quality of teacher preparation programs in special education, resulting in standards for special education teachers (NCATE/CEC Program Standards, 2002).
Additionally, in 2000, INTASC partnered with CEC to create standards for all beginning teachers in relation to teaching students with disabilities, based on the ten areas of new teacher competence for general education teachers (INTASC, 2007). The passage of NCLB in 2001 represented, in part, a federal initiative to enhance teacher quality. While there were many provisions directed toward establishing benchmarks and assessment systems for student achievement, the law also initiated changes in the requirements for teacher qualifications. Although states were allowed to establish various routes and standards for meeting the highly qualified provision of NCLB, generally the law resulted in increased coursework required of teachers and the passage of various proficiency examinations. More specifically, NCLB set the basic requirements that highly qualified teachers must have: 1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state license or certification, and 3) proof of knowledge of subjects teaching. In addition, states could develop alternative competency proof, especially for rural teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). As is often the case in education, the field is influenced by a variety of constituents. The federal government stepped in and asserted the expectation that all teachers be highly qualified. Individual states developed specific guidelines, but they had to conform to the federal criteria. Professional associations such as INTASC and NCATE represent another constituent group influencing teacher quality. However, the INTASC standards for new teachers, the NCATE requirements for accreditation of teacher education programs and the NCLB provisions do not match. Therefore, teacher
The Impact of Supervised preparation programs must navigate between various sets of policy guidelines and mandates. Features of Effective Teacher Preparation Programs Reviewing research literature on teacher preparation programs that produce effective teachers, Brownell, Ross, Colon, and McCallum (2005) identified seven common features of effective teacher education programs. These features included,
among other components, making connections between coursework and field experiences and having diverse experiences with supervision. Field experiences played a central role in several of the features of effective teacher preparation programs. The effective teacher education programs evidenced coherent connections between coursework and field experience and clearly articulated this to preservice teachers. Preservice teachers were also held accountable for using the research-based practices taught in the coursework in their fieldwork. In addition, in the best programs, preservice teachers working in classrooms were observed and provided with consistent feedback about their performance by supervisors (Brownell et al., 2005). As demonstrated in the findings of Brownell et al. (2005), student teaching after the completion of coursework is not sufficient as the only field experience in teacher preparation programs. Preservice teacher preparation must include ample opportunity to experience all aspects of a teacher's role. This feature of field experience embedded over time in preparation programs honors the needs of children by not entrusting them to beginners who have not had sufficient experience in a classroom. Embedded field experiences help assure preservice teachers and the teacher education programs of the
The Impact of Supervised candidates' suitability for teaching. School districts also have more confidence in novice teachers who have had more extensive supervised experiences prior to their initial paid teaching positions. Challenges for Today's Children Not only have the standards and expectations of teachers evolved over time,
children in today's schools face a host of new challenges. Children come to school from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. However, even as the demographics of the population change, the teaching force remains predominately white and female (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). Research suggests that students of color would be better served by seeing role models (teachers) from their own culture (Zumwalt & Craig). Further, white teachers' abilities to understand cultural differences in diverse classrooms have come under scrutiny (Pennington, 2007). Besides the cultural divide between teachers and their students, the notion of the nuclear family has changed. While some children have a traditional two-parent family, many have grandparents raising them and others are in foster care. Children from divorced families have two homes and share time between both parents. Other children live in single parent households. In addition, the basic idea that families have a mother and a father must also be challenged. Many gay couples are choosing parenthood, breaking the stereotype of the American family. Further, the number of children in transition (homeless) is rising, a trend that is likely to increase (Ashford, 2009). Some children begin school already able to read and write. Early childhood education provided by professionals or by family members ensures that some students
The Impact of Supervised enter school ready to learn. However, an increasing number of students are entering school with special needs in several areas, including learning and behavior challenges (Banks, Cochran-Smith, Moll, Richert, Zeichner, LaPage, et al., 2005). Additionally, all over the United States today, students whose first language is other than English and are
considered English Language Learners are now a large part of the classroom environment in all levels of education (Hollins & Guzman, 2005). The numbers of children from low income families have increased in the schools. In 2001, 16% of children were from low income families nationwide. By 2007, that figure rose to 18% (Chau & Douglas-Hall, 2008). It is predicted that this rise will continue (Parrott, 2008). Some children come to school with an eager-to-learn attitude from their parents and siblings, while other children come to school with negative attitudes toward school and learning that reflects the negative feelings their parents have toward education and schools. These trends are reflected in graduation and completion rates. For example, in Nevada, for 2007-2008 the number of students who graduated with a diploma was 67.4% (Nevada Report Card, 2008). The trends described further highlight the necessity for teachers to be well prepared to teach high-level content to students in a variety of ways, in order to reach the diverse population of students and maintain their achievement through the completion of high school. The Challenge of Preparing Today's Teachers Prior to and after the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), long-running discussions and debates (Darling-Hammond, 2000b; Goodman, 1985; McLeskey &
The Impact of Supervised Ross, 2004; Zeichner & Schulte, 2001) appeared in the literature regarding teacher knowledge (what teachers need to know), skills (what teachers are able to do), and
dispositions (beliefs about teaching and students). Fueling the dialog were the changes to the standards and process of accreditation used by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in their 2000 performance standards. These changes increased requirements for assessment of candidate performance and changed the paradigm from documenting what the teacher preparation program presented to its candidates to documenting what the candidates knew and were able to do as a result of completing the program. Discussions and position statements on the effectiveness of traditional university-based teacher education programs and the need to consider alternative teacher preparation programs frequently appeared in the literature as well (Will, 2009). From this polarizing rhetoric, the importance of a quality teaching force has emerged as a critical need in this country (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2004; DarlingHammond, 2000a). Colleges of education are now faced with preparing a teacher work force that meets the increased standards for highly qualified teachers contained in NCLB and IDEA; demonstrates the performance standards set by NCATE and INTASC; and knows how to respond to the changing characteristics of the student population. Renewed and appropriate emphasis on student learning forces those involved in teacher education to rethink the process for preparing teachers. Old standards of assessing the quality of teacher preparation, such as the components of coursework and how instruction was
The Impact of Supervised delivered in college courses, are being replaced with assessments of teacher candidate performance and their effect on the learning of K-12 students.
10
In summary, teacher preparation programs at the college level need to respond to the changes in law and policy, to increased rigor in teacher standards, and to the everchanging K-12 classroom environment. Research suggests that novice teachers need to be exposed to an assortment of supervisedfield-basedteaching experiences prior to assuming responsibility for students' learning. Teacher preparation programs need to be coherent and have high expectations for candidate performance (Brownell et al., 2005). Further, programs for preservice teachers' preparation need to be constantly evaluated, reviewed and updated in order to produce strong, highly qualified teachers (DarlingHammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). Statement of the Problem Research on teacher preparation programs suggested thatfieldbased practicum experiences are an important component of what preservice teachers need to be well prepared (Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005; Denton, 1982). While the literature is consistent on the importance of practicum experiences, the details and characteristics of strongfieldbased experiences have not been well defined. Areas in need of further study include the optimal amount offieldexperience needed by teacher candidates, the nature offieldexperiences that best prepare candidates for the demands of teaching, and the best ways to connect thefieldexperiences to university coursework. Finally, research indicates that supervision of preservice teachers in their practicum experiences while working with children is an important part of their learning experience
11
(Fayne, 2007). However, the amount and type of supervision is not well defined. Clearer delineation of effective practices in these areas would make important contributions to the study of preservice teacher preparation and provide guidelines for program design. Definitions of Terms It is necessary to discuss some of the vocabulary used in this study so that there is a common understanding of key terms. The following section contains definitions of the key terms used in this study. Integrated Elementary/Special Education Teacher Education Program The Integrated Elementary/Special Education Teacher Education program was the teacher preparation program that provided the context for this study. The program was housed in the college of education at a state-supported university of approximately 15,000 students located in the Western United States. The program consisted of 128 credits and resulted in a Bachelor of Science degree. Candidates prepared in this program were dual majors who were eligible for state teacher licensure in both elementary education (K-8) and in special education of children with mild-moderate disabilities (K12). The college of education was NCATE accredited. Admission to the integrated program occurred after premajors have completed at least 30 credits and it required a grade point average of 2.75 or higher on all college level work, passing scores on the PreProfessional Skills Test (PRAXIS I), and letters of recommendation from persons who could judge the applicant's potential for teaching. Approximately 25 students were admitted to this program each semester and they progressed through the program as a cohort, taking courses arranged in semester-long "blocks" (see Figure 1). The
The Impact of Supervised culminating experience in the program was the 20-week supervised internship (student teaching) in which candidates worked full time for 10 weeks in an elementary program and 10 weeks in a special education program.
12
On a side note, although this program was called an "integrated" program within this university, according to Blanton and Pugach (2007), there are three types of teacher preparation programs based on "the degree of collaboration among faculty ..., and the extent to which auricular components from general and special education programs are integrated" (p. 9). These three types of models, in their terminology, are the Discrete Model, the Integrated Model, and the Merged Model. Blanton and Pugach referred to the program at the University of Nevada, Reno as a merged program. Such a Merged Model is a program in which graduates are certified in both special education and general education. The program at UNR contained courses in both areas with a strong overlap. In all three of these models, field based experiences were a part of the program. Figure 1. Main components of the blocked field based experiences. A University Teacher Preparation Program Blocked Field Based Experience Program has four semesters of field experiences.
University methods courses are connected to the field experience.
Three semesters of field experience are supervised with extensive feedback.
The Impact of Supervised Block Program The Integrated Elementary/Special Education Program used a cohort model in which admitted teacher candidates progressed through a set of courses at the university arranged in four semester-long "blocks", ending with student internship (student
13
teaching) during the fifth semester. Each preservice block was designated with a number
i-rv.
In the UNR program, during Block I, preservice teachers (premajors prior to their full admission to the Integrated Program) were placed in schools for only 27-30 hours during that semester. They were not placed as a cohort, nor did they have university supervision in that block. They were, however, evaluated by their lead teachers. In Blocks II, III and IV in the practicum classes, for their field experiences preservice teachers were placed at different schools for six hours each week for approximately twelve weeks during each of those three semesters. During these three blocks, university supervisors observed the preservice teachers both informally and formally in a variety of areas while they worked in classrooms. For each of these three blocks, the lead teachers completed a final evaluation for each preservice teacher. (See Appendix A for a graphic representation of Blocks I - IV). Over time, expectations of preservice teachers increased as they progressed on a continuum from Block II through Block IV. Supervisors began critically viewing preservice teachers as more experienced in practicum classroom matters and they paid greater attention to detail in the lessons taught by the preservice teachers. Each semester, the number of university classes and the rigor between the blocks was different, with the
The Impact of Supervised focus for each block's practicum experiences changing. For example, in Block II, the preservice teachers learned to work with small groups of students, including students with special needs, while they applied what they learned in their university classes in
14
literacy, assessment, and math/science/technology. For their two formal observations, the practicum supervisors expected the preservice teachers to teach lessons with small groups of students during the field experience. In Block m, preservice teachers worked with and taught lessons to larger groups of students or the whole class. In this block, more was expected of the preservice teachers when they were in the classrooms than during Block II. During Block III, they connected their university classes in reading, math, social studies, and special education curriculum to the classroom environment. They were formally observed two times by the supervisors during Block 111. In Block IV, during their field experiences, preservice teachers worked with classroom students who struggled with their learning or who had special needs. Preservice teachers connected their university classes in tutoring reading, science, behavior modification, and case management in special education to their practicum classroom. During Block IV, the university supervisors formally observed the preservice teachers three times and placed a strong emphasis on behavior management and assessment during the lessons. Table 1 shows how the university classes and field based experiences in the blocks progressed. Because Block I was considered the "Exploring" Block and served as an orientation to teaching, only Blocks II - IV were a part of this study. Not all students who
The Impact of Supervised participated in Block I entered the teacher education program. Students may have taken Block I before they applied to and were admitted into the program and often did not continue as part of the cohorts. There was a practicum portion attached to Block I, but on-site supervision was not done by the university. The heart of the Integrated Program began with Block II. Table 1 Cohort Progression from Blocks II through IV
Block University Classes Practicum Focus Amount of formal & (informal) observations
15
Days at School Site
II
Literacy in Elementary/ Special Education: K-3 Science, Math, Technology Assessment for Special Ed. Developing Practicum Literacy for Elementary/Special Education: 4-8 Math for Elementary/Special Ed. Social Studies for Elementary/Special Ed. Elementary Special Ed. Curriculum Engaging Practicum Literacy Instruction for Individuals and Small Groups Behavior Management for Special Ed. Case Management for Special Ed. Science for Elementary/ Special Ed. Refining Practicum
Small group instruction
2 (3)
1 day per week
III
Large group/ whole class instruction
2 (4)
1 day per week
IV
Struggling students
3 (5)
3 afternoons per week
The Impact of Supervised Field Experiences or Practicum Experiences
16
The terms "field experience" or "practicum" are used interchangeably. They refer to the practicum/seminar courses that accompany the three blocks of courses that precede the supervised internship in the Integrated Elementary/Special Education Program. Each practicum consists of six or more hours of classroom experience per week for no less than ten weeks (numbers of weeks vary somewhat depending on holiday schedules and semester configuration). These three field experiences are in public school classrooms with assigned lead teachers and are supervised by university personnel. Preservice Teacher In this study the term "preservice teacher" refers to undergraduate students who were admitted to and were taking classes in the Integrated Elementary/Special Education Program in the 2006-2007 academic year and who had not yet begun their 20-week supervised internship. Lead Teacher "Lead teachers" were experienced in-service teachers employed at the schools selected for the field experiences in the Integrated Elementary/Special Education Program. For this study, the lead teachers volunteered to have practicum students in their classrooms. The school principals approved the lead teachers as being appropriate to model and evaluate the preservice teachers. Supervisor In this study, a "supervisor" was a university faculty member or a trained graduate student who was present at the practicum school site during practicum time to work with
17
preservice teachers in their assigned classrooms. These supervisors were responsible for informal and formal observations of the preservice teachers while they were in classrooms, and for giving feedback to the preservice teachers on what was observed. Additionally, they took attendance, held seminars for the preservice teachers to help connect information learned in university courses, and met with the lead teachers to ensure that preservice teachers had a good experience in the classrooms. A New Graduate Student Supervisor (NGSS) was a supervisor who was a graduate student without K-12 teaching experience but who was trained extensively by the supervisor to provide high-quality feedback to the teacher candidates. The NGSS observed the preservice teachers both informally and formally in classrooms at the practicum site. Formal Observation A "formal observation" is defined as the observation of a lesson taught by a candidate and observed by a university supervisor using a specific observation rubric during field experiences in Blocks II, III, and IV. The preservice teachers taught the observed lessons to small groups, to a whole class, or to an individual student. Before an observation, the preservice teachers gave the supervisor a written lesson plan. The formal observations lasted between 30-45 minutes. Verbal feedback was given by the supervisor after the formal observation. Written feedback was also provided to the preservice teacher and kept in university records.
The Impact of Supervised Final Evaluation The "final evaluation" was an eleven-item questionnaire about the preservice teachers completed by the lead teachers at the end of each semester during the blocks.
18
The items on the final evaluation were based on five domains of professional competence (UNR, College of Education, Professional Performance Assessment in Integrated Elementary/Special Education Programs, 2004, p. 3) that were a part of the performance assessment for preservice teachers in the College of Education. These domains were (a) Knowledge of Students and Learning Environments, (b) Knowledge of Subject Matter and Planning, (c) Delivery and Management of Instruction, (d) Assessment, and (d) Professionalism (UNR, 2004). Table 2 shows these domains. Table 2 Domains of Professional Domains I II HI IV V Competence Areas Covered Knowledge of Students & Learning Environments Knowledge of Subject Matter & Planning Delivery & Management of Instruction Assessment Professionalism
Retrieved from http://www.unr.edu/educ/eds/documents/perfAssess.pdf on 7/25/08 Practicing Teacher In this study, a "practicing teacher" was one who was a preservice teacher during the fall and spring semesters of 2006-2007, and who graduated from the Integrated Elementary/Special Education Program, completed all requirements for licensure and, at the time of this study, was employed in a public school classroom.
The Impact of Supervised PTPPO Survey
19
The Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of Practicum Observations Survey (PTPPO) was a survey emailed to practicing teachers who had been preservice teachers during the 2006-2007 academic year. Summary "Change is the law of life and those who only look to the past or present are certain to miss the future" (Kennedy, 1963). Teacher preparation is under intense scrutiny to produce educators who can have a positive impact on the learning of the students they teach. Professional literature suggests an important component of effective teacher preparation is the inclusion of coherent and systematic field experiences. The current study attempts to answer questions about the role of supervision and its impact on field experiences in one teacher preparation program. The next chapter will explore the literature on preservice teacher preparation and what is known about the role of field experiences.
The Impact of Supervised CHAPTER TWO Literature Review Overview This literature review first considers the general features of effective overall teacher preparation programs and the importance of the field based experience for preservice teachers. The literature review will then consider research specific to the amount of time spent by preservice teachers in field experiences with supervision,
20
looking in particular at the continuum of field based experiences, with an overview of the field based program where research was conducted for this dissertation. Features of Effective Teacher Preparation Programs Brownell, Ross, Colon, and McCallum (2005) reviewed literature describing teacher preparation programs. They focused on determing what experiences made an effective novice teacher. When doing this review, Brownell et al. looked at 15 teacher preparation programs. Seven of these programs were a part of studies funded by the Association of American Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE). Eight of these programs were funded by the International Reading Association (IRA). In reviewing these studies, Brownell et al. found that there were seven features that were common to effective teacher education programs including: 1) a commonality of vision between coursework and field experiences; 2) the ability of students to connect what they learn in their courses to classroom practice; 3) field experiences with supervision; 4) standards maintained by faculty for student progress; 5) faculty assistance of students in connecting what they have learned to practice; 6) diversity as a part of courses and field experiences;
21
and 7) collaboration as a strong piece of the programs. Clearly, field experience was the dominant theme that ran through the features of effective teacher education programs. In examining these various preparation programs, Brownell et al. (2005) presented a thorough literature review, but did not give details about how much time or how many days in the field equate to an extensive field experience. Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002) supported Brownell et al., asserting that teacher preparation is an important part to ensure that a teacher will be effective. The article by Darling-Hammond and Youngs was a response to the United States Secretary of Education's Annual Report validating evidence that supported the importance of teacher preparation. It did not, however, include detailed descriptions of the components of ideal field based experiences. Some of the questions remaining included how much field experience do preservice teachers need, what type of experiences do they require, and how much supervision is optimal? In testimony given before the Committee on Education and Labor, Hardman (2007) also discussed that field experience is an important part of the preparation of preservice teachers. Hardman further outlined the importance of field experiences with feedback in the preparation of teachers and clarified one of the questions about field experience that was missing from Brownell et al. (2005) and Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002). Hardman showed that preservice teachers should be in teacher preparation programs that have common curriculum connected to field experience, so that preservice teachers can learn to work with all students from a variety of diverse backgrounds. Though his findings pointed to the importance of systematic field
The Impact of Supervised experiences combined with structured observations and feedback, there was still not a definitive answer as to how much field experience was needed and how much
22
supervision was enough. These are important questions for teacher preparation programs that are presently unanswered. This dissertation study will examine two key features of field experience for preservice teachers: the amount and type of supervision and the amount of time in field experiences that is optimal for teacher preparation programs. (See Appendix B for key points specifically from Brownell et al. and Hardman.) Importance of Preparation through Field Based Experience In the past several decades, the importance of good teacher preparation has become even more critical because of general public dissatisfaction with public education that resulted in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This mirrored earlier policy documents such as A Nation at Risk (1983). A large amount of research took place as public scrutiny focused on traditional teacher preparation programs in colleges and universities. Clearly, preservice teacher preparation programs need to provide highly qualified graduates who can (a) teach basic skills, (b) connect their university methods courses to the classroom environment, (c) teach to an increasingly diverse population of students in a variety of school environments, and (d) make measurable differences in student learning. Additionally, teacher preparation programs need to graduate teachers who are confident in their teaching so that they will stay in the teaching profession past the first few years (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2004). Each of these elements is discussed further.
The Impact of Supervised Preparation of Basic Teaching Skills
23
For preservice teachers in their field based experiences, time in classrooms should involve planning and teaching lessons, as well as individual interaction with students in the classroom, working with small groups, and teaching experiences with small and whole groups (Bullough, Young, Erickson, Birrell, Clark, Egan et al., 2002). Essentially, preservice teachers are learning and practicing the work of their master teachers in order to learn the most fundamental skills of teaching. Multiple research studies support the importance of allowing preservice teachers the opportunity to work in classrooms during field based experiences so that they can collaborate with master teachers, observe effective teaching, and see inclusion and differentiated instruction as a part of the classroom. They also receive feedback and support from their supervisors and lead teachers as they use what they have learned to teach classroom students. Connections to coursework. One reason that field based experiences within teacher preparation programs are important for preservice teachers to develop their teaching skills is to give them opportunities to apply university methods coursework to actual classroom situations, including working with students with special needs. Kim, Andrews, and Carr (2004) conducted a study of two different teacher preparation programs. Preservice teachers were randomly placed into one of the two programs. The first program had a field based experience component; however, the experiences were not connected to specific coursework. In the second program, there was also a field based experience component, but this component was connected to the preservice teachers' university coursework. Preservice teachers from the second program felt better prepared
The Impact of Supervised to teach than those in the first program. Kim et al. concluded that specific field based
24
experiences connected to university coursework resulted in preservice teachers who felt more prepared to teach. In 1982, Jon Denton conducted an interesting study about how early field experiences affect future methods courses in teacher preparation. He used two groups of preservice teachers. One group took his methods course without having any previous field experience; additionally, there was no field experience required for the course. Another group of preservice teachers took his course after completing a semester of supervised field experience in which they spent thirty hours in the field. His methods course was taken two semesters after the field experience. The whole idea behind the study was to see if the students did better in a university methods course after completing time in the field several semesters before the course. The field experience from his study did not connect to university methods courses, and at no point did Denton write about how effective the field experience might be if it were connected to university methods courses, but he found that early field experiences are important for preservice teachers, though he also did not state how much field experience would be important. Moore (2003) examined the field experiences of 77 preservice teachers who were connected to their methods courses in reading and language arts over three consecutive semesters before student teaching. These practicum experiences consisted of three weeks of practicum time in which the preservice teachers were at the practicum placement every day. Data for this study were collected in the final semester prior to student teaching. During this time, the preservice teachers worked with a master teacher and two
The Impact of Supervised supervisors in developing daily language arts lessons, providing instruction, and assessing student performance. Moore demonstrated in her study that support for
25
effective teaching skills given at an early stage in their teaching careers helped preservice teachers during their student teaching and their first years of teaching. (See Appendix C for a summary of the key studies from this section.) Assessment and accountability. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), outcomes for all children are measured, and schools and teachers are held accountable for poor student performance. This has become one more area of consideration for the training of new teachers in their preservice experiences. Browder, Karvonen, Davis, Fallin, and Courtade-Little (2005) conducted a research study in which they trained teachers to use specific strategies with students with special needs, in order to help improve scores on alternative assessments used to measure student achievement. These alternative assessments were a part of accountability measures that were done because of NCLB. Browder et al. found that when teachers were trained to use these methods, scores on tests improved and this carried over into the students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). In this study, 26 of the 28 students improved. Overall, students demonstrated improvement of more than 50%, as measured by the alternative assessments. Teachers learned to align assessment and instruction which resulted in a difference in student performance. Learning to deal with on-going accountability procedures is necessary for future teachers in classrooms at all grade levels, in order for all of their students to grow and succeed.
The Impact of Supervised Even before they enter the classroom, it is important for preservice teachers to learn their responsibilities in terms of accountability and student outcomes. In their chapter on assessment from the book Preparing Teachers for a Changing World,
26
Shephard, Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, Rust, Snowden, Gordon et al. (2005) discuss the importance of preservice teachers' abilities to connect learning to assessment. In a study completed on how research based practices affected student learning when used in classrooms in which children with special needs were included, Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, and Menendez (2003) examined bridging the research-to-practice gap between what was known to work and what was actually used by teachers in the classroom. This study was conducted with elementary general and special education teachers who had attended summer training on how to use four reading practices. One focus of the study was to determine best practices in preparing teachers to work effectively with students with special needs. They concluded that students benefit when their teachers use research based practices in the classroom. Similarly, Nougaret, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2005) found that first year teachers did better in their instructional areas than did those with emergency licenses or who were a part of nontraditional teacher preparation programs. Their classroom teaching was of better quality and student performance was positively affected. Teachers and preservice teachers can make a difference in student learning if a teacher has a strong knowledge of accountability and comes to the classroom ready to teach skills and challenge students. Schalock's 1998 study utilized Teacher Work Sample Methodology (TWSM) as one method for demonstrating K-12 student learning while
The Impact of Supervised under the instruction of a preservice teacher. Preservice teachers utilized the TWSM as
27
evidence of their ability to connect their classroom instruction to assessment and thus to student performance and achievement. (See Appendix D for key research from some authors of studies in this section.) Recruitment and Retention of Teachers Another reason that field experience is important in teacher preparation is for the recruitment and later retention of teachers. States are experiencing an increase in the need for teachers to fill positions left by instructors retiring from or vacating the teaching field (attrition), or for those who have changed teaching jobs within the field (migration) (Ingersoll and Smith, 2003). In their syntheses of research on teacher retention, Billingsley and McLeskey (2004) looked at the problem with supply and demand of special education teachers and found that shortages were significant. These shortages have brought about different ways for teachers to become certified, including alternative methods such as allowing content tests to serve as a sole measurement of competence to teach. Billingsley and McLeskey further found that some of these alternative certification routes do not include any university course work or requirement for supervised field experience prior to certification. One of these alternative teacher preparation programs, Teach for America, was discussed. Teach for America (TFA), developed in 1990, is a program that hires college graduates to teach at schools in low socio-economic areas for at least two years. If these college graduates are not certified teachers, TFA puts them through short five-week
28
summer trainings before placing the graduates into the schools (Teach for America, 2008; Veltri, 2008). There is no field experience - an interesting case for this discussion. There have been several studies focusing on various aspects of TFA since its inception. Researchers have evaluated TFA in terms of student achievement (LaczkoKerr & Berliner, 2002), teacher self-perception of readiness (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002), and personal experiences of TFA teachers and the traditionally trained teachers working with them (Veltri, 2008). In all of these studies, the teachers trained through the TFA program were found to be lacking in measures of readiness (through teacher self-report) and student achievement. TFA participants acknowledged their lack of training and experience and the impact it might have had on their students. One participant in the study by Veltri (2008) stated, "My students need experienced teachers who know what works and can implement it effectively. Instead they have me, and though I am learning quickly, I'm still learning on them, experimenting on them, working on their time" (p. 531). While Veltri's study utilized interviews with individuals and detailed case studies, Darling-Hammond et al. used a large-scale survey to examine the preparation perception of teachers with three years or less of teaching experience. The researchers compared the responses of TFA-trained teachers and those trained in traditional teacher preparation programs. They found that there was a correlation between the amount of preparation teachers received and the teachers' perceptions of their own readiness to teach. DarlingHammond et al. findings suggested a continuum of preparedness as seen in Figure 2.
The Impact of Supervised Figure 2. Continuum of teacher preparedness from findings from Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow. Continuum of Teacher Preparedness
29
previous preparation
Little preservice preparation.
Preparation at several different institutions.
Preparation in one teacher preparation program.
Laczko-Kerr and Berliner (2002) conducted a study in which they examined the achievement of students taught by TFA-trained teachers, compared to traditionally trained teachers. They found that students taught by TFA-trained teachers did not do as well on core curriculum tests as students taught by traditionally prepared teachers. This extensive study was silent on the issues of how much and what kinds of field based experience were optimal for the preparation of preservice teachers. The authors stated that there was little evidence in these areas. The answers to these questions continue to be elusive. Additional studies have focused on other alternative certification methods. Berry (2001) reported that as of the date of his research study, 41 states had some form of alternative certification method for teachers. In discussing components of high quality alternative programs, he noted that intensive and extensive field experiences should be
The Impact of Supervised required. Echoing the Laczko-Kerr and Berliner study of 2002, Nougaret, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2005) found that teachers who received certification through alternative
30
routes or those teaching with emergency licenses did not fare as well as teachers trained through traditional programs when measured by observations of classroom teaching and student performance. These studies reflect the problem of alternative teacher preparation programs. Teach for America and other alternative teacher preparation programs do not include a field based component and put teachers who have not been through a traditional teacher preparation program in at-risk schools (Laczko-Kerr and Berliner, 2000). Too often, teachers certified through these alternative routes have been placed in high-risk, urban schools with culturally and linguistically diverse populations (Berry, 2001; DarlingHammond, 1997). These are the most challenging school situations, but staffed with the least prepared teachers from these alternative programs. As Berry (2001) notes, there are no shortcuts to teacher preparation - candidates still need intensive field experiences under direct supervision in a licensure program of 9 to 15 months. (Appendix E summarizes the information from the authors included in this section.) Preparation to Teach in Diverse Student Populations Another aspect of teacher training is preparing future teachers for classrooms of very diverse students. Although most public school teachers are female, white and middle-class (Hollins and Guzman, 2005; Zumwalt and Craig, 2005), the demographics of classrooms in the United States have changed dramatically in the last few decades. For example, in a chapter on what classroom teachers need to know to be able to teach
The Impact of Supervised diverse learners, Banks, Cochran-Smith, Moll, Richert, Zeichner, LePage, et al. (2005)
31
cited information from the National Center for Education Statistics that students of color rose from 22% of school populations in 1972 to 39% in 2000, and they predict that students of color will be a majority in 30 years. In addition, the number of English Language Learners (ELL) increased from 1977 to 1999 by 118% (Hollins and Guzman, 2005) and students with exceptional needs have also increased (Banks et al.). Through field based experiences, a number of studies have tackled the issue of preservice diversity training. In one research study that involved working with students in two different types of placements for their preservice teaching, Bullough et al. (2002), discussed that the more diverse the school and the experiences are in which preservice teachers are placed, the more prepared for teaching to diverse populations the preservice teachers will be. In another study of diversity training by Bell, Horn, and Roxas (2007), preservice teachers were given experiences outside of academic contexts and beyond the school situation through potlucks, field trips and even neighborhood tours and community projects, so that they could see the wider context of neighborhood and family from which their students came. This extended the field experience so that students could be a part of the whole teaching experience and see diversity in a variety of areas. They found that the more diverse the experience the preservice teachers had, the more their understanding of diversity grew. They noted that "...seeing students in multiple contexts, doing activities with non-traditional power dynamics, and connecting ideas to teaching and learning facilitated the development of more complex understandings of diversity" (Bell et al., p. 130). Baldwin, Buchanan, and Rudisill (2007) had similar findings and also
32
noted the value of field experience in diverse settings in which students are faced with the realities of today's complex teaching environments. (Appendix F has information on some of the diversity studies mentioned in this section.) Preparation to Teach in Diverse School Environments Preservice teachers need to be prepared for a variety of experiences in the ever changing school environments. However, with exposure to diverse settings during field based experiences, preconceived ideas and expectations that some preservice teachers have about teaching children and working with families from diverse backgrounds can be changed. For example, Veltri (2008) found that novice teachers with no previous experience in diverse school settings often viewed the day-to-day realities of an urban classroom through their own experiences. One TFA teacher in Veltri's study stated, "These students seem so lazy. I don't think the laziness is inherent; I think it comes as a result of the educational experience they've had" (p. 523). Teacher preparation programs need to include exposure to diverse schools so that graduates of these programs will be able to better understand students from a variety of diverse backgrounds (Baldwin et al., 2007). Because novice teachers have little choice of the school or grade level in which they will be placed for the first years of teaching, it is important for preservice teachers to experience different school placements during their field experiences. Exposure to schools that are at different socio-economic levels, have traditional versus year-round calendars, and have a variety of programs for children with special needs may ensure a smoother transition from student to teacher. While working
33
with master teachers in a variety of classroom situations, preservice teachers are likely to improve classroom management, lesson planning, and instruction (Moore, 2003). Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy (2002) conducted a review in which they examined research on five questions about teacher preparation programs. These five questions were centered on the learning of subject matter, pedagogical preparation, student teaching/field experiences, preservice teacher education, and nontraditional certification programs. In many instances, the authors found no research that gave direct answers to their questions, but did find research in each category that fit the criteria that they had established. In the area of field experiences, the authors found that different teaching environments can prepare teachers to work in a variety of subject areas, change preservice teachers' "initial stereotypic views" (p. 195), and help the preservice teachers to develop skills needed to survive the realities of today's urban classrooms. Billingsley, Carlson, and Klein (2004) conducted a study in which they looked at variables that impact the retention of novice special education teachers. A large sample of teachers who had been teaching five years or less was used for this study. Information was collected through telephone interviews and surveys. Billingsley et al. found through their research that "Mismatches between preservice preparation and actual working conditions likely contribute to the challenges of the first teaching years" (p. 344). Increased exposure to a variety of teaching experiences would help to ensure that preparation for preservice teachers would be useful during the first years of teaching. Multiple teaching environments help make certain that our new teachers are better prepared for whatever they are going to experience in their first years of teaching.
The Impact of Supervised Teachers prepared to meet multiple challenges will be more likely to give our children the best education possible. Additionally, better prepared preservice teachers are more
34
likely to stay in the teaching profession through at least their first five years. Ingersoll and Smith (2003) found in their study that between 40 and 50 percent of beginning teachers leave the profession within the first five years. Of these teachers who leave, about 66 percent leave because of two reasons: to get a better job or because of dissatisfaction with teaching. It costs districts money and time to continually find new teachers. Exposure to multiple teaching environments will make for a better prepared teacher and will give those teachers the experiences to do a better job. (Appendix G contains a summary of two of the authors and their studies from this section.) Requirements by NCATE and CEC A sign of recognition that field experiences are considered an important part of preservice teachers' training, field experience is reflected in the requirements of the National Council of Accreditation of Teachers (NCATE), the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), and in NCATE's Standard Three. CEC's website also has information about their standards, including the standard of field based experience. Standards from both NCATE and CEC indicate that coursework should be connected to the field experience. However, neither organization specifies exactly how much or how often field experience is needed in teacher preparation programs. Important Components of Field Based Experiences: Supervision and Time The wide range of studies considered thus far in this literature review have repeatedly demonstrated the numerous benefits of field based experiences for preservice
35
teachers - and that the lack of such field experience can be problematic. Basic questions about the components of the field based experiences themselves have not been addressed in the research. These are the questions that are examined in the current research study: the effect of supervision of preservice teachers, the amount of time spent in the field, and the perceived value of the experiences as reflected by the teachers once they are employed in the classroom. Research on Supervision of Preservice Teachers in Field Experiences Ideally, field experience supervised by university faculty aligns coursework and field experience and gives preservice teachers feedback on how theory and practice interface. This practice allows for additional feedback from university faculty on informal and formal observations. In a five-year study of supervisors and student teachers, Fayne (2007) collected survey data from student teachers after they completed their ten-week student teaching and during their first five years in the teaching profession. Fayne looked specifically at student teachers' ideas about supervisors and their roles in the student teaching process. She found that the support that supervisors gave to student teachers was a critical component. Support from university supervisors for preservice practicum students gave preservice teachers the needed foundation for their learning process. Goodman (1985) used a case study method in which he looked at preservice teachers in an elementary education teacher preparation program. The students in this program spent four quarters in field based practicum experiences. Goodman looked at field based experiences and their impact on preservice teachers, and he found that university supervisors were an important part of field experiences.
36
For the preservice teacher, learning to teach, even in the best of circumstances, is not easy. Coupled with environments in which there is little or no support from administration or faculty and staff for new teachers, and a situation results in which the attrition rate of novice teachers is high. Because of this, it is very important for preservice teachers to have multiple opportunities to learn to teach in supportive environments, with feedback from supervisors and lead teachers, so that when they begin in the teaching field, they will have the necessary skills to be effective teachers. Without these skills, teachers will continue to leave the field within the first five years of teaching at alarming rates (Berry, 2001; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). The ongoing cost to both the schools and our children is formidable. (Appendix H shows a review of research on supervision from this section.) Research on Amount of Time in Field Experiences Most research studies about field experiences of preservice teachers do not specifically focus on the amount of time spent in the field, but they do hint at how much is sufficient - or often insufficient. For example, Brown and Melear (2007) conducted a study in which preservice teachers did their science practicum in a science laboratory. Brown and Melear knew that practicum time was an opportunity for preservice teachers to use what had been taught in their methods classes, and they thought that this practice time would extend from the laboratory to the preservice teachers' future classrooms. However, during this practicum time, the preservice teachers had no support with feedback. Subsequently, their research found that, even though the novice teachers thought that the preservice experience was important, they did not transfer what they had
The Impact of Supervised learned while in the laboratories to their classrooms. Brown and Melear concluded that the preservice teachers needed more than a semester's length of time to work with scientific inquiry in their laboratory work, in order to transfer that experience into
37
practice in their classroom science teaching. Another conclusion was that the preservice teachers did not have the support needed to connect what they were doing in the laboratories to what they were learning in their methods classes. In another example, Prater and Sileo (2002) conducted a study in which they looked at university and college teacher preparation programs for special education teachers. They found that teacher educators now value quality field work experiences for preservice teachers.Through questionnaires, Prater and Sileo further found that the required hours in the field that supervisors spent with preservice teachers had a range of 0-533 hours, with an average of 163 hours. This showed a wide variation in the amount of hours, but their research did not delve into the effects of this variation or the impact of supervision and feedback. Dymond, Renzaglia, Halle, Chadsey and Bentz (2008) came to that same conclusion as Prater and Sileo, determining no clear-cut data on the length of field based experiences exist in the research literature. The amount of time spent in the field based experiences was another component that this study considered. (Appendix I summarizes these example studies about length of time in field based experiences. See also Appendix J for a more comprehensive list of the range of time in various studies on field experiences.)
The Impact of Supervised The Continuum of Field Based Experiences in Teacher Preparation Programs Across the United States, field based practicum experiences as required by
38
professional organizations and accrediting agencies are often a component in preservice teacher preparation programs at universities. A large number of universities have programs in which their preservice teachers are placed in classrooms with master teachers prior to their student teaching experience. These field based programs vary in the number of semesters of fieldwork required within programs, in the amount of time each week that preservice teachers spend at schools, and in the requirements of preservice teachers while they are in classrooms. The field based component of teacher preparation programs can be seen as a continuum ranging from programs with no field based experience, to programs with little field based experience, to those with extensive field based experience. Hollins and Guzman (2005) conducted a review of research examining the way in which preservice teachers are prepared to work in diverse environments. In their chapter about field based experiences, Hollins and Guzman discussed that field based experiences vary in the reasons for the experiences and the length of time that preservice teachers are involved in field based practicum placements, from a few hours during a few weeks to full-time during two semesters. In the literature for this research, there was a broad continuum for the amount of semesters of field based experiences required of preservice teachers. In addition, there was a wide range for the amount of days and hours those experiences included. A few examples are also included of studies in which the field based experiences were
The Impact of Supervised connected to university coursework, and some for which they were not. Figure 3 is a pictorial example of a continuum of field based experiences based on these qualifiers. (Appendix J shows some of the previously discussed studies and literature reviews demonstrating the continuum on range of time spent in field based experiences.) Figure 3. Continuum of field based experiences.
39
Continuum of Field Based Experiences
r^^
No field based experience is required.
< >
Required field based experience is equal to or less than one semester.
Required field based experience is more than one semester.
Summary Research suggests that preservice teachers need time to experience and observe classroom environments with supervision and feedback prior to student teaching. With more time in the field under the guidance of university supervisors and lead teachers, preservice teachers may also become more confident in their interactions with students in more than one grade level. They may become better prepared each semester of the preservice program, and they may be able to hone their skills so that they are ready to take on the demands of student teaching. Additionally, through field based classroom experiences, preservice teachers may become strong practicing teachers who make a difference in students' learning. In their chapter on The Design of Teacher Education
40
Programs in the book Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, Hammerness, DarlingHammond, Grossman, Rust, and Shulman (2005) report on a set of studies that showed, " . . . the group of teachers with more extensive field experiences and more education coursework produced stronger student gains on pre- and post-tests of learning within curriculum units... " (p. 411). As noted in these many research studies, field based experiences are a major component of quality teacher preparation programs. Indeed, as Dymond et al. (2008) noted in their recent study, "For many students, fieldwork experiences are viewed as the most important and influential component of their teacher preparation program" (p. 243). These experiences enable teachers who are new to the profession to better understand accountability and diversity of students from the beginning of their first year of teaching. Exposure to multiple school environments in practicum placements is a necessary part of their education, so preservice teachers can have a variety of learning experiences. Quality teacher education is essential for the continued growth of students in public schools (Hutchinson & Martin, 1999). New requirements through NCLB and NCATE necessitate that colleges of education take an in-depth look at their programs for preservice teachers, in order to examine the field based experiences as part of the educational process for preservice teachers, so that teacher education programs can become stronger. Colleges and universities with teacher preparation programs should be responsible for continuously examining these pieces of their programs, to ensure that their graduates are highly qualified to create a stronger school population.
The Impact of Supervised As Hammerness et al. (2005) state, " . . . powerful learning does not usually occur from letting a teacher 'sink or swim' in her practicum experience... but that guidance and
41
mentorship... are important for novices to receive the modeling, coaching, and feedback they need" (p.412). All of these components are critical, but more research is needed to answer some of the key questions about the structuring of field experiences that previous research has not focused much attention on: What are the effects of supervision during the field experience and how much time spent in field experiences is most beneficial to the preparation of preservice teachers? Only when these questions are better studied can colleges and universities look at their field based components to see how they can improve their overall teacher preparation programs. Research Questions The specific research questions for this study were drawn directly from many of the unanswered questions from previous research on the structure of field experiences in teacher preparation programs. Specifically, the research questions were: 1. What is the effect of consistent observation and feedback by trained supervisors on the teaching performance of preservice teachers? a. What is the relationship between the observation results and feedback provided to preservice teachers by university supervisors and classroom teachers (lead teachers)?
The Impact of Supervised b. Given consistent observation and feedback, do preservice teachers consistently improve their teaching practices over the three semesters of their field practica experience?
42
c. Is there a difference in the observed teaching performance in practicum for preservice teachers in the highest third of their cohort as measured by grade point average (GPA) in education coursework, compared to those in the middle third or the bottom third as measured by GPA? 2. What are the retrospective perceptions of practicing teachers on the impact of their preservice practicum experiences on their current day professional teaching? Specifically: a. How useful was the observation with feedback in improving their practice? b. How prepared did they feel for full-time teaching? c. How much time in practica do they perceive is enough to fully prepare them for student teaching and a full-time teaching position? d. Did students receive sufficient observation with feedback during their practica? Would they like more?
The Impact of Supervised CHAPTER THREE Methodology Overview This chapter discusses the research questions, design and methodology used in this study. Also included is a description of the sample and the procedure for data collection and data analysis. Research Questions
43
Research on field based practicum experiences for teacher preparation programs has not provided definite answers to questions concerning how many semesters of practicum time are sufficient, and how many hours per week of practicum time give the best experience for preservice teachers. Additionally, research has not come to any conclusions about how many observations with feedback from a supervisor are important for preservice teachers' growth. Most available research includes only one or two observations of preservice teachers prior to internship. This descriptive study examined the effect of consistent observations by trained supervisors, who then provided directed feedback to preservice teachers after each observation. The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, the study examined the effect of consistent observation with feedback by trained supervisors on the teaching performance of preservice teachers. Second, the study investigated the retrospective perceptions of practicing teachers of the impact of their preservice practicum experiences on their current day professional teaching.
The Impact of Supervised The research questions for this project were:
44
1. What is the effect of consistent observation and feedback by trained supervisors on the teaching performance of preservice teachers? a. What is the relationship between the observation results and feedback provided to preservice teachers by university supervisors and classroom teachers (lead teachers)? b. Given consistent observation and feedback, do preservice teachers consistently improve their teaching practices over the three semesters of their field practica experience? c. Is there a difference in the observed teaching performance in practicum for preservice teachers in the highest third of their cohort as measured by grade point average (GPA) in education coursework, compared to those in the middle third or the bottom third as measured by GPA? 2. What are the retrospective perceptions of practicing teachers on the impact of their preservice practicum experiences on their current day professional teaching? Specifically: a. How useful was the observation with feedback in improving their practice? b. How prepared did they feel for full-time teaching? c. How much time in practica do they perceive is enough to fully prepare them for student teaching and a full-time teaching position?
The Impact of Supervised d. Did students receive sufficient observation with feedback during their practica? Would they like more? Research Design This study used two data sets. Data for research question #1 were archived data, and data for research question #2 were current data. The data for both questions are discussed below. Research Question #1 For research question #1, archived data were used from two previous cohort
45
groups of preservice teachers. These preservice teachers completed their classes and their subsequent student teaching internships at the University of Nevada, Reno, and, at the time of the study, were either second year practicing teachers or had taught in the local school district for two semesters. The archived data consisted of data from formal observations completed by university supervisors and final evaluations completed by the lead teachers of the preservice teachers while they were in practicum classes in Blocks IIIV. Figure 4 presents a pictorial representation of the research questions plus the archived data and the current data sets. This figure shows how preservice teachers whose archived data were used to answer research question #1 were the same practicing teachers whose survey responses were used to answer research question #2.
The Impact of Supervised Figure 4. Flow chart of the study. Study: The Impact of Supervised Practicum Performance and Feedback on Preservice Teacher Development with Retrospective Perceptions of Practicing Teachers
46
Research Question One: What is the effect of consistent observation and feedback by trained supervisors on the teaching performance of preservice teachers?
Research Question Two: What are the retrospective perceptions of practicing teachers on the impact of their preservice practicum teaching experiences on their current day professional teaching?
Archived Data
Current Survey Data
Preservice Teachers
Practicing Teachers
Research Question Pretest-Posttest Observational Design This descriptive study was based on a "Pretest-Posttest" research design. Specifically, an initial observation, that took place while preservice teachers were instructing, was conducted during their Block II semester and served as the pretest. The number of observation and feedback sessions served as interventions in this study. (See Table 3). The final supervisor observation, which served as the posttest, and the final
The Impact of Supervised evaluation by the lead teacher represented the level to which each preservice teacher performed. Independent and dependent variables. The independent variable was the three
47
groups of achievers divided by GPA: high, medium, and low. The dependent variable for question #1 was preservice teacher instructing performance on their final formal observation. This performance included such components as: Was the preservice teacher prepared for the lesson? Was the lesson effectively taught? Did the teacher display professionalism? During observations of preservice teachers, supervisors consistently gave face-to-face feedback and precise information about the teaching. These feedback sessions were considered interventions, as they were expected to be used by the preservice teachers to improve their practice. According to Kennedy (2005), "interventions are referred to as independent variables... " (p. 44). Therefore, informal feedback provided by supervisors was considered an independent variable. Table 3 is the schedule for the archived observations collected for this study. The table highlights the number of interventions preservice teachers had with supervisors and lead teachers. Each of these interventions provided information designed to improve a preservice teacher's quality of instruction. This table shows an example of the sequence in which the data were collected and feedback was given in each block for one preservice teacher. A block represents a semester.
The Impact of Supervised Table 3
48
Example of the Quantity of Observation Opportunities Provided to Preservice Teachers by Semester in Blocks ll-TV Block (Sem.) II (2) HI (3) IV (4) (5) Schedule Formal Obs. Formal Obs. Formal Obs. Formal Obs. Formal Obs. Formal Obs. Formal Obs. Final Evaluation Final Evaluation Final Evaluation
Internship (student teaching)
Note: The observations were done by university supervisors. The evaluations were done by lead teachers. All feedback was given by university supervisors.
The archived data used in this study were observations of preservice teachers' performance in classrooms from spring 2006-fall 2007. These data were collected by university supervisors while observing participants working with students and teaching lessons in classrooms during practicum classes over three semesters in Blocks II-IV. These are the three semesters prior to student teaching. The archived data also included midterm and final evaluations from lead teachers during the same three semesters. The archived data were collected in real time and were considered post hoc data, that is, data that were examined after they were collected, as in research done by Cantrell, Liu, Leverington, and Ewing-Taylor (2007) in their study of integrating technology into middle school science classrooms.
The Impact of Supervised Research Question #2 Another important part of this study was practicing teachers' retrospective perceptions of the impact of the observation process with feedback during their preservice practica teaching. For this purpose, the Practicing Teacher Perceptions of
49
Practicum Observations (PTPPO) Survey, with cover letter consisting of closed and open ended items, was sent to practicing teachers who were former preservice teachers in the Elementary/ Special Education Teacher Education Program. (See Appendix L and M for a sample of the Cover Letter and the PTPPO survey). Data from practicing teachers were specific to participants' current perceptions of the evaluation process that took place during their practicum experiences for three semesters from fall 2006-fall 2007 for one group and spring 2006-spring 2007 for the other group. The current data were present time reflections of practicing teachers on their past practicum experiences, which provided a retrospective look at their practicum experiences. Figure 4, shown previously, is a flow chart of the study that represents the two research questions and the two data sets used in this study. Participants In this study, there was one group of participants who participated at two points in time (i.e. preservice teachers and later as practicing teachers). Research question #1 examined the participants in practicum settings while they were completing the teacher preparation and their college degree. For research question #2, the same participants had graduated and were now practicing teachers who agreed to reflect on their preservice teaching experiences.
The Impact of Supervised Participants as Preservice Teachers The participants in this study were preservice teachers (n=31) who graduated
50
from an integrated elementary special education teacher licensure program from a college of education in a western United States university. Participating in this study were 2 males and 29 females. The participants were admitted to the program after completing 30 credits at the college level, passing the Praxis I Basic Skills Test, and having a grade point average of 2.75. Upon completion of the program, preservice teachers received a Baccalaureate degree that included a teaching license in Elementary Education with certification in kindergarten through eighth grade, and a teaching license in Special Education with a Generalists' Endorsement for Mild-Moderate Disabilities in kindergarten through twelfth grade. For this study, participants were divided by the university Field Based Instructor (FBI) into three achievement groups (high, medium, and low) based on final grade point average upon graduation. For the purpose of this study, there were 9 high achieving, 15 medium achieving, and 7 low achieving preservice teachers. In Table 4, the practicing teachers are identified by these levels from their preservice time for the purpose of analyzing data. Participants as Practicing Teachers Practicing teachers participated in the PTPPO survey portion of this study to answer research question #2. These practicing teachers were the same preservice teachers who were observed during their practica placements. Practicing teachers were in their second semester of their first year of teaching or in their second full year of teaching. All
The Impact of Supervised but three of the practicing teachers were teaching in the local school district where they had completed their student teaching. Thirty-one sets of archived data (formal observations by university supervisors and final observations by lead teachers during preservice practica) were examined for
51
research question #1. Two of those whose archived data were examined did not have upto-date emails. Twenty-nine PTPPO surveys were sent out, and from these 29, 13 PTPPO surveys were returned. Of these 13, one was not teaching. Table 4 shows the demographics of the twelve participants who were practicing teachers. Table 4 Demographics from Practicing Teachers Who Returned the PTPPO Survey Respondent Achievement Level as Type of *Title I School Number Preservice Teacher Teacher 1 Med Special Ed No 2 Med General Ed No 3 Med Special Ed Yes 4 Med Special Ed Yes 5 Med Special Ed Yes 6 High Special Ed Yes 7 High General Ed No 8 High Special Ed Yes 9 High Special Ed Yes 10 High Special Ed No 11 Low Special Ed Yes 12 Low Special Ed No Note. The "respondent number" was the number assigned to each survey as it was returned. * Title I schools received additional funds based on their Free and Reduced lunch percentage. At the time that the PTPPO surveys were collected, schools needed a percentage of 60% or higher to receive funds. In the 2009-2010 school year, this went up to 75%. Some of the schools in which these practicing teachers were teaching would lose their Title I funds (Washoe County School District, School Board meeting, November 10, 2008).
The Impact of Supervised Setting The setting for this study was the Elementary/Special Education Teacher
52
Education Program at the University of Nevada, Reno, the elementary schools involved in the practica, and the K-6 classrooms in which the participants were placed for their practicum teaching. Program This study examined archived data from the Elementary/ Special Education Teacher Education Program. The program was organized around four blocks, each with a set of classes, and one 3-credit practicum experience. The program began in the fall of 2004. This was an integrated licensure program in which the graduates received degrees in both elementary and special education. Schools and Classrooms Three public elementary schools hosted practicum students, and the archived data for this study were collected from practicum placements at these elementary schools. These schools had kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms, with a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. All of the students in the practicum class for each block worked at an elementary school, as a cohort, and were observed by university supervisors, who gave additional support and feedback. In her study on the effects of supervisors on student teaching, Fayne (2007) found such supervision to be an important piece for preservice teachers. A seminar was held for an hour each week at the practicum site so that preservice teachers had the opportunity to discuss topics of importance to the teaching environment, and were able to work together to seek answers to questions that
The Impact of Supervised they had about the teaching process. In their ethnographic research, Frank & Uy (2004) found that giving preservice teachers such opportunity for discussion was an important part of what preservice teachers need prior to teaching.
53
In the school district where the study took place, classroom sizes were reduced in the first, second, and third grades, as mandated by the state legislature. The official ratios of students to teachers in first and second grades were 16:1 and the ratio of students to teachers in third grade was 19:1. At all three of the schools, first and second grades were team taught, with two teachers in each classroom with up to 32 students. The entire third grade classrooms at school C, Block IV were also team taught. In these classrooms there were two teachers and up to 38 students. Developing practicum in Block II. Preservice teachers in Block II were placed at an elementary school (School A) in a middle socio-economic neighborhood. Grants provided for instructional coaches for the teachers and the students and for an after school program to assist students at the school who were having academic problems. This school also had two types of special education programs. One was a resource program, in which children with mild to moderate special needs received help from special education teachers in their classrooms or in the resource room. The second program was a Social Intervention Program (SIP), in which children with extreme behavior problems received instruction in a structured environment in a self contained classroom. During the 2006-2007 school year, School A's compiled standards-based test scores for reading showed that 68% of their students met or exceeded the standards for reading. Additionally, 33% and 70% met or exceeded the standards for writing and
The Impact of Supervised mathematics, respectively. This school was on a traditional schedule with classes
54
beginning at the end of August and ending the start of June each year. Table 5 shows data from the 2006-2007 school year comparing this practicum school to the school district. Student classroom placement in blocks. In Block U, preservice teachers were assigned by university supervisors to classrooms for their practicum experience by allowing them to choose which grade level they wanted. Although they had classroom experience during Block I, the previous grade level was not considered when placing them in Block II practicum classrooms. Because this was the first supervised practicum experience the preservice teachers had, free choice was given to them for their comfort. Table 5 Accountability Report of Data from Elementary School A during Block II Practicum Placement
Type of data Students in Special Ed. Limited English proficiency Free/reduced lunch Caucasian Hispanic Classes taught without highly qualified teachers Elementary school A 14.7% 7.8% 22.1% 66.3% 20.1% 4.7% School district 13.1% 16.2% 34.9% 55.9% 31.5% 3.1%
Washoe County School District, 2006-2007 School Accountability Summary Report.
Engaging practicum in Block HI. For their practicum placement, preservice teachers in Block III were placed in an elementary school (School B) that was in a high socio-economic area. This school was a year-round, multi-track school, meaning that the school year began the first Monday after the 4th of July and ended near the end of June. Tracks were designated by coloryellow, red, blue, and greenwith one track off from
The Impact of Supervised school each month. This means that the school housed 75% of the whole school population each month with 25% out for vacation. The school followed the year round calendar to ease overcrowding. The amount of time in class for the elementary school
55
students was the same as traditional schools, but their time off from school was different than that of traditional schools. Due to the way the university calendar was set up, preservice teachers in this block experienced at least two different classrooms while at School B, because some of their assigned placements rotated off track for break. Grants at School B provided for intersession math and reading classes for the students to attend while they were off track. This school had three different special education programs. One program was a resource program that was similar to the program for School A. A second program was a Comprehensive Life Skills (CLS) program that included children in K-6 who had moderate to severe cognitive disabilities. The third program was an early childhood special education program. During the 2006-2007 school year, School B's compiled standards-based test scores for reading showed that 70% of their students met or exceeded the standards for reading. Additionally, 51 % and 70% met or exceeded the standards for writing and mathematics, respectively. Table 6 shows data comparing the school to the district during the 2006-2007 school year. In Block III, students were again asked for their preference of grade level. However, the university supervisor placed preservice teachers based on the amount of special education involvement in the grade level that the preservice teacher requested. The critical factor for placement in Block i n was previous or current experience with
The Impact of Supervised special education, regardless of grade level. For example, if a preservice teacher
56
requested a placement in third grade, and was involved in special education the previous semester, the university supervisor placed her/him in that grade. On the other hand, if the preservice teacher was not involved with special education the previous semester, she/he was placed in a grade level with greater special education involvement as close to the requested grade level as possible. Table 6 Accountability Report of Data from Elementary School B during Block III Practicum Placement Type of data Elementary school B School district Students in Special Ed. 15.5% 13.1% Limited English proficiency 3.2% 16.2% Free/reduced lunch 9.9% 34.9% Caucasian 78.0% 55.9% Hispanic 9.5% 31.5% Classes taught without highly qualified teachers 0.0% 3.1% Washoe County School District, 2006-2007 School Accountability Summary Report.
Refining practicum in Block IV. For this block, preservice teachers were placed in a lower socio-economic school (School C). For the preservice teachers, this was the only school in which a practicum class had an English as a Second Language (ESL) program. Money from a state bill was used so that each grade level at this school had either an ESL teacher or an assistant to help the classroom students. All of the preservice teachers at this school were able to work with one ESL teacher, allowing them some exposure to what was involved in working with children and families who spoke English as a second language.
57
Primary grade teachers at School C were trained in Reading Recovery, a program used to help the lower one-fourth of the students in reading skills in the primary grades. All of the teachers at this school were also trained in and used the Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) in their teaching. This program was tied to standards and helped the teachers to connect the classroom curriculum in such a way that all could learn. The preservice teachers were exposed to this program and some went on to train in this program during their internships. In addition, preservice teachers from this block tutored between 20-25 students after school, twice each week, as a part of one of their university courses for this block. School C was on a traditional school year calendar that was the same as School A in Block II. This allowed the preservice teachers to stay with the same teacher or teachers for the whole semester. The sole special education program at this school was a resource program that only used a pull-out model. During the 2006-2007 school year, School C's compiled standards-based test scores for reading showed that 46% of their students met or exceeded the standards for reading. Additionally, 20% and 52% of their students met or exceeded the standards for writing and mathematics, respectively. Table 7 shows data comparing this school to the district during the 2006-2007 school year. Table 7 Accountability Report of Data from Elementary School C during Block IV Practicum Placement Type of data Students in Special Ed. Limited English proficiency Elementary school C 8.2% 51.7% School district 13.1% 16.2%

Type of data Free/reduced lunch Caucasian Hispanic Classes taught without highly qualified teachers Elementary school C 77.3% 17.0% 69.0% 0.9% School district 34.9% 55.9% 31.5% 3.1%
58
Washoe County School District, 2006-2007 School Accountability Summary Report. In Block IV, preservice teachers were asked to list their grade level placements for Blocks I-IH. The preservice teachers were then placed in a grade level that offered as much contrast as possible from their other experiences. This was due to the fact that Block IV was the last semester before student internship, and the preservice teachers needed as many varied experiences as possible. For all of the blocks, grade level placement was based on classroom availability. An example of the grade levels in which the preservice teachers could be placed is in Table 8. Table 8 Example of the Way in Which Preservice Teachers were Placed in Practicum Classes
Preservice Teachers
N
if
Block Grade 2 6 2 3 K 5
V
Stacy Wendy Rick Jeanie Sara Suzie
Block II Grade 1 5 K 5 2 4
Block III Grade K 6 1 5 1 3
K
Then
/
Block IV Grade
5 2 6 1 4 K
Note. All names used in this table are fictitious, but the examples represent actual placements.
The Impact of Supervised Instrumentation The data gathering instruments used in the study are discussed in this section.
59
These instruments consisted of final evaluations (FN) done by lead teachers, and formal observations (FO) completed by university supervisors. These types of forms and rubrics have been used every semester in the practicum classes since fall 2004 and are typical of data collected in the practicum classes. The PTPPO survey was used for research question #2 and was given to the practicing teachers who were preservice teachers during the 2006-2007 phase of the study. Research Question #1 Instruments Formal observations of preservice teachers and final evaluations of their performance were designed to give feedback to preservice teachers during their practica experiences. Each of these instruments provided the dependent variables for this study. These evaluation forms were developed based on the Five Domains of Professional Competence that are a part of the College of Education at this university. Formal observation forms. During Blocks II and III each preservice teacher was formally observed twice by a university supervisor. In Block IV, each preservice teacher was formally observed three times by a university supervisor. For a formal observation (FO), the preservice teacher taught a lesson with a formal lesson plan. Two forms (the Formal Observation Rubric and the Formal Observation Comment Page) were used to give feedback from the university supervisors on the participants' formal lessons. The Formal Observation Rubric (shown in Appendix M) was used to give the students a numerical score on their lessons. The quantitative data from the Formal Observation
60
Rubric are included in this study. In addition, verbal feedback was given to the preservice teacher as soon as possible after the lesson was taught. The Formal Observation Rubric was written based on standards of teaching from both the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC, 1997) and the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC, revised in 2006). Examples from Posner's Field Experience Guide (Posner, 2000) were also used. Fourteen areas of observation were evaluated. These cluster into three key themes or characteristics of teaching: Planning to teach, teaching skills, and professional skills (See Table 9). Not all preservice teachers received a score in all fourteen areas. It was possible for a student to receive a score of N/O (Not observed), which was considered an undesirable behavior. It was essential that preservice teachers master all areas on the rubric. Therefore, N/O was technically a zero. "Tied to teaching" was added to the goals/objectives and state standards part of the rubric, and the assessment area was reworded. Preservice participants were observed using the same elements, as shown in Table 9, throughout their practicum classes. The scale for the formal observation rubric matched the scoring rubric used in the Performance Assessment Portfolio I and Internship scoring in the Department and College. The scale was a continuous scale ranging from 0=Not Observed, l=Unsatisfactory to 6 = Proficient. The scoring range was not negotiable, as it matched all of the performance measures in the department and college. Two Formal Observation Rubrics completed with scores and comments by a university supervisor are shown as examples of the feedback process in Appendix N.
The Impact of Supervised Table 9 Characteristics of Teaching Planning skills Included goals and objectives Included standards Teacher prepared for lesson Gained student attention Tied lesson to past learning Student involvement Checked for understanding Managed environment and student behaviors Practice time for students with feedback Assessment was ongoing with documentation Ended the lesson effectively Pacing, voice projection, and wait time Rapport with the students Professional in appearance and demeanor
61
Teaching skills
Professional skills
Taken from categories on formal observation rubric found in Appendix N.
Final evaluation form. The final evaluation form (FN) was completed by lead teachers each semester. It had ten questions/ statements that represented the five domains that were mentioned previously. This form was devised by three university supervisors after the first three weeks of practicum classes in fall 2004. This particular form was created so that all of the domains could be addressed by the lead teachers at the end of the semester. The FN form from Lead Teachers was designed with ten items; an additional eleventh item was an overall score. Teachers were also provided space for comments. The items asked broad questions, but expected specific answers. For example: This practicum student established rapport with students, interacting with them as individuals and communicating this regard and interest to students in a variety of ways, showing
The Impact of Supervised respect for their diverse talents and commitment to the development of self-confidence and competence. Teachers rated the preservice teachers on a scale ranging from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 7 (distinguished/exceptional). A not observed (N/O) option was also available, but scored a zero in data analysis (See Appendix O for a sample of the Final Evaluation Form by Lead Teacher). Research Question #2 ~ Instruments The PTPPO Survey was formulated so that practicing teachers could retrospectively describe their perceptions of the usefulness of the observations and feedback they received during their preservice practica experiences. Practicing teacher perceptions ofpracticum observations survey (PTPPO). The teacher perception data in this study were collected through an electronic survey. The PTPPO Survey was designed to assess the impact of continuous observations and feedback on teachers' professional development. The purpose of the PTPPO was to
62
assess the value of consistent observation and feedback participants received as students and consider its impact on overall professional development. According to Cantrell, Liu, Leverington, and Ewing-Taylor (2007) the survey could be considered a retrospective test. The PTPPO survey has three distinct parts. Part #1 contained eight closed items asking teachers to respond on a 5-point Likert scale. Part #2 contained three open-ended items and Part #3 asked three demographic questions. Demographic questions included: area of teaching (general education or special education), grade level, and identification of those teaching in Title I schools.
The Impact of Supervised Validity and Reliability of Instruments When discussing validity and reliability for this study, it is necessary to discuss each instrument separately. The validity of an assessment means that the assessment "measures what it is supposed to measure" (Classroom Assessment: Basic Concepts,
63
2008, p. 7). A question to ask is, does the assessment reflect correctness and is it accurate about the concept or concepts that it is measuring? When looking at validity, reliability must also be taken into account. As Klecker (2000) states "A test cannot be valid unless it is reliable" (p. 35). Reliability of an assessment refers to "the extent to which assessments are consistent" (Classroom Assessment: Basic Concepts, 2008, p. 6). Reliability also indicates whether the assessment can be duplicated with the same results. Validity and reliability of final evaluations. The final evaluations were developed by three supervisors after the first three weeks of practicum classes, when the first blocks in the Elementary /Special Education Teacher Education Program were established. The source of the items on all of the instruments was the five domains of professional practice used in the performance assessment materials in the Department of Educational Specialties. These domains are a part of the framework of the college department and are based on standards from INTASC and CEC. The items mapped perfectly onto the INTASC and CEC standards, thus establishing content validity of the items. Further, lead teachers identified the same students as strong performers as did the university supervisors. Reliability of formal observations. These observations are also reliable because of how they were formulated, as stated previously, in regards to the final evaluations.
The Impact of Supervised Observation forms were devised using standards of teaching that are a part of INTASC and CEC. These instruments have been used over five semesters when observing
64
preservice teachers. When used in similar environments with students with like abilities, the results of the scoring were comparable. This consistency of scores lends itself to the reliability of the instrument. Additionally, more than one supervisor observed the preservice teachers each semester. These co-raters help to add to the reliability of this instrument. All supervisors are trained before conducting preservice teacher observations. Each observer must be proficient in using the instruments for data collection and in giving appropriate feedback. Interrater reliability between supervisors and trainees (called New Graduate Student Supervisors or NGSS) was .90, reflecting strong reliability between raters. Table 10 shows the interrater reliability between a supervisor and a NGSS from a formal observation in Block IV. (See Appendix M for an example of the Formal Observation Rubric.) Table 10 shows scores for all fourteen items from a formal observation done by a university supervisor, who observed preservice teachers in practicum settings beginning fall 2004. It also shows scores from the 14 items from a trainee who observed in practicum settings for the first time. Both the university supervisor and the trainee observed the same student and then scored the observation. The interrater reliability was strong at .90.
The Impact of Supervised Table 10 Interrater Reliability on Formal Observations between a Supervisor and an NGSS Reliability Data Supervisor's scores NGSS* scores
3 3 2 4 0 4 4 2 3 0 3 3 4 3 Interrater reliability 3 3 0 4 0 3.50 4 3 3 0 3 3 4 3 0.904889768
65
Formal Observation item numbers

Formal Observation Item 1 Formal Observation Item 2 Formal Observation Item 3 Formal Observation Item 4 Formal Observation Item 5 Formal Observation Item 6 Formal Observation Item 7 Formal Observation Item 8 Formal Observation Item 9 Formal Observation Item 10 Formal Observation Item 11 Formal Observation Item 12 Formal Observation Item 13 Formal Observation Item 14
Validity and reliability of the PTPPO. The survey was formulated by three practicing teachers who have been through the Elementary /Special Education Teacher Education Program. In other words, the developers of the instrument were once preservice teachers who were evaluated on the instruments. Working to reach consensus, their questions were written to effectively evaluate their experience. The consensus feature of the item development and their experience in the teacher education program established the content validity of the PTPPO. The combination of closed and open items on the instrument allowed for an informal assessment of the trustworthiness (reliability) of the responses.
The Impact of Supervised Procedure
66
This section describes participant selection, how archived data were collected, and the features of the observation and feedback process used with preservice teachers. Further, the section highlights the procedure for identifying preservice teachers as high, medium and low achievers. Procedures for contacting practicing teachers (former preservice teachers) and data collection for the PTPPO are also described. Preservice Teacher Selection There were two sets of preservice teachers whose archived observation data were available for use in this study. One group was a semester ahead of the other. A random selection of participants was conducted by the Field Based Instructor (FBI), who was a school district employee assigned to the University for three years, and one university practicum supervisor who was a graduate assistant. Thirty-one participants were randomly selected from the two groups of archived data from the preservice teachers. The first group (n=16) was comprised of preservice teachers who were a part of Blocks II-IV for three semesters, beginning spring 2006 through spring 2007, and who completed their student internships in fall 2007. The second group (n=15) consisted of preservice teachers who were a part of Blocks II-IV, from fall 2006 to fall 2007, and who completed their student internships in spring 2008. The University Field Based Instructor then divided the group of 31 randomly selected preservice teachers into three levelshigh achievers (n=9), medium achievers (n=15), and low achievers (n=7)based on final grade point average from College of Education courses prior to student teaching. Preservice teachers who had a grade point
67
average in the range of a 3.75 to a 4.0 were placed in the high group. Preservice teachers who had a final grade point average of a 3.0 to a 3.74 were placed in the medium group. Preservice teachers who had a final grade point average of 2.75 to 2.99 were placed in the low group. Twenty-nine practicing teachers were sent the PTPPO Survey portion of the study through email. Participants who received the survey are now practicing teachers whose archived observation data were used in research question one. Two of the original preservice teachers were not able to be contacted by email for the survey. Observation Feedback Process Preservice teachers were assigned to a practicum class every semester. There were two university supervisors in each block during the time that archived data were originally collected for this study. These supervisors consisted of the FBI and one graduate student who were assigned to the block. Observation supervisors. The current FBI in Special Education, who was a member of the department in the College of Education, served as a primary observer. She was the FBI for three years, and worked in the practicum classes during those years. She took and passed the CITI Course in the Protection of Human Research Subjects and her training expiration date is July 15,2010. She knew the participants whose archived data were examined as a part of this study, and those who returned the PTPPO Survey as current data for this study. A graduate student supervisor was assigned to each practicum class as well. One graduate student with expertise in special education was assigned to work on this study.
The Impact of Supervised This role was mandated by the university IRB. The graduate student knew the observation process, but did not know the participants of this study. He emailed the PTPPO Survey to practicing teachers, and collected them when they were returned. He took and passed the CITI Course in the Protection of Human Subjects. The expiration date for his CITI training is July 27,2010. Observation goals. Formal observations by the supervisors first focused on the
68
plans and teaching of lessons that the preservice teacher had prepared. During the formal observations, preservice teachers themselves additionally targeted specific areas for the supervisor to observe, and asked the supervisor to address specific areas of concern. During the post observation conference, the university supervisors provided verbal feedback and helped with any questions the preservice teacher had. The preservice practicum teachers were observed in areas such as checking for understanding, managing the classroom environment, and assessment. One goal of the observation process by the supervisor was to support preservice practicum teachers when they were learning or honing skills to help them teach in different environments. In this goal area, supervisors often helped with strategies for instruction and management (Fayne, 2007). The supervisor's second goal, as obtained from the observations, was to provide preservice practicum teachers a forum in which to connect the methods that they learned in their university classes to the classroom environment, with support. As Brownell et al. (2005) noted, this is an important feature within effective teacher education programs. This support, given at an early stage in their teaching careers, was meant to help preservice teachers see the value of continued
69
support during their first years of teaching. Billingsley, Carlson, and Klein (2004) found in their study that support in the first three years of a special education teacher's career is one of the reasons that special educators stay in the field. It is also important for preservice teachers to be able to participate in the post observation conference with their supervisors in order to help them continue their learning process (Fayne, 2007). Figure 1 shows the main components of this program. Observation training. The FBI was trained on informal and formal observation data collection by the previous FBI. The cadre of graduate students who were new supervisors was trained by both the previous and the current FBI. New graduate student supervisors (NGSS) were trained to specific standards. Specific observation training. Supervision training began with informal observations. In this study, informal observations were used for individual student progress. After graduate students were skilled at the informal observation process, they were trained on the Formal Observation Rubric. NGSS were trained by observing one of the FBI conducting an informal observation in a practicurh classroom. Then, the NGSS left the classroom with the FBI and discussed what was observed. The NGSS listened while the FBI gave feedback to the preservice teacher who was just observed. The next informal observation was done while both the FBI and the NGSS took data. They discussed the informal observation before meeting with the preservice teacher and both gave feedback to the preservice teacher. The third informal observation was done with the FBI observing the NGSS as data were taken through an informal observation. The NGSS was then observed giving feedback to the preservice teacher.
70
The NGSS was trained to take data on formal observations in a similar way. After being trained to take data during informal observations, the NGSS first observed the formal observation process while the FBI took data and then observed the feedback that was given afterwards. Then, the NGSS, along with the FBI, took data on the next formal observation. They compared notes, and the NGSS helped give feedback to the preservice teacher. Finally, the NGSS took data and gave feedback to the preservice teacher on a third formal observation while the FBI observed to obtain interrater reliability. Table 11 shows the training schedule for the NGSS for formal observations. Table 11 Formal Observation Training Schedule for New Graduate Student Supervisors (NGSS) Field Based Instructor (FBI) 1. Observes in the classroom and takes data. 2. Meets with the NGSS to review data. 3. Meets with the preservice teacher to give feedback. 4. Observes in the classroom and takes data. 5. Meets with the NGSS to review data. 6. Meets with the preservice teacher to give feedback. 7. Observes the NGSS observing in the classroom. 8. Meets with the NGSS to see the data. 9. Listens to feedback. New Graduate Student Supervisor (NGSS) 1. Observes the FBI in the classroom. 2. Meets with the FBI to look at the data. 3. Listens to the feedback, 4. Observes and takes data. 5. Meets with the FBI to review data. 6. Meets with the preservice teacher to give feedback. 7. Observes in the classroom and takes data, 8. Meets with the FBI to show data. 9. Gives feedback.
Feedback Procedures Feedback was delivered in a specific way. Preservice teachers were first asked by the supervisors how they thought the lesson went. Then, they were asked what they would change in the lesson. Supervisors began their part of the feedback by making
71
positive statements about the lesson and what was observed. Then, areas of improvement or suggestions for teaching in a different way were discussed. Finally, the supervisor ended the feedback by giving at least one additional positive statement about the lesson. Appendix P is a visual of the feedback process for formal observations. Preservice Teacher Data Collection Observation data were collected on every preservice teacher in each practicum. Three types of observations were conducted. Preservice teachers were observed informally by university supervisors, formally by university supervisors, and a final evaluation was completed by a lead teacher. Appendix Q shows the data collection schedule for Blocks II-IV. For the purposes of this study, the essential outcomes under investigation were the formal evaluation by university supervisors (Formal Observation Rubric, Appendix M), and the final evaluation (Final Evaluation Form, Appendix O) by lead teachers. The informal observations served as a type of independent variable in which preservice teachers used the data for personal improvement. Formal observation. Before a formal observation, preservice teachers met with their lead teachers to decide when the university supervisor should observe. Formal observations lasted between 30-45 minutes. Preservice teachers taught a complete lesson for the formal observation, turning in a lesson plan to the university supervisor on the day of the observation. In addition to the typed lesson plan, preservice teachers handed in a pre-observation form on which the preservice teacher informed the supervisor about specific things to observe in the lesson and areas of concern. Supervisors completed the formal observation rubric. (See Appendix M for a copy of the formal observation rubric.)
72
When entering the classroom for a formal observation, the supervisor was told by the preservice teacher where to sit, so that the supervisor could see and hear the lesson being taught without interrupting the preservice teacher and the classroom. Notes were taken by the supervisor on the formal observation rubric and scores given. Originals of the handwritten forms and the typed forms were given to the preservice teacher. Copies of these forms were retained by the supervisor for the block binder that was kept each semester by the FBI. The archived data for this study came from these forms. In all three of the practica, feedback was given to the preservice teachers in a post observation conference on the same day as the observation. Practicing teacher survey data collection. Prior to sending the PTPPO survey by email to former preservice teachers, an email was sent by the graduate student to the thirty-one participants advising them that a survey was going to be sent to them. This original email was to check email addresses. Twenty-nine emails were returned to the graduate student with updated email addresses. The PTPPO survey was then emailed to the former preservice teachers who were observed as undergraduates and who are now practicing teachers. These practicing teachers were all preservice teachers whose archived data were being used for this study. Twice, reminders were sent by the graduate student to the practicing teachers to remind them to return the PTPPO by a certain date. The practicing teachers were given three weeks to answer the surveys. After answering the PTPPO survey, the participants were asked to send it back via school mail to the graduate student, who did not know the names of the participants for this study. Thirteen
73
surveys were returned. The graduate student removed any identifying comments from the PTPPO surveys. Data Analysis Descriptive analyses were performed for all of the variables on the formal observations (FO) conducted by university supervisors and the final evaluations (FN) conducted by the lead teachers. In total, 84 variables were entered into EXCEL for the formal observations (14 items x 6 observations) and 33 variables were entered for the final evaluations (11 items for 3 evaluations). Means and standard deviations were calculated across the sample for each item. These descriptive data were also calculated by the three achievement levels for each item. Summative scores were created for each participant's formal, observation and final evaluation score. For example, the score for each item was summed to make an aggregate data point. The highest score available on an item for the formal observation was six; therefore the highest point total available for a student was 6 x 14 or 84. On the final evaluation that lead teachers completed, the maximum score on an item was seven. With eleven items scored, the maximum score from a lead teacher for the semester was 77. It is important to note that the formal observations conducted by supervisors and the final evaluation by lead teachers differed in the number of items and the scale. Regression analyses were used to predict final outcomes by using summative scores. Correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between lead teacher evaluations and supervisor observations. Finally, a test was conducted to determine if a
The Impact of Supervised difference existed between the preservice teachers' initial observation and their final observation three semesters later. Surveys that were returned from practicing teachers were also analyzed. These data were specifically used to answer the second question of this study that dealt with practicing teachers' perceptions of consistent observation with feedback during their preservice practica teaching experiences. Mean scores were examined from each of the
74
eight questions on the PTPPO survey. Results of this survey will be further discussed in chapter four. Data Protections All observation data (Formal Observation Rubric, Final Evaluation, and Informal Evaluation Forms) from the Integrated Elementary/Special Education Program are stored in binders in the office of the Field Based Instructor. Observation data from the preservice teachers selected for this study are stored with the researcher with permission of the department chair. Upon completion of this study, the data will be stored in the office of the FBI. All data will be kept for seven years. After that time, all of the data will be shredded. Summary The descriptive study of preservice teaching behaviors and practicing teachers' perceptions of their preservice experiences is a relatively unresearched area in teacher education. Observations of preservice teachers, during three semesters of their preparation, were conducted in 2006-2007. These data were archived and housed in the teacher education program. The archived data were analyzed to examine performance
The Impact of Supervised levels and the trajectory of improvement of students who were high, medium and low achievers. The preservice teachers whose observations were used in this study were contacted to participate in the PTPPO Survey portion of the study. Practicing teachers were asked to retrospectively reflect on their preservice practicum experiences and to evaluate the impact of the observations and feedback. Data from eight questions were analyzed to provide answers to the second question from this study. Finally,
75
demographics from the practicing teachers who replied to the survey were analyzed. The PTPPO is further discussed in the results section of this study.
The Impact of Supervised CHAPTER FOUR Results Overview The focus of this study was two-fold. The first part examined archived observation and final evaluation data from a university field based teacher preparation
76
program. The second part examined current data from surveys of practicing teachers. The archived data from practicum observations of preservice teachers from three practica placements across three semesters (blocks) were coded and analyzed from 31 preservice teachers using descriptive statistics and regression analysis. The overall results revealed that preservice teachers improved their performance over time. Further, there was a strong relationship between observation data collected by university supervisors and final evaluations completed by lead teachers. The current data were from PTPPO surveys that were sent to the same preservice teachers who, at the time of this study, were practicing teachers. Those surveys were sent to 29 practicing teachers, of which 13 were returned, for a return rate of 44.82%. In the following sections, the specific results are discussed. Results of Archived Preservice Teacher Observations The archived data were formal observations conducted by supervisors and final evaluations conducted by lead teachers. Two groups of preservice teachers participated and were in practicum classes in spring 2006 through spring 2007 and fall 2006 through fall 2007. When analyzing the archived data, the focus of the research was specifically on the effect of consistent observations and feedback on the teaching performance of preservice teachers.
The Impact of Supervised Overall Results on Final Evaluations by Lead Teachers
77
Descriptive data were examined on final evaluations from lead teachers in Blocks II, III, and IV. Table 12 shows the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for each of the 11 items on the final evaluations for the 31 preservice teachers. To examine the items on the final evaluation as were presented to teachers, see Appendix O. Table 12 Mean and Standard Deviation for Lead Teacher Final Evaluations of Practicum Students by Block (n=31)
Item Block II M (SD) 6.22 (.92) 6.25 (0.96) 6.16 (1.03) 6.09 (1.01) 6.19 (0.94) 6.09 (0.94) 6.22 (1.05) 6.00 (1.09) 6.09 (1.10) 6.51 (0.92) 6.19 (0.95) 6.19 (0.99) Block III M (SD) 6.26 (0.9) 6.26 (0.98) 5.73 (1.89) 5.70 (1.64) 5.46 (2.09) 4.83 (2.60) 5.20 (2.31) 4.60 (2.41) 6.20 (1-12) 6.73 (0.73) 6.06 Block IV M (SD) 5.83 (1.05) 6.13 (1.22) 5.90 (1.63) 5.57 (1.33) 5.83 (1.34) 5.73
(1.17)
1. Rapport with teacher 2. Rapport with students 3. Concern for students 4. Effective management 5. Planning 6. Teaching 7. Management 8. Promotes active learning 9. Professionalism 10. Dependability/responsibility 11. Overall performance M per Block (SD)
(i.oi)
5.70 (1.83)
5.37 (1.83) 5.37 (1.83) 5.93 (0.99) 6.43 (0.9) 5.95 (0.9) 5.77 (1.33)
Overall M (SD) 6.09 (0.96) 6.22 (1.04) 5.92 (1.35) 5.76 (1.35) 5.80 (1.55) 5.48 (1.84) 5.57 (1.83) 5.30 (1.95) 6.06 (1.06) 5.56 (0.85) 6.05 (0.96)
The Impact of Supervised Scores on the final evaluation completed by the lead teachers ranged from 0-7. The overall mean for Block II (M = 6.19; SD = .99) was higher than those of Blocks III
78
(M=5.70; SD 1.83) and IV (M =5.77; SD=1.33). These results suggest that lead teachers became more critical as the expectations on preservice teachers increased. Additionally, when examining scores from lead teachers across the three blocks, the overall mean scores for items #1 (Rapport with teacher), #2 (Rapport with students), #9 (Professionalism), and #11 (Overall performance) were the highest. Rapport is critical in teaching, but is not in and of itself sufficient. The lowest overall mean scores were for items #6 (Teaching) and #8 (Promotes active learning). The mean scores on each item for Block II ranged from 6.00 to 6.51, on Block III ranged from 4.60 to 6.73, and on Block IV ranged from 5.37 to 6.43. The lowest items overall from the three blocks were items #7 (Management) and #8 (Promotes active learning) in Block III. Overall Results on Formal Observations by University Supervisors The mean and standard deviation from archived data from formal observations conducted by supervisors in each block were also examined. The formal observation rubric consisted of 14 items. The range of possible scores on the observation was 0-6, with six representing the highest score. The number of observations varied across blocks. One formal observation was recorded in Block II, two formal observations were conducted in Block III, and three were completed in Block IV. Table 13 represents the mean and standard deviation of each item on the formal observations completed by university supervisors. (For complete item descriptions see Appendix M.)
The Impact of Supervised Table 13
79
Mean and Standard Deviation of Formal Observations by Blocks and Items (n=31)
Item Block II (Obs 1) M (SD) 5.14 (1.09) 5.13 (1.33) 5.41 (0.76) 4.96 (0.87) 4.93 (1.48) 5.19 (0.75) 5.06 (0.89) 4.98 (0.84) 5.0 (0.77) 5.0 (0.93) 4.75 (1.54) 5.13 (0.96) 5.70 (0.46) 5.74 (0.51) 5.16 (1.01) Block III (Obs 1) M (SD) 4.7 (1.91) 5.53 (1.22) 5.57 (0.82) 4.87 (1.04) 4.33 (2.01) 5.53 (0.73) 4.93 (0.83) 4.77 (1.04) 5.07 (0.87) 4.93 (0.94) 4.2 (2.11) 4.93 (0.9) 5.3 (0.75) 5.8 (0.41) 5.04 (1.30) Block III (Obs 2) M (SD) 5.3 (1.56) 5.93 (0.37) 5.87 (0.35) 5.53 (0.51) 4.8 (2.04) 5.73 (0.58) 5.43 (0.77) 5.43 (0.63) 5.6 (0.62) 5.6 (0.56) 5.07 (1.80) 5.6 (0.67) 5.83 (0.38) 5.8 (0.41) 5.53 (1.02) Block IV (Obs 1) M (SD) 5.33 (1.12) 5.17 (1.64) 5.33 (1.03) 5.23 (1.07) 4.57 (2.22) 5.5 (0.86) 4.8 (1.37) 5.03 (1-25) 5.27 (1.05) 4.77 (1.43) 4.27 (2.16) 5.17 (1.23) 5.63 (0.77) 5.43 (1.2) 5.13 (1.40) Block IV (Obs 2) M (SD) 5.77 (0.9) 5.83 (0.6) 5.63 (0.85) 5.3 (1.12) 5.47 (1.28) 5.6 (0.86) 5.37 (1.03) 5.2 (1.13) 5.57 (0.73) 5.3 (1.12) 5.07 (1.84) 5.47 (0.9) 5.77 (0.57) 5.67 (0.96) 5.51 (1.03) Block IV (Obs 3) M (SD) 5.87 (0.43) 5.7 (1.12) 5.63 (0.72) 5.6 (0.72) 5.6 (0.89) 5.83 (0.38) 5.53 (0.94) 5.6 (0.77) 5.8 (0.46) 5.37 (0.81) 4.93 (2.03) 5.7 (0.84) 5.9 (0.25) 5.9 (0.25) 5.65 (0.89)
1. Goals/objectives 2. State standards 3. Teacher prepared 4. Attention 5. Lesson tied to previous learning 6. Student involvement 7. Student understanding 8. Management 9. Opportunities for practice 10. Assessment 11. Transition 12. "With-it-ness" 13. Rapport with students 14. Professionalism Overall M; (SD)
Results of the descriptive data for the formal observations revealed means of 4.75 to 5.74 and standard deviations ranging from 0.51-1.54 on the formal observation in Block II. Preservice teachers in Block II struggled with item #5 (Lesson tied to previous
80
learning), #8 (Management), and #11 (Transitions). Each of these areas was rated below 5.0. The ranges were from 4.2 to 5.8 for mean scores from the first observation in Block HI and from 4.8 to 5.83 for the mean scores on the second observation in Block III, representing an overall improvement. Preservice teachers in Block III scored lower on items #1 (Goals and objectives), #4 (Gaining attention), #5 (Lesson tied to previous learning) and #11 (Transition) on the first formal observation. In the second formal observation students continued to struggle with item #5 (Lesson tied to previous learning). As students progressed to Block IV, four items fell below a mean of 5.0 for the first of three observations. In Block IV, the first formal observation showed mean scores ranging from 4.27 to 5.63, the second formal observation mean scores ranged from 5.07 to 5.83, and the third formal observation mean scores ranged from 4.93 to 5.9, suggesting overall improvement. In Block IV, preservice teachers struggled with item #5 (Lesson tied to previous learning), item #7 (Student understanding), item #10 (Assessment) and item 11 (Transition). Preservice teachers improved in these areas for the second and third observations with only one mean score below 5.0 (item 11 Transition). Overall, preservice teachers had problems with tying their lessons to previous learning (item #5) and creating smooth transitions between classroom activities (item #11). Preservice teachers scored highest on item #13 (Rapport with students; mean ranges from 5.3 to 5.9) and item #14 (Professionalism; mean ranges from 5.43-5.9). The third formal observation in Block IV had the highest overall mean (M=5.65; SD=0.89).
The Impact of Supervised The first formal observation in Block HI had the lowest overall mean (M=5.04; SD=1.30). The overall highest mean score for Block IV suggested preservice teachers
81
used the feedback and observation data to improve instruction. However, the preservice teachers also struggled when they moved from block to block. Results on Formal Observations and Final Evaluations by Achievement Levels of Preservice Teachers Archived data from the formal observations and the final evaluations of preservice teachers (n=31) were divided by the university Field Based Instructor into three achievement levels (high achievers, medium achievers, and low achievers), based on final grade point average of the preservice teachers upon graduation. For this study, there were 9 high achieving, 15 medium achieving, and 7 low achieving preservice teachers. In Table 23, practicing teachers are identified by these levels from their preservice experience for the purpose of analyzing data. Archived data, including the formal observations and final evaluations from all three blocks, were examined. Means and standard deviations for preservice teachers by achievement level are reflected in Table 14. Table 14 Performance of Preservice Teachers by Achievement Levels for Formal Observations and Final Evaluations for Blocks II, III, and TV
Evaluations High M (SD) 5.3 (1.01) Achievement Levels Medium M (SD) 5.23 (0.91) Low M (SD) 4.7 (1.10)
Formal Observation Block II

Evaluations High M (SD) 6.58 (0.52) 5.17
(1.15)
82
Final Evaluation Block II Formal Observation Block III (Obs 1) Formal Observation Block III (Obs 2) Final Evaluation Block III Formal Observation Block IV (Obs 1) Formal Observation Block IV (Obs 2) Formal Observation Block IV (Obs 3) Final Evaluation Block IV
5.57 (1.02) 5.95 (1.47) 5.4 (1.19) 5.92 (0.30) 5.86 (0.43) 6.25 (1.19)
Achievement Levels Medium M (SD) 6.45 (0.70) 5.07 (1.22) 5.61 (1.00) 5.82 (1.96) 5.53 (1.03) 5.67 (0.78) 5.32 (0.80) 5.99 (1.12)
Low M (SD) 5.13 (1.24) 4.79 (1.58) 5.31 (1.06) 5.13 (1.78) 3.92 (1.64) 4.63 (1.50) 5.07 (1.21) 4.77 (1.40)
Table 14 validates the criteria used to sort preservice teachers into achievement groups. Identified high achievers consistently received higher scores than their lower achieving colleagues. The identified low achievers always received the lowest scores in the sample. Mean scores revealed that preservice teachers identified as the low achievers struggled in the first formal observation by university supervisors in a new block compared to high and medium achievers. Further, low achievers received decreasingly lower scores from supervisors and lead teachers as they progressed through the blocks. Relationship between Observations of University Supervisors and Evaluations of Lead Teachers (Research Question #la) The relationship between the formal observation results by university supervisors and final evaluations by lead teachers was determined by Pearson Correlation
The Impact of Supervised Coefficient. There was a variable number of formal observations by university supervisors each semester (Block 11=1, Block 111=2, Block IV=3), but only one final evaluation by the lead teacher completed each semester. The formal observation rubric
83
included fourteen items and the final evaluation included eleven items. (See Appendices M, N and O for examples of the formal observation rubric and the final evaluation.) Table 15 Correlations of Formal Observations by Supervisors and Final Evaluations by Lead Teachers: Blocks II, III, and TV Final Evaluation Block III
Formal observation Block II Formal observation Block III (Obs 1) Formal observation .489** Block ffl (Obs 2) Formal observation Block IV (Obs 1) Formal observation Block IV (Obs 2) Formal observation Block IV (Obs 3) *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level.
Block II .423*
Block IV
.625** .705** .694**
Table 15 shows that there was a significant correlation (r=.423) at the 0.05 level between the final evaluation and the formal observation in Block II, suggesting agreement between supervisors and lead teachers. There was also a significant correlation at the 0.01 level between the second formal observation and the final evaluation in Block in (r=.489). The relationship between ratings by supervisors and lead teachers became stronger as preservice teachers progressed through the blocks. This is illustrated by the
The Impact of Supervised significant correlations between ratings of Block IV lead teachers and university
84
supervisors. Further, regression analysis was used to determine if formal observations by university supervisors predict the final evaluation scores by lead teachers. Results of the regression analysis revealed that formal observation scores were predictive of lead teacher scores (R=.73; R2=.526, df=6). This result is important, given that university supervisors were not in the classroom with preservice teachers for the duration of their practicum. Lead teachers saw much more of the preservice teacher than university supervisors. Additionally, preservice teachers were evaluated at the end of the semester by lead teachers and the information they received from university supervisors throughout the practica predicted performance at the end of the semester. Students improved in their observations over time, but if they started low, they still finished lower than their cohort members. Data used in Table 16 demonstrated that no one observation predicted outcome. It was the collection of observations that predicted the preservice teachers'final evaluations by lead teachers. Because of the strong correlation between the two types of observations, the significant predictive quality of the formal observation and established interrater reliability (r=.90) on the formal observation, the focus of the remaining analyses will be on the formal observations conducted by university supervisors.
The Impact of Supervised Table 16 Regression Results for Predictors of Lead Teacher Final Evaluation
R .73 R Square .53 Sum of Squares 1934.23 1742.69 3676.92 Adjusted R Square .41 df 6 24 30 Mean Square 322.37 72.61 Std. Error of Estimate 8.52 F 4.44 Sig .004
85
Regression Residual Total
Predictors: Sum of Formal Observation Block II, Formal Observation Block III (Obs I), Formal observation Block III (Obs 2), Formal Observation Block IV (Obs 1), Formal Observation Block IV (Obs 2) Formal Observation Block IV (Obs 3). Dependent Variable: Final Teacher Evaluation Block IV.
Improvement of Preservice Teachers' Teaching Practices during Practica (Research Question #lb) Research question #lb examines whether preservice teachers consistently improved their teaching practices during the three semesters of their practica experience when given consistent feedback. Descriptive data revealed that preservice teachers both thrived and struggled as they moved between blocks. Regression analysis was conducted to determine whether preservice teacher performance on formal observations during each block predicts the last formal observation score before internship. The last formal observation (Block IV Obs 3) by university supervisors indicated that every item was over the 5.0 threshold, with a grand mean of 5.65 (SD=.89). A score of 5.0 was considered an important threshold as it represented a mid-level proficiency. Using summative scores, regression analysis was used to determine if performance in Block II or Block III could predict Block IV Obs 3 performance. Results revealed that preservice teacher performance in early blocks did not predict final performance as determined by
The Impact of Supervised university supervisors (R=.428; R2=.183). Results suggested that the performance level with which a preservice teacher begins the program may not be reflective of final
86
performance. Preservice teachers have the opportunity to improve and many do. Further, it appears that preservice teachers need all of the formal observations and feedback to reach a level of high "proficient." To further illustrate that preservice teachers can improve over time with formal observation and feedback by university supervisors, a paired samples t-test was conducted on the summative data of the first formal observation conducted in Block II, with the final formal observation conducted in Block IV. Results suggested a significant difference in preservice teacher performance from the first observation to the last (t30=3.94; M=7.35). Improvement of Preservice Teachers who were Considered Top Third Performers, Middle Third Performers and Bottom Third Performers (Research Question #lc) Research question #lc focused on determining levels of improvement for preservice teachers who were considered top third performers, compared to middle third performers and bottom third performers. Data from the formal observations by university supervisors were divided into three groups representing preservice teachers' achievement levels. The 31 preservice teachers, who had been divided into high, medium, and low achievers based on grade point average from education courses after completing their blocks and before graduation, were matched to their formal observation data. Summative data were used to answer this research question. For the fourteen items on the formal observation the maximum score was eighty-four. In Blocks HI and IV, where
87
multiple observations were conducted, mean scores were calculated giving a single score for the block. Table 17 shows summative data from formal observations from the three blocks. Table 17 Formal Observations for Block II to Block IV by Preservice Teacher Achievement Levels Achievement Levels Block II M and (SD) 75.33 (1.01) 72.53 (0.79) 65.14 (0.91) Formal Observations Block III M and (SD) 78.00 (1.89) 78.60 (4.29) 74.28 (6.46) Block IV frjand (SD) 80.11 (1.49) 79.40 (0.57) 75.57 (0.91)
High(n=9) Medium (n=15) Low(n=7)
As shown in Table 17, summative mean scores for each group were lower in Block II and higher in Block IV, with the overall scores remaining consistent depending on the group. The higher group performed better than the medium group and the medium group performed better than the lower group on the summative scores of the formal observations. The high, medium, and low achieving groups improved at different rates from one block to the next. The high achieving group improved by 2.67 points from the formal observation in Block II to the formal observation in Block in, and by 2.11 points from formal observation in Block III to the formal observation in Block IV. The medium
88
achievers improved by 6.17 points from the formal observation in Block II to the formal observation in Block HI, and by .80 from the formal observation in Block III to the formal observation in Block IV. The low achievers had the overall largest improvement of the three groups. This group improved by 9.14 points from formal observation in Block II to the formal observation in Block HI, and by 1.29 points from the formal observation in Block m to the formal observation in Block IV. Table 18 shows this rate of improvement. Table 18 Rate of Improvement between Each Block by Achievement Levels
Improvement from Formal Observation in Block II to Formal Observation in Block i n 2.67 6.07 9.14 Improvement from Formal Observation in Block III to Formal Observation in Block IV 2.11 0.80 1.29
Achievement Levels
High(n=9) Medium (n=15) Low (n=7)
Note: The rate of improvement was calculated by taking the difference between the mean scores between Block II and Block EI and between Block IE and IV. Even though low achievers improved by 10.43 points, overall, they never reached the level of medium or high achievers, although they completed the program with proficient scores (see Figure 5). The difference in scores from the first formal observation in Block II to the last observation in Block IV for low achieving preservice teachers was not significant (t(6>=.24; p>.05). Although the growth for low achievers was not significant, preservice teachers did improve on an impressive trajectory (See Figure 5).
The Impact of Supervised Figure 5. Summative formal observations from Block II to Block IV by achievement levels.
Summative Formal Observations
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 O
B l o c k II Block III Block IV
89
High Medium Low
Three formal observation categories. The fourteen items on the formal observations were then combined into three categories or composite variables: Planning (PL) items #1- #3, Teaching (Teach) items #4- #10, and Professionalism (Prof) items #11-#14. The purpose of this categorization was to determine in what areas students may have progressed or struggled. Descriptive data were analyzed to determine the performance of preservice teachers in each of the achievement levels (high, medium, and low) on the three categories. Planning (PL). For high and medium achieving preservice teachers, entering Block II planning was not a challenge. Both groups scored at a level above 5.0 on a 6.0 scale (high- M=5.41; SD=0.93: med- M=5A2; SD=1.05). By the end of Block IV, both groups (high and medium achievers) scored at M=5.89 and M=5.84 respectively. On the other hand, low achieving students began Block II less skilled in planning than their
The Impact of Supervised colleagues (M=4.60; SD =1.14). By the end of their practicum experiences, low achieving preservice teachers crossed the 5.0 threshold (M=5.33; SD=. 86). The low standard deviation suggests general improvement within this group. (See Figure 6). Figure 6. Planning (PL) composite scores by achievement levels and blocks.
Planning by Levels by Blocks __ ^V
Ar
^H
90
5 4 3 2 1
_ ^.âriasâ^^^k^tfass^B?^^^"^^ -^^wmqi^^,^ A ! ~^m

^*****~Âr~~-~~'^
"*"
Block II PL
Block III Block III Block IV Block IV Block IV Obs 1 Obs 2 Obs I Obs 2 Obs 3 PL PL PL PL PL
Teaching. Preservice teachers entering Block II scored lowest in teaching. This was a lower area for all students. High achieving preservice teachers began Block II with scores of M=5.21; SD 1.17 and completed Block IV with scores of Nfe=5.81; SD=0.53. Low standard deviation suggests that there was very little variance among the group. Medium achievers also started Block II with the lowest score across all categories (M=5.09; SD=0.76). As medium achievers moved to a new block, their Teaching scores regressed (See Figure 7). Despite ebbs and flows, medium achievers finish their practicum experience in Block IV with M=5.82; SD=0.50. With 6.0 a perfect score, the data reveal that medium achievers reached a level of high proficiency. Low achievers entered Block II with the same scores in Planning and Teaching. Teaching scores for
The Impact of Supervised Block II were M=4.64; SD=0.92. Lower achieving preservice teachers did not struggle transitioning between Block II and III. However, the change to Block IV challenged
91
lower achieving preservice teachers (M=3.69; SD 1.66). This group improved by the end of the block to nearly reach the threshold of 5.0 (M=4.98; SD-1.05). This higher standard deviation suggests that some students continued to struggle. Figure 7 shows a pictorial of the teaching levels by blocks. Figure 7. Teaching (Teach) composite scores by achievement levels and blocks.
Teaching by Levels by Blocks
Block II Block III Block III Block IV Block IV Block IV Teach Obs 1 Obs 2 Obs 1 Obs 2 Obs 3 Teach Teach Teach Teach Teach
Professionalism. Professionalism was a strong category for all groups of students. They entered the program with strong professional skills and they concluded their practicum experiences with strong scores. High achieving students received scores of M=5-67; SD=0.68 in Block II. Scores for Professionalism were never lower than the 5.0 threshold and they finished the program in Block IV with scores of M=5.92; SD=0.28. Medium achieving preservice teachers' scores mirrored their high achieving colleagues (Block II - M=5.36; SD=1.01, Block IV- M=5.72; SD=1.11). The higher standard
92
deviation for this group suggests some variance around the mean within the group. Lower achieving students were stronger in Professionalism than Planning and Teaching as they entered Block II (M=4.88; SD=1.38). Lower achieving students broke the 5.0 threshold in Block III Obs 2 (M=5.50; SD=0.69). This strong score may have been an anomaly as they never regained that high level. Lower achieving students struggled with the transition to Block IV (M=4.04; SD=1.82). As they progressed through Block IV, low achieving preservice teachers improved with each observation, closing their practicum experience withM=5.04; SD=1.69. (See Figure 8). Figure 8. Professionalism (Prof) composite scores by achievement levels and blocks. Professionalism by Levels by Blocks
5 4 3 2 High Medium
FLOW
Block II Block I Prof Obs 1 Prof
Block III Block IV Block IV Block IV Obs 2 Obs 1 Obs 2 Obs 3 Prof Prof Prof Prof
Preservice teachers began their practicum experiences with their lowest scores in Teaching. As preservice teachers moved to Block III, Teaching (Teach) remained the lowest area of proficiency. As preservice teachers progressed through the program,
93
Teaching (Teach) in Block IV showed ebbs and flows, with lower scores at the beginning of the semester and the highest scores at the end of Block IV, just before they entered student teaching. Overall, final observation scores showed that all the preservice teachers reached a high level of proficiency. Summary of Preservice Teacher Results To answer Research Question #1, archived data from preservice teachers were examined. These data were from the preservice teachers' practicum experiences in a teacher preparation program before they became certified to teach. Data were analyzed and findings were reported in the previous sections. The main findings revealed that university supervisors and lead teachers rated preservice teachers similarly. Regression analysis revealed that, although preservice teachers grew and improved their practices over three semesters of field practicum, none of their early observations and feedback predicted their performance at the end of their last semester in the program. Preservice teachers at a particular achievement level (high, medium, or low) according to GPA level retained their rank at end of the program. That said, low achievers did make improvements. Data were also examined to ascertain if there were differences in the level of improvement of preservice teachers who were considered top third performers, compared to middle third performers and bottom third performers. High and middle performers made small gains, as they were already being rated high by supervisors and lead teachers. Not surprisingly, low achievers made the most improvement, but never succeeded to the level of their high and medium achieving colleagues in the three categories of Planning, Teaching, and Professionalism.
The Impact of Supervised Results from Current Practicing Teachers Recently collected survey (PTPPO) data were used to examine the retrospective perceptions of practicing teachers of the impact their preservice practicum experiences
94
had on their current professional teaching. Returned surveys were coded by achievement levels (high, medium, and low) by a graduate student who was a member of the research team. The researcher did not know the identities of the survey respondents. The electronic survey was sent to twenty-eight practicing teachers and one who was not currently teaching. PTPPO Surveys were received from twelve teachers who completed their student teaching and were in their first or second semester of professional teaching. Thirteen former preservice teachers returned their surveys; however, one of these thirteen was not currently teaching, so the demographic materials (items #9-11) from this teacher were not used. The data from this teacher were used for items #1-8. The demographic information from the twelve practicing teachers is shown in Table 3 in the methods chapter. Of the respondents who were currently teaching, 83% were special education teachers, 58% were teaching in Title I schools, and 83% were teaching in elementary school settings. Items #2 and #5 on the PTPPO (#2-Asking about the number of practicum observations with feedback, and #5-Questioning if the time spent in practicum classes was sufficient) had extra open-ended sections that were answered only if the teachers felt the need to do so. Not all teachers answered the open-ended parts of questions #2 and #5. Information from those who did answer these two parts will be used in future research.
The Impact of Supervised Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of the Usefulness of the Observation with Feedback Received during Preservice Teacher Education (Research Question #2a) This research question examined whether the observations done by university
95
supervisors during preservice teacher practica was useful to practicing teachers. Items #1, #4, #6, and #8 on the survey provided the data for this question. The redundancy of these items also served as a reliability check to determine if respondents answered consistently. Mean scores were determined for each item. The possible responses ranged from 1.0-5.0, with 5.0 representing a high, favorable response. Table 19 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for each question. Table 19 Overall Mean Scores for Usefulness Items from the Returned PTPPO Surveys (n=12) Survey Items #1, #4, #6, and #8 I found the observation process with feedback during my practicum experiences useful to help improve my teaching practice. As a professional teacher, I use or will use what I learned from observations with feedback in my practicum experiences to help guide my instruction, today. The feedback I received from my university practicum supervisors during observations was useful and helps in my own classroom, today. The onsite support through observations/feedback from university practicum supervisors is a vital component of the practicum M (SD) 4.56 (0.11) 4.27 (0.64) 4.47 (0.46) 4.62 (0.20)
The mean scores on each of these four items suggested that the practicing teachers who returned their surveys perceived the observations with feedback as useful. Figure 9 shows the mean scores by level of the respondents.
The Impact of Supervised Figure 9. Mean scores for PTPPO usefulness items by achievement levels. Mean Scores for P T P P O Usefulness Items # 1 , #4, #6, #8 by Levels
5 4 3 2 1 O
-High Medium
Low
96
This graph shows that practicing teachers' perceptions of observations with feedback from a university supervisor were useful in their practica placements when they were preservice teachers. However, the practicing teachers who felt that these observations were most useful were the ones considered to be in the low achieving level as preservice teachers. Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of their Preparation for Full-time Teaching (Research Question #2b) This question focused on perceptions of practicing teachers' preservice preparation. Specifically, did their practicum experiences adequately prepare them for full-time teaching? PTPPO item #7 was used to answer this question. Practicing teachers' perceptions of preparedness for teaching rated M=3.92 (SD=1.08). In retrospect, teachers may not have felt as prepared during teaching as they did while they were preservice teachers. Figure 10 shows the mean scores by achievement level of the respondents.
The Impact of Supervised Figure 10. Mean scores for PTPPO preparation item by achievement levels. Mean Scores for Survey Item #7
97
3 Mean 2
High
Medium
Low
As shown by this graph, the practicing teachers who were in the high (mean score of 4.2) and low (mean score of 4.0) achievement levels in practica experiences felt that feedback helped prepare them for teaching in their practica placements, their internships, and in their teaching positions. Medium achievers, however, had a mean score that was lower than the other two groups. Even though the mean score for medium achievers was a 3.4, the standard deviation (SD=0.84) suggested that some practicing teachers did not feel prepared (n=40%). Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of the Adequate Time Spent in Practica (Research Question #2c) This question focused on the amount of practicum time that the practicing teachers thought would be enough to ensure that they were fully prepared for teaching. The mean scores for item #5 on the PTPPO were 3.69 (SD=0.10) with 5.0 the highest
98
score possible. Figure 11 shows a pictorial of the data. Overall, all teachers, despite their achievement level in preservice training, responded similarly. Figure 11. Mean scores for sufficient time item by achievement levels.
Mean Scores for Survey Item #5
5 4 3
oHigh Medium Low
This item on the survey had a space where the respondents could write in the amount of time in practicum that they thought would be sufficient. The time that these practicing teachers spent in classrooms each semester through the practicum experiences was 27 hours in their first practicum placement, a full day of six hours each week for a semester in their second and third placements, and two hours an afternoon three times a week for a semester in their fourth placement. One respondent said that, "Less would be bad and more [time] would have been better." Several respondents wrote that more time in special education would have helped them be better prepared. Another respondent stated that, "1-2 days per week (6-12 hours)" was the preferred amount of time in practicum placements.
99
Practicing Teachers' Perceptions of the PTPPO Amount of Observation with Feedback Item Provided during their Practica (Research Question #2d) This question examined the number of observations with feedback given by university supervisors, but with an added piece. This question asked respondents retrospectively, if they received enough feedback during preservice practica or if they would have liked more feedback. The data generated from the answers to item #2 suggested that the respondents indicated they had sufficient feedback. Figure 12 shows a graph of these means. Figure 12. Mean scores for PTPPO quantity of observations item by achievement levels.
Mean Scores for Survey Item #2
3 Mean 2
High
Medium
Low
This item also had a section in which respondents could indicate how many observations would be sufficient. One respondent wrote that, "I liked how Block IV had 3 obs., and I think there should be at least 3 especially in the first practicums (Block II)." Another respondent stated that there should be "3 formal observations in each" practicum.
The Impact of Supervised 100 Summary of Results of Current Practicing Teachers This part of the results section contained analyses of data that were obtained from a survey received by twelve practicing teachers and one who is not currently teaching. Answers to the second set of questions were analyzed in this section and were reported in this section of the study. The questions contained in this study were a complex and important part of the study. Retrospective current data from the survey returned by practicing teachers provided the answers to research question #2 for this study. The main findings revealed that practicing teachers who were considered low achievers as preservice teachers perceived, retrospectively, that the observations with feedback were useful. They perceived this to be true at a higher level than did the high achievers and medium achievers. Additionally, other data demonstrated that medium achievers perceived, as practicing teachers, that their practicum experience was more often at a level closer to a 4.0 (Somewhat Agree) than did the other two levels of achievers. Data from the other two levels of achievers were closer in agreement than were data from the medium achievers.
The Impact of Supervised 101 CHAPTER FIVE Discussion Overview and Purpose of the Study Two types of data were examined for this study: archived data from preservice teachers enrolled from spring 2006-fall 2007 and current practicing teacher data collected from surveys. In the next sections the findings from two sets of data will be examined and implications will be discussed. The main purpose of this study was to examine the preservice teacher archived data for evidence of the effects of supervisor observations with feedback on teaching performance. The second purpose was to examine current practicing teacher data about their perceptions of supervisor observations with feedback during their field based experiences. This chapter is divided into four main sections. Section one is a summary of the study results specific to the examination of the two research questions and their possible meanings. In section two, limitations of this study are discussed. In section three, conclusions and implications are discussed in relationship to the teacher preparation program and to teacher preparation programs nationwide. Also, recommendations are made for the ideal practicum experience. The last section will include final thoughts. Summary, Interpretation, and Implications of Results for Each Research Question There were two main questions (with subparts) for this study. Research question #1 examined the effects of consistent observation and feedback by trained supervisors during field based preservice teacher experiences. Research question #2 examined the
The Impact of Supervised 102 perceptions of these observations with feedback from the same preservice teachers who were now practicing teachers. In this section, each overall question will be discussed. Research Question #1: Archived Data What is the effect of consistent observation and feedback by trained supervisors on the teaching performance of preservice teachers? The results of the descriptive archived data as presented in detail in Chapter 4 generated several outcomes. Overall, the highest mean score for formal observations occurred in Block IV, suggesting that preservice teachers used and incorporated supervisor's feedback to improve their instructional skills. There was not a seamless trajectory (slope) between blocks. Preservice teachers often struggled with acquisition or use of particular skills (for example, tying their lessons to previous learning or creating smooth transitions) as they moved through the increasingly demanding blocks and as expectations increased. In Block II, the preservice teachers were expected to become used to working with a teacher and students in a classroom setting, teaching a lesson while being observed, and learning how to connect university coursework to their practicum environment. In this block, there were formal observations during both of their two classroom teaching experiences. High teaching proficiency relating to specific teaching criteria was not expected during these first attempts. However, as preservice teachers moved to Blocks III and IV, university course content became more difficult. Supervisor observation feedback reflected more difficult skills.
The Impact of Supervised 103 Research Question #la: What is the relationship between the observation results andfeedback provided to preservice teachers by university supervisors and classroom teachers (lead teachers)? When examining the archived data from this part of the study, there were several details that became apparent. First, examination of the data established a strong correlation between the Formal Observations (FOs) done by the university supervisors and the Final Evaluations (FNs) done by the lead teachers. This was important because statistical analysis showed that university supervisors and lead (classroom) teachers were in strong agreement about the abilities of preservice teachers when observing them in practicum settings. There are several possible explanations for the strong correlation between the lead teachers and the university supervisors. For one, most of the lead teachers chosen for practicum placements in these two cohorts were both master teachers (recommended by their principals for the job), and had previous experience with preservice teachers and the university practicum program - they were familiar with both the process and forms used and came to the evaluation process with experience. Lead teachers also sat in on postobservation conferences with university supervisors to discuss the session with the preservice teachers. Another reason was that the evaluation rubric was useful for and complimentary to both university supervisors' and lead teachers' observations, so the university and school agreed on the same skills set and expectations. Why are both the supervisor and the lead teacher needed when the correlation on the evaluation process between the lead teacher and the supervisor is so strong? The results show that both lead teachers and supervisors are needed because there are two
The Impact of Supervised 104 different roles in the practica process. The lead teacher is with the preservice teacher during the entire practicum time. Lead teachers continue to run their classrooms, while also ensuring that preservice teachers understand the day-to-day operation of a classroom. Lead teachers are responsible for modeling and mentoring the practicum students. In contrast, university supervisors are at the school site during each week of the practicum, but rove from classroom to classroom while conducting informal and formal observations of the preservice teachers' work. They also provide seminars about topics of interest for the preservice teachers, collaborate with lead teachers and school staff, mediate disputes, and ensure that the preservice teachers are applying their university coursework to the practicum classroom. Both the lead teacher and the supervisor are critical to the preservice teachers' development, but this process of development requires the supervisors' feedback through each block in the sequence to help preservice teachers achieve strong evaluations at the end of the process (Fayne, 2007). Prater and Sileo (2002) noted it is important for university and school faculty to collaborate in preparing future teachers. In the archived data, there was a high interrater reliability between the formal observations done by a supervisor and a graduate assistant supervisor (NGSS). This provides justification to continue the practice of one university supervisor training the new graduate assistant supervisors to gain better and more consistent formal observations and feedback among all supervisors for each block of preservice teachers involved in the study.
The Impact of Supervised 105 Research Question #lb: Given consistent observation and feedback, do preservice teachers consistently improve their teaching practices over the three semesters of their fieldpractica experience? While all of the preservice teachers showed general improvement in their overall teaching skills by the end of Block IV, it was not a straight path. Additionally, no particular observation was able to predict final outcome. In other words, preservice teacher performance in early blocks did not predict final performance as determined by university supervisors (R=.428; R2=.183). However, results suggested a significant difference in preservice teacher performance from the first observation to the last (t30=3.94; M=7.35). One reason for the variation among groups between blocks was that the main focus of observations changed from block to block. For example, in Block II, the main focus was to acclimate the preservice teachers to the classroom environment and the observation process. In Block in, the main focus was exposure to special education through collaboration with a special education teacher. Finally, in Block IV, the focus was on fine tuning the formal observation process, with special emphasis on the teaching portion of the observation. These differences among blocks sometimes cause difficulty for some preservice teachers, but they are not unexpected and should be anticipated in their future careers. This gives preservice teachers the experiences they need in order to face these difficulties. The data showed that the teaching part of the practicum field experience was especially difficult for some of the preservice teachers. A reason for this difficulty may have been that teaching is an action, and the only way for many preservice teachers to
The Impact of Supervised 106 learn to teach is to engage in it. Teaching is not learned by observing classrooms or listening to lectures about how to teach. Preservice teachers have to actually teach. However, even within such an extended practicum program as this study followed, preservice teachers were required to teach a formal observation only seven times in total: two times in Block n, two times in Block in, and three times in Block IV. Certainly, some preservice teachers had more opportunities, but it depended on their lead teachers' giving them extra time. Thus, they still had little time to engage in teaching in real class settings. The results of this part of question #1 imply that on-going multiple observations with feedback are critical and should be continued because of the change in expectations as the preservice teachers progress through the program (Hardman, 2007). Preservice teachers need as much exposure as possible for student teaching and becoming practicing teachers (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002). The more they practice, the easier the teaching process becomes. Field based experiences matter in terms of the time available for actual teaching with feedback. Research Question #lc: Is there a difference in the observed teaching performance in practicum for preservice teachers in the highest third of their cohort as measured by grade point average (GPA) in education coursework, compared to those in the middle third or the bottom third as measured by GPA? The examination of the archived data demonstrated that the levels of achievement among preservice teachers did not change much. Those who began the blocks at a high level of achievement, for the most part, finished the blocks at high levels. This was also true for the medium and low
The Impact of Supervised 107 achieving groups of preservice teachers. The data showed that GPA was a strong predictor of success among these preservice teachers. One reason for this was that in the blocked program, cliques within each cohort were often formed based on grade point averages. In these smaller groupings, they learned from and supported each other. Another difference was that high achieving students were the most motivated of the three groups in their university coursework. Low achieving students were not strong academically and often struggled with coursework on top of the practicum experience. Perhaps they put more effort on their graded classes rather than on the S/U (satisfactory/ unsatisfactory) practicum class. They often struggled to connect coursework to the practicum, and they may have felt overwhelmed by the demands of the program. Additionally, preservice teachers from the low achieving group did not transition into active teaching as readily as the other groups. Some implications of these results are that the low group may need more mentoring and more attention from their supervisors during the practica. In fact, they often need more support during their internships and eventually as practicing teachers. The implications for such students with low GPAs stretches back to their admission to the program - they may need extra supervision and support throughout their time in the teacher education program. Research Question #2: Current Data What are the retrospective perceptions of practicing teachers on the impact of their preservice practicum experiences on their current day professional teaching?
The Impact of Supervised 108 For this part of the study, data from the PTPPO survey that were returned by respondents were examined. These respondents were teaching in their own classrooms when they returned the surveys. Data were used to answer the following questions. Research Question #2a: How useful was the observation with feedback in improving their practice? When examining data from the analyzed survey items for question #2a, the overall mean score was 4.43 out of 5.0, which indicated that the practicing teachers generally felt that observations done by university supervisors were useful to them. This is important because a lot of resources and time went into observing preservice teachers in their practicum settings, and their responses support the commitment required for multiple observations with feedback within this program. Samples of their comments from the surveys illustrate their positive responses in Table 20. Table 20 Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Observations "The feedback ... helped me to gain confidence and trust that I did know what I was doing and was doing a good job. It also helped me to realize that even a lesson that goes nothing like you thought it would, can be a valuable learning experience. They taught us the value of reflecting and really made us think about our lessons." "I thought the [post-observation] conferences helped address issues like what was not well received by the students, what could I do differently and it's nice because the experience is discussed while it's still fresh in our heads. ... the [written and verbal] feedback is immediate and in the moment. It makes it relevant and memorable because you can remember and picture the events/dialogue in the lesson you just taught." "The feedback given by the supervisors during practicum was very similar to the feedback given by my current administrators."
The Impact of Supervised 109 Research Question #2b: How prepared did they feel for full-time teaching? When considering the overall mean of survey item #7 that specifically asked this research question, a mean score of 3.85 out of 5.0 was found. Although this showed that, because of feedback given to them, practicing teachers generally felt prepared to teach, it is obviously an area for further examination. One concern is that the lower scores given in answer to this question were 2s and 3s. Four practicing teachers gave these scores, meaning that these four teachers either somewhat disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with the question. Prior to becoming practicing teachers, preservice teachers felt prepared, but found, when they actually began teaching, they were less prepared than they thought they were. However, even given the extended time frame of this program, the reality of the practicum system was preservice teachers only taught seven lessons over the three blocks, though this varied somewhat depending on the lead teachers with whom they worked. Many did only the minimum required number of lessons, though in some other class settings the lead teacher allowed the preservice teachers to try more teaching or lesson planning. Seven lessons may seem like a lot while immersed in the program, but several practicing teacher respondents indicated that this was not enough. The reason there were only seven lessons was because in Block II, the students were just beginning to get used to the classroom environment, so only two formal lessons were taught. In Block III, the university coursework intensified, and the lessons involved a lot of connection to coursework. As teaching skills increased in Block IV, three formal lessons were taught. This was the block just before student teaching, and students needed
The Impact of Supervised 110 to be exposed to as much teaching as possible. Another problem with teaching more lessons was that it was difficult to integrate more preservice teacher lessons into the demands of the classrooms and the regular curricula. Another major consideration about supervision was that all of the observations for all of the lessons of the entire cohort for each semester needed to be observed by supervisors, and this required a tremendous amount of supervisory time. It would be beneficial to observe more lessons per preservice teacher, but in reality there have to be limitations. Preservice teachers do have other opportunities to teach lessons with feedback during their student teaching time. Another reason that these mean scores for survey question #7 were lower was related to the discontinuity of supervisors as the preservice teachers worked their way through the blocks. For the spring 2006 to spring 2007 group, who were preservice teachers in practicum placements, there were different supervisors for almost every semester. Additionally, the graduate assistants who helped supervise the blocks were also different for each bock. The group form fall 2006 to fall 2007 had the same supervisor in Block II and Block EI, and had an experienced supervisor in Block IV. However, graduate assistants for this cohort were different for each block. The second cohort had greater supervisor continuity than the first cohort group. Table 21 shows this information.
The Impact of Supervised 111 Table 21 Supervision of Blocks for Preservice Teachers in this Study during Semesters Spring 2006 to Fall 2007 Block II 1st Group Supervisor A, Graduate Assistant A 2nd Group Supervisor B* Graduate Assistant B Block III Block IV
Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007 Fall 2007
1st Group Supervisor B*, Graduate Assistants CI** and C2** 2na Group Supervisor B, Graduate Assistants CI &C2 1st Group Supervisor C***, Graduate Assistants D1**&D2 2na Group Supervisor C***, Graduate Assistants Dl & E**
*Supervisor was new to the process. ** Graduate Assistants were new to the process. ***Supervisor had been a part of the program since fall 2004.
Another reason scores were lower for this survey item may be revealed in the respondent comments (see Table 22). Several times, respondents noted in their surveys that the value of the post-conference observations depended on the supervisor. This was more than likely a reaction to the variety of supervisors and graduate assistant supervisors during the time these groups were in the blocks. Again, this indicates a preference for better continuity and for an overall supervisor who can adequately train all other supervision staff to ensure reliability, monitor feedback procedures, make connections with the school principals, check on university coursework assignments, and monitor classroom activities, among other responsibilities. In other words, the need for a "super"
The Impact of Supervised 112 supervisor is indicated to work as a liaison between classroom, school, university and preservice teachers. Clearly, to improve the preparation of preservice teachers in this program, an overall supervisor could ensure a strong connection for students between blocks. It would be preferable, when preservice teachers move from one block to another, for one supervisor to routinely connect with university faculty to target low achievers for continued mentoring. Further, there should be regular meetings between university faculty in each block and the overall lead supervisor for continued efforts to connect university courses to the practicum setting. Table 22 includes comments from practicing teachers on the supervision that they had during their practicum time as preservice teachers. Table 22 Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Supervisors "It was great to get the feedback but it all depended on the observer I had." "If I had a question or concern, I could get feedback about those. I did feel like the feedback from the practicum supervisors was far more insightful than the assistants/grad students. "I do believe that certain conferences helped me more than others did. For me it depended on the observer. I had supervisors that didn't give much feedback which made the conference worthless. The more feedback I got, the more I was able to analyze my lessons in order to make them better."
Research Question #2c: How much time inpracticado they perceive is enough to fully prepare them for student teaching and a full-time teaching position? An
The Impact of Supervised 113 examination of the returned survey data indicates the responses to question #2c had a mean score of 3.69, one of the lowest mean scores of the eight questions on the survey. Several of the practicing teachers interpreted the question to mean the actual amount of hours or days they were in practicum placements. Others gave low scores because they wanted more time in special education classrooms during their practicum time. The reason preservice teachers were not placed in special education classrooms was due to a greater demand than the available supply of placements. In Block in, the majority of the preservice teachers who requested this placement were put in special education classrooms. In Block IV, preservice teachers were given opportunities to observe in several middle school and high school special education programs. However, not all of the preservice teachers were able to be placed in special education practicum placements. This is one area that the teacher education program may need to address - developing more placement sites for special education. Another reason for low scores on this survey item about feeling prepared to teach could have been related to some practicing teachers believing they needed more exposure to activities that were not a part of the practicum experience. For example, they wanted to be involved in initial IEPs (Individual Education Programs) in special education or more time in lesson planning. Certainly, even with such extended practicum experiences as occurred in this program, practica are not completely authentic - the practicum experience is limited, not replicating the complete "8 to 5" experience of a full-time classroom teacher. Since the respondents were now practicing teachers, they realized what they did not know as preservice teachers.
The Impact of Supervised 114 Research Question #2d: Did students receive sufficient observation with feedback during theirpractica? Would they like more? When examining data on this survey question, it was interesting to find that, although the respondents believed they had sufficient feedback, with scores of 4s and 5 s, one respondent believed there should have been at least three formal observations in each block. Only Block IV had three formal observations. This might be another area to examine for future research. In the current teacher education program, there was a heavy burden on schools when supporting preservice teachers' practica experiences. Working with preservice teachers required a time commitment of lead teachers and school faculty. The requirements of NCLB create time constraints that lead teachers and host schools must address. These additional considerations create fewer opportunities for staff to focus on the preservice teacher. Additionally, placing 20 or more preservice teachers in one school creates a tremendous impact on university faculty, staff, lead teachers, and the physical building space. Although it was encouraging that the practicing teachers believed that they had enough supervision with feedback, more time teaching and receiving feedback may be impossible for schools and for the supervisory staff. However, it would be problematic to drop any of the observations with feedback that are already in place. Limitations of the Study Before considering the limitations of this study, a review of the basic methodology and focus of the study and the teacher preparation program of which it was part is necessary. Two groups of preservice teachers were chosen to participate in order to have as large a sample as possible for the study. This also permitted a more in-depth
The Impact of Supervised 115 study because it included archived data from several semesters (Group I: three semesters from spring 2006-spring 2007; Group II: three semesters from fall 2006-fall 2007). These two cohort groups were chosen for several reasons. First, these cohorts of preservice teachers were in blocks that were in back-to-back semesters. Second, the department's observation and evaluation forms for the two groups of preservice teachers were the same for Blocks II-IV. In some of the other cohorts, forms were revised during their three-semester time frame. Therefore, the forms for the archived data for these two cohort groups matched. Third, this program began in the fall of 2004. As with any new program, there were some difficulties at the beginning, but with these two chosen cohort groups, there were relatively few, if any, program differences. By the time that these preservice teachers began Block II, several semesters had passed since the program had begun. The system was generally in place and remained so for the semesters that these preservice teachers were in the blocks. A fourth reason that these two cohort blocks worked well for this research study was that schools where the two groups had their practica placements were the same. Both of the Block II groups were in the same middle socio-economic, traditional schedule elementary school, the same upper socio-economic multi-track calendar elementary school in Block III, and the same lower socio-economic traditional calendar elementary school for Block IV. These placements allowed for a good range of diverse schools for the practicum placements. Additionally, the schools for Block HI and Block IV were those in which preservice practicum teachers were placed for several semesters. The teachers and administrators of these schools understood and fully supported the
The Impact of Supervised 116 university's field based program. Also, the researcher was involved and familiar with both cohort groups and knew the personnel in the blocks. (See Table 21 for a chart of the personnel involved.) These two groups were the most alike of any of the recent cohort groups. The first limitation of this study grew out of the choice of these two cohort groups. Only two of the 31 preservice teachers, from which archived data was used from the two cohort groups for three semesters from spring 2006-fall 2007, were male. There was only one male in each blocked group on which data were collected. This is typical of the blocked, dual program at the University of Nevada, Reno. The number of males each semester in this program is very low. Often, only special education majors were included in the blocks, and their inclusion raised the total count of males by one or two students. This low representation of males versus females was a pattern that existed since the dual, blocked program began in fall 2004. Additionally, this is a pattern that dominates elementary education itself-most teachers are female (Hollins & Guzman, 2005; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). This disproportionate ratio of males to females was a limitation that could not be changed, because that ratio was fairly standard in this practicum program. A fundamental limitation of this research was the sample size for research question #1 regarding archived data for only 31 preservice teachers. This was not a large sample compared to some studies, such as those by Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow in 2002 (n=2,302), or Fayne in 2007 (n=222). However, numerous other studies in this research paper presented data from similar sample sizes such as Browder,
The Impact of Supervised 117 Karvonen, Davis, Fallin, and Courtage-Little in 2005 (n=28); Bullough, Young, Erickson, Birrell, Clark, and Egan et al. in 2002 (n=21); Goodman in 1985 (n=10); and Dymond, Renzaglia, Halle, Chadsey, and Bentz in 2008 (n=6). Another limitation of sample size in this research study was the number of surveys returned from the practicing teachers. Although there were 31 preservice teachers for the archived data for the two cohorts, the sample size of research question #2 of the practicing teachers included only 13 returned surveys. One of the respondents was not a practicing teacher at the time. Because of this, only pieces of information from the survey returned from this respondent were used in the results section. There could have been several reasons why the sample size was small with the surveys. One reason for this low return of surveys could have been because these practicing teachers were first and second year teachers and therefore still considered novices. The demands of full-time teaching may have outweighed their interest in completing and returning the survey. Another unforeseen problem could have been that another unrelated university survey was sent to former students just before this survey was sent out. The practicing teachers could have optioned that one survey was enough. A third reason for the small sample size might have been the result of out-dated respondent contact information, so some may not have received the survey. Aside from sample size, the forms used for the formal observations and final evaluations placed a different kind of limitation on this research study. These forms were designed for the use of feedback to preservice teachers. They were not designed for research. These forms may have made it difficult to determine if the scale that was used
The Impact of Supervised 118 was categorical or continuous. The variability between the two forms (one form had 14 items and the other form had 11 items) made it difficult to compare them. Conclusions: The Ideal Practicum Experience Based on the results of this research, several conclusions can be made that hold implications for teacher preparation programs. Research and findings on the effectiveness of field based practicum experiences has been minimal. Clearly, there needs to be ongoing examinations of teacher preparation programs with an emphasis on field based practicum experiences. Results of this study could provide a catalyst for additional studies in this area and give teacher preparation programs suggestions for essential changes so that graduates of these programs can meet contemporary classroom challenges. When looking at quality teacher preparation, O'Shea, Hammitte, Mainzer, & Crutchfield (2000) stated that "Whether in special or general education, there is a growing consensus that the single most important influence in education, is a wellprepared, caring, and qualified adult" (p. 72). Therefore, graduates of teacher education programs need to be prepared and qualified to teach all children. Arthaud, Aram, Breck, Doelling, and Bushrow (2007), in an article on collaboration between general education and special education, stated "As P-12 education changes to meet the needs of children and federal and state regulation, teacher education must change to prepare candidates with knowledge and skills expected of today's educators" (p. 1). Therefore, teacher preparation programs need to continually update and alter their programs to suit the needs of a changing population of children in the classrooms. So what would an ideal practicum experience look like?
The Impact of Supervised 119 Extended Time The ideal practicum would include extensive field based experience. This means more than a couple of hours in one semester. This research study included archived data from a teacher preparation program from practica that were completed over three semesters for each of two cohort groups. The preservice teachers completed 6 hours of practicum time weekly for about 15 weeks each semester for three semesters, for a total of over 270 hours in their classroom settings. On a continuum of field based experiences in such programs in the United States (see Figure 2), 270 hours over three semesters is among the longest amount of time spent in practica, except perhaps in five-year programs. Studies done by Berry, 2001; Brownell, Ross, Colon, and McCallum, 2005; and Moore, 2003 included extended time similar to 90 hours per semester. The results from current data from the PTPPO survey in this study showed that most of the practicing teachers responded in a similar manner concerning the importance of their field experiences. The mean scores, overall, from this survey item (#5) were 3.69, with 5.0 being the highest. This indicated that some practicing teachers believed they needed more time in practica (see Figure 11). The belief that extensive field experience is important fits with the study on teacher preparation programs done by Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum in 2005 and shows agreement with the results of this study. Kim, Andrews, and Carr (2004) also determined that extensive teaching were important. The significance of an extended field experience is increasingly recognized in the literature. Data results from this study also showed that preservice teachers' scores on formal observations, in most cases, improved steadily over the semesters of the practica.
The Impact of Supervised 120 The overall highest mean scores for preservice teachers on their observations were from Block IV (see Table 13). These scores could be directly connected to the amount of time that preservice teachers were observed while teaching lessons in various classroom settings. In an ideal practicum program, three semesters with at least six hours a week of field based practicum experienceas in this programbefore beginning student teaching would be optimal. Diverse Settings With this extensive field experience, preservice teachers were observed more times in diverse settings (Hutchinson & Martin, 1999), worked with a variety of lead teachers in varied classrooms and grade levels, and were exposed to different working conditions. This exposure to different settings allowed the preservice teachers opportunities to know where and what they wanted to student teach (school, grade, etc.) and work in their future jobs as teachers. This was an important opportunity (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004) for the ideal field based practicum experience. Another aspect that was important was being able to observe and work with several master teachers in classroom settings, and no doubt contributed to their teaching improvement (Denton, 1982). Exposure to a variety of diverse populations is another characteristic of the ideal field based practicum experience. It is important for preservice teachers to experience schools whose populations are from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. In addition, their field experiences should include working with English Language Learners and students who receive special education services (Veltri, 2008). Also, in an ideal
The Impact of Supervised 121 practicum experience, preservice teachers would connect to the school community as a whole by participating in non-student/teacher settings - for example, sitting in on a PTA meeting or attending a family night. This would enable preservice teachers to see classroom students in their own contexts with their families (Bell, Horn & Roxas, 2007). As mentioned in this study, schools in this district were on different calendars. Some schools operated on a traditional August-June calendar, but others operated on the multi track system that began in mid-July and had vacation months during the school year. Exposure to schools with different calendars would be important for the ideal practicum experience so that preservice teachers could learn about working at schools that follow alternative calendars. For example, preservice teachers could witness how a "roving" teacher must move from classroom to classroom in a multi track system. Additionally, the ideal practicum experience should include extended practica in which preservice teachers spend different times of day at the practica site. This would allow preservice teachers to witness the variety of the schedules that schools have depending on the time of day or day of the week. Further, exposure to a variety of grade levels would be important in an ideal practicum experience. The preservice teachers in this study were dual majors and were licensed in both elementary (K-8) and special education (K-12). Working with kindergarteners just learning to make their letters is quite different than a sixth grader writing a 2-page report, so the preservice teachers in extended field experiences may see this variety. In addition, they should have the opportunity to observe and work with students and teachers in middle school and high school settings, especially in special
The Impact of Supervised 122 education. Exposure to a variety of practicum experiences was an important component within the teacher preparation program for this research study, as the respondents' comments reflect in Table 23. Table 23 Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Variety of Experiences "I thought it was very beneficial to have the opportunity to see a variety of classrooms and learn about teachers through their teaching styles. [The supervisors] placed me in a variety of grades that helped me figure out what age group worked best." "I was able to teach actual students in their classrooms which prepared me for what my classroom might be like."
Connections to Coursework One of the components of the ideal field based practicum experience would be to provide an arena in which preservice teachers are able to connect what is learned in their coursework to their classroom setting (Brownell et al., 2005). This gives preservice teachers the opportunity to practice connection of coursework to teaching (Hardman, 2007). In a case study conducted with preservice teachers Kim, Andrews, and Carr (2004) found that it was beneficial for preservice teachers to connect their coursework to teaching in classrooms. However, this is not always the case. Moore (2003) found that preservice teachers often were more concerned with other issues, such as classroom management and classroom procedural issues, than connecting their coursework to the practica. The preservice teachers in this study may have also dealt with this issue. On item #9 of the
The Impact of Supervised 123 PTPPO survey, several practicing teachers gave feedback as to how they felt about the connection of the coursework in their methods' classes at the university to their practica. Table 24 shows some of their comments. Table 24 Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Connections to Coursework "These experiences helped me because it gave me an opportunity to practice the skills and theories that we were being taught..." "The theory/science of teaching is important, but I wish we spent more time on role playing (in our UNR classrooms) how to write more useful lesson plans and classroom management." "I was able to spend time practicing what I was learning in the classroom with supported practice in an authentic setting. Being able to practice specifics such as reading groups, writing workshops, and math instructions in a supported environment was invaluable."
General Supervision Generally, supervisors are considered a key part of field experiences for preservice teachers (Fayne, 2007). In this study, the feedback that supervisors gave to preservice teachers after their formal observations was a central feature of the research. In an ideal field based experience, the ratio of supervisors to preservice teachers at each practicum site should be high to ensure the possibility of adequate attention and feedback, especially for low achievers as the data in this study suggested. An ideal ratio could be one supervisor to every six preservice teachers. This would also permit additional observations with feedback for preservice teachers. When examining formal observations in the archived data, Table 14 demonstrated, from the first observation in Block II to the
The Impact of Supervised 124 last observation in Block IV that all three achieving groups (high achievers, medium achievers, and low achievers) improved. It is very likely this was due to consistently delivered feedback given to the preservice teachers. This was further shown in Table 17, where mean scores were lower in Block II and higher in Block IV for all achieving levels of preservice teachers. Feedback given to preservice teachers helped them improve their observation scores over time. In order to provide feedback, a preservice practica program must have adequate numbers of supervisors at each school site. Table 25 shows comments from practicing teachers about supervisor feedback during their practicum experiences. Table 25 Comments from Surveys by Practicing Teachers on Feedback "To receive feedback from a face-to-face conference, in my opinion, was much more valuable than reading comments on a piece of paper; which can have the potential drawback of being ambiguous. With the post-observation conference, two-way conversation, personal clarification and examples provided for true growth from the experience.... With direct feedback, statements ... can be clarified on the spot and the feedback will guide future lessons the way the supervisor had intended them to be used." "The value of the post-observation conferences was tremendous. It began a life long skill as an educator. It is imperative that we, as teachers, should reflect on our daily activities and impressions. The conferences allowed us to talk through our thoughts and concerns with a professional. The feedback and support through the practicum experiences was fundamental to my growth as a teacher."
Another area of an ideal practicum program for preservice teachers would be training of supervisors. It is important that university supervisors receive training on how to conduct observations and on how to provide meaningful feedback. This would ensure
The Impact of Supervised 125 observations were done consistently and reliably throughout the entire team of supervisors. This would also ensure that all supervisors would take an active role in the supervision process. Training is also important for providing valuable feedback to future teachers so they can begin to develop solid teaching skills. As discussed in the methods chapter within the procedure section, a specific system was used to train new graduate students who worked as supervisors (NGSS). Table 11 in the methods chapter showed this process so that strong interrater reliability was achieved between observations done by different university supervisors and the results of scoring the formal observation rubric were consistent. The training process required additional start-up time, but was important for strong interrater reliability and for continuity of this program from one block to the other. The high turnover of graduate assistants is a feature of most teacher preparation programs and is a concern. Coupled with budget cuts, this problem could be exacerbated. Overall Supervisor In the ideal practicum experience, there should be one overall supervisor with a multitude of jobs. This overall supervisor would be in charge of training and preparing the supervisory team for continued strong interrater reliability during observations. He/she would also help connect university coursework to the practicum experience by establishing and maintaining connections with university faculty, lead teachers and principals at the preservice teachers' school sites. This overall supervisor would also monitor students and lead teachers to ensure an optimal experience and would fill the role as a trouble shooter for issues and concerns that surface at the school sites or between the
The Impact of Supervised 126 university and school sites. This position should be permanent because changes in personnel interrupt the collaboration, connectivity, and continuity of the program. Final Thoughts "From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents, it's the person standing at the front of the classroom" (President Obama, March 10, 2009). Preparing future teachers to be that important factor for our classroom students is of the highest importance. One of the best ways for future teachers to learn about how to work with children in a classroom setting is through field based practicum experiences. As one of the practicing teachers commented on his/her PTPPO survey: Practicum experiences were very helpful and a key component when learning to become a teacher. They were vital to the continuation of my college career and in becoming a teacher. It was taking everything we had learned in our college courses and applying the theories, strategies and practices. The [practica] gave us real experiences in the classroom. (Quote from PTPPO Survey) Concerns about the continuation of field based practicum programs are many. In the current economic crisis, budgets for higher education are being deeply scrutinized, and the budgets for teacher preparation programs such as these are in danger of being cut. As budget cuts are made there is a growing concern that note only could graduate assistantships be eliminated, but also faculty positions as well. Such personnel cuts mean less supervision and support in extended field based practica. Supervision is expensive, requiring one-on-one interactions that are necessary for observations with feedback of
The Impact of Supervised 127 preservice teachers in multiple classroom settings beyond the university walls. "Unfortunately, supervision is also the most expensive component of a teacher education program, because it is typically delivered on an individualized b a s i s . . . " (Dymond, Rengzaglia, Halle, Chadsey, & Bentz, 2008, p. 251). Early, extended field experiences for preservice teachers in diverse settings are now generally considered the most important piece of current teacher preparation programs. These practicum placements need to be carefully chosen for optimal preservice teachers' experiences so they will be exposed and be able to participate in classrooms and schools that include a rich variety of programs and students. Field based experiences should be extensive and variednot based on a limited, quick exposure to a classroom setting within a single semester. A mere glimpse of the potential future classroom setting and teacher responsibilities is not enough for teachers in training. Additionally, especially in teacher preparation programs for future teachers who will be licensed to teach K-12 in special education or K-8 in general education, more practicum placements with special education teachers are a must. Preservice teachers need to be able to connect to schools for possible future placements for their impending student teaching and beyond. Preservice teachers also need to be able to work in different grade levels in order to experience how classrooms are managed at primary and middle grades and thus to have the opportunity to consider the grade level and school in which they may ultimately prefer to teach. The challenge is here for colleges and universities to continue to improve their teacher preparation programs so that their graduates will be highly qualified teachers.
The Impact of Supervised 128 However, more research needs to be conducted to find answers to the questions that have been posed throughout this paper. Colleges and universities need to continue to develop and hone their teacher preparation programs. Our university graduates deserve this; more importantly, our children deserve this. So let there be no doubt: The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens ~ and my fellow Americans, we have everything we need to be that nation. We have the best universities, the most renowned scholars. We have innovative principals and passionate teachers and gifted students, and we have parents whose only priority is their child's education. We have a legacy of excellence, and an unwavering belief that our children should climb higher than we did. (President Obama, March 10,2009)
The Impact of Supervised 129 References Arthaud, T., Aram, R., Breck, S., Doelling, J., & Bushrow, K. (2007). Developing collaboration skills in pre-service teachers: A partnership between general and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 1-12. Ashford, E. (2009). Districts cope with rising numbers of homeless students. School Board News. Retrieved March 18,2009 from National School Board Association's website at http://www.nsba.org/HPC/Features/AboutSBN/SbnArchive/2009/January2009/Districts-cope-with-rising-numbers-of-homeless-students.aspx Baldwin, S., Buchanan, A., & Rudisill, M. (2007). What teacher candidates learned about diversity, social justice, and themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 315-327. Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., et al. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bell, C , Horn, B., & Roxas, K. (2007). We know it's service, but what are they learning? Preservice teachers' understanding of diversity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 123-133. Berry, B. (2001). No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educational Leadership, 55(8), 32-36.
The Impact of Supervised 130 Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of early special educators. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 333-347. Billingsley, B., & McLeskey, J. (2004). Critical issues in special education teacher supply and demand: Overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 2-4. Blanton, L., & Pugach, M. (2007). Collaborative programs in general and special teacher education: An action guide for higher education and policy makers. Center for Improving Teacher Quality: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 1-65. Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 267-282. Brown, S., & Melear, C. (2007). Preservice teachers' research experiences in scientists' laboratories. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 573-597. Brownell, M., Ross, D., Colon, E., & McCallum, C. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242-252. Bullough, R., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J., Clark, D., Egan, M., et al. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68-80. Cantrell, P., Leping, L., Leverington, M., & Ewing-Taylor, J. (2007). The effects of differentiated technology integration on student achievement in middle schools
The Impact of Supervised 131 science classrooms. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 36-54. Chau, M., & Douglas-Hall, A. (2008). Low-income children in the United States. National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved on March 20, 2009 from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_851 .pdf. Classroom assessment: Basic concepts. (2008). 1-8. Retrieved February 22, 2008 from Florida Center for Instructional Technology Website: http://fcit.usf.edu /assessment/basic/basica.html. Council for Exceptional Children (2006). CEC performance-based standards. 1-3. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from http://www.cec.sped.org /AM/Template.cfm ?Section=Ethicsand_Practice_Standards&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm &ContentID-1443. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters: Investing in teacher quality. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000b). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-49. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.
The Impact of Supervised 132 Darling-Hammond, L & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining "highly qualified teachers": What does "scientifically-based research" actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 1325. Denton, J. (1982). Early field experience influence on performance in subsequent coursework. Journal ofTeacher education, 33(2), 19-23. Dymond, S.K., Renzaglia, A., Halle, J.W., Chadsey, J., & Bentz, J.L. (2008). An evaluation of videoconferencing as a supportive technology for practicum supervision. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(4), 243 - 256. Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). (1975). Retrieved March 7, 2009 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_all_Handicapped_Children_Act. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). (1965). Retrieved March 7,2009 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESEA. Fayne, H. (2007). Supervision from the student teacher's perspective: An institutional case study. Studying Teacher Education, 3(1), 53-66. Frank, C , & Uy, F. (2004). Ethnography for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(3), 269-283. Goodman, J. (1985). What students learn from early field experiences: A case study and critical analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 42-48. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J.
The Impact of Supervised 133 Bradsford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should be able to do (pp.390-441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Haine (2008). History of the Haine Family. Retrieved on August 20,2008 from http://haine.org/history/history.html. Hardman, M. (2007). Redesigning the preparation of general and special education teachers: Collaboration within a school-wide system of support. Testimony given before the Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. House of Representatives. Hollins, E., & Guzman, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp.477-548). Mahwah and London: Erlbaum. Hutchinson, N., & Martin, A. (1999). The challenges of creating inclusive classrooms: Experiences of teacher candidates in a field-based course. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(2), 51-70. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1975, 2004). Retrieved March 7, 2009 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_with _Disabilities _Education_Act. Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A
The Impact of Supervised 134 resource for state dialogue. Retrieved on March 8, 2009 from www.ccsso.org /content/pdfs/corestrd.pdf. Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kennedy, J. F. (1963). Address in the assembly hall at the Paulskirche in Frankfurt, Germany. Retrieved on April 18, 2009 from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9303. Kim, M., Andrews, R., & Carr, D. (2004). Traditional versus integrated preservice teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 341-356. Klecker, B. (2000). Content validity of preservice teacher portfolios in a standards-based program. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 35-38. Klingner, J., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 411-429. Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. (2002). The effectiveness of Teach for America and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37), 1-56. Levine, A. (2006). Educating School Teachers. An Executive Summary Report for The Education Schools Project. Retrieved on March 22, 2009 from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Reporting.pdf. McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap?: A perspective on the teacher shortage in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 293-305.
The Impact of Supervised 135 McLeskey, J., & Ross, D. (2004). The politics of teacher education in the new millennium: Implications for special education teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 342-349. Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54( 1), 31 -42. A Nation at Risk. (1983). Retrieved March 7, 2009 from Wikipedia: http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_at_Risk. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2002). NCATE/CEC program standards: Programs for the preparation of special education teachers. Retrieved March 20,2009 from http://www.ncate.org/ProgramStandards/CEC/CECStandards.doc. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2006). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education, 1-61. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2007). Retrieved on March 7, 2009 from www.ncate.prg/documents/NCATEMission.pdf. Nevada Report Card. (2008). Retrieved on March 8, 2009 from http://www.nevadareportcard.com.profile/graduationrates.aspx?levelid=A&entityi d=00&yeari. Nougaret, A., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71(3), 217-229.
The Impact of Supervised 136 Obama, B. (2009). President Obama's remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. New York Times. Retrieved March 27, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html. O'Shea, D., Hammitte, D., Mainzer, R., & Crutchfield, M. (2000). From teacher preparation to continuing professional development. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 71-77. Parrott, S. (2008). Recession could cause large increases in poverty and push millions into deep poverty. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.rikidscount.org/matriarch/documents/CBPP%281 %29.pdf on March 20, 2009. Pennington, J. (2007). Silence in the classroom/whispers in the halls: Autoethnography as pedagogy in white pre-service teacher education. Race Ethnicity & Education, 10 (1), 93-113. Posner, G. (2000). Field experience: A guide to reflective teaching. (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon. Prater, M., & Sileo, T. (2002). School-university partnerships in special education field experiences: A national descriptive study. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6), 325-348. Schalock, M. (1998). Accountability, student learning and the preparation and licensure of teachers: Oregon's teacher work sample methodology. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 269-285.
The Impact of Supervised 137 Schrag, P. (2007). Schrag: The zigs and zags of education reform 50 years after Sputnik. California Progress Report. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/schrag_the_zigs.html. Shephard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Rust, F., Snowden, J., Gordon, E., et al. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bradsford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should be able to do (pp.275-326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, T., & Dowdy, C. (1998). Educating young children with disabilities using responsible inclusion. Childhood Education, 74,1. Teach for America (2008). Retrieved on March 10, 2008 from http://www.teachforamerica.org. United States Department of Education (2004). New No Child Left Behind flexibility: Highly qualified teachers. Retrieved on August 26, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html. University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). (2004). Performance assessment in integrated elementary/special education programs. Department of Educational Specialties, College of Education. Veltri, B. (2008). Teaching or service?: The site-based realities of teach for America teachers in poor urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 40(5), 511-542. Washoe County School District, (n.d.). 2006-2007 School Accountability Summary Report. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://www.washoe.kl2.nv.us /schools/elementary.
The Impact of Supervised 138 Will, G. (2009, March 23). Calling the baby ugly. Newsweek, 153(12), 64. Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 190-204. Zeichner, K., & Schulte, A. (2001). What we know and don't know from peer-reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 266-282. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers' characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 111-156). Mahwah and London: Erlbaum.
The Impact of Supervised 139 Appendix A Graphic Representation of the Block System: Blocks I-IV.
Background Information on the Block System in the EDS Department

After students are admitted to the Integrated Elementary/Special Education Program (the dual program) in the EDES department, they progress through three blocks before doing their student internship.
To student internship
o o o o
Block I: This is the exploring block Block II: This is the developing block Block 1 1 1 : This is the engaging block Block IV: This is the refining block
(rvruwxrvm, ,
Each block has a practicum. Blocks II, I, and IV have supervised practicum classes.
(Beck 2006)
The Impact of Supervised Appendix B Studies on Features of Effective Teacher Preparation Researchers/ Type of study Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum (2005)/ Review of research literature on studies looking at learning to teach, (number of studies, n = 97) Hardman (2007)/ Testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor Focus of study/ Presentation Features of teacher preparation programs that make effective teachers Participants 15 institutions with general education teacher preparation programs. Review of 64 articles from 5 referred journals about teacher preparation in special education Programs
140
Outcome 7 features that make effective special education teachers: extensive field experience was mentioned in 3 of the features and implied in two more.
A report on how to design better teacher preparation programs for general and special education teachers.
University of Utah's teacher education program
-Field experiences and course work in teacher preparation programs must be connected. -Field experiences are important so preservice teachers can demonstrate knowledge and skills. -Field experiences are important for practicing theory.
NOTE: Studies are placed in this table in the order in which they appear in the paper. They are not necessarily in alphabetical order. Some authors are listed in other appendices.
The Impact of Supervised Appendix C Studies on Connecting Coursework to Field Experiences Researchers/ Type of study Kim, Andrews, &Carr (2004)/ Case Study Focus of study/Presentation Traditional teacher preparation program with no connections between courses and field work, and a program that connected courses and field experience. Effects of "an early field experience" (p. 21) on a methods course in teaching taken after the field experience. Field experience was 30 hours during one semester. Participants Data from students (n=213) in a traditional teacher preparation program and students (n=121) in a new teacher preparation program. Preservice teachers (n=139) who took the same methods course. Some (n=78) had no field experience before taking this course. Some (n=61) had field experience before taking the course. Mentor teachers (n=62) Preservice teachers (n=77) Outcome Students in the new program felt stronger in the 13 competencies and better prepared to teach.
141
Denton (1982)/ Research study
Early field experiences are important for preservice teachers.
Moore (2003)/ Research study
Are preservice teachers effective? Perceptions of preservice teachers.
More time for integration of theory with practice is needed. Suggestion: Increase practicum classes before student teaching.
The Impact of Supervised 142 Appendix D Key Studies on Accountability and Assessment in Preservice Teaching
Researchers/ Type of study Browder, Karvonen, Davis, Fallin, & CourtageLittle (2005)/ Research study Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, Menendez (2003)/ Research study Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri (2005)/ Research study Effect of implementing research based practices in classrooms Focus of study/ Presentation Effect of teacher training on student scores on alternative assessments. Participants Special Education teachers (n=25) with 024 years of teaching experience; one or more students (n=28) from each teacher also participated. Outcome It is necessary to train teachers in instructional variables (specific instructional methods with curriculum access, data collection, and effective instruction.)
Elementary general education and special education teachers (n=29) with between 228 years of teaching.
Teachers who used the practices on a regular basis found that these practices benefited their students.
Effect of differences between teachers with traditional licenses and those with nontraditional licenses.
First year special education teachers (n=40). These were divided into two groups: teachers who had traditional licenses and teachers who had nontraditional licenses. (n=20 per group)
Two findings emerged: Both sets of teachers evaluated themselves at similar levels. Also, traditionally licensed teachers did better than teachers receiving their license through a nontraditional means.
The Impact of Supervised Appendix E Studies on Recruitment and Retention of Teachers Researchers/ Type of study Ingersoll & Smith (2003)/ Review of literature and data Billingsley & McLeskey (2004)/ Syntheses of research Veltri (2008)/ Longitudinal qualitative study Focus of study/ Presentation Reasons for high attrition rates of teachers in their first years of teaching. Participants Beginning teachers who left their jobs. (Teaching years < 5). Outcome
143
Hiring more new teachers who leave within five years is not a solution.
Shortages of special education teachers
Four articles that addressed areas that were factors in shortages of special education teachers. TFA core members, mentors and administrators (n>300)
Future research is needed in these areas.
Teach for America (TFA) Alternative Teacher Certification Program Traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs
There are many complexities of teaching on the job in this program.
DarlingHammond, Chung, & Frelow (2002)/ Study of data
Beginning teachers in New York City with 3 years or less of teaching experience. (n=2,302)
Three outcomes: -Teacher preparation programs need to continually evaluate their programs. -States need to hire teachers who are prepared. -If better prepared teachers are retained, then money will be saved. "University prepared teachers are of higher quality than those prepared without an approved program of preparation" (p. 42).
Laczko-Kerr & Berliner (2002)/ Research study
Traditional and alternative teacher preparation programs.
Pairs of beginning teachers (n=109 pairs). Half certified through traditional teacher preparation programs, and half certified through alternative programs.
The Impact of Supervised 144 Appendix F Studies on Training with Diverse Student Populations
Researchers/ Type of study Hollins & Guzman (2005)/ Review of research literature Focus of study/ Presentation Survey of research on preparing teachers for working with diverse populations. Participants Outcome
Research studies (n=98)
There is a lot of research on teacher preparation that has resulted in major changes in laws, but more research is needed. There is a need to look to collaborative preservice programs for continued research. When comparing student populations to teacher demographics it was found that race and ethnicity of teachers needs to be considered when looking at diverse student populations. Partner placements had better support. More diverse experiences prepare teachers better.
Zumwalt & Craig (2005)/ Survey
Survey of demographic research since 1985 on teacher characteristics.
Not applicable
Bullough, Young, Erickson, Birrell, Clark, Egan, etal. (2002)/ Research
Effects of partnership arrangements, mentoring, relationship of partnership with peer teachers, and impact of partnership teaching on the classroom. Effects of two different field experiences on preservice teachers' understanding of diversity.
21 preservice teachers: 12 in partner placements with mentor teachers, and 9 in single placements. 18 mentor teachers: 9 worked with pairs of preservice teachers, and 9 worked with single preservice teachers. University students (n=48) who took a diversity class before being admitted to the teacher preparation program. A field based component was attached.
Bell, Horn & Roxas (2007)/ Research study
Preservice teachers who went into the community were better able to understand diversity.
(15 hours)
The Impact of Supervised 145 Researchers/ Type of study Baldwin, Buchanan, & Rudisill (2007)/ Report on research study Hutchinson & Martin (1999)/ Research study Focus of study/ Presentation Effects of service learning experiences on learning about diversity. Participants Outcome
Preservice teachers (n=41) in their junior year of elementary education.
Field based service learning impacts preservice teachers' learning about diversity.
Effect of teacher candidates on effectiveness of creating inclusive classrooms.
5 teacher candidates
Candidates were able to change practices for children who were exceptional learners during their field based course.
The Impact of Supervised Appendix G Studies on Diverse School Researchers/ Type of study Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy (2002)/ Research review Focus of study/ Presentation Summary of research to find answers to questions about teacher preparation. Participants A variety of studies on teacher preparation that fit the framework that was established by the authors. Early career special educators (5<years) (n= 1,153). Environments Outcome -Field experience is an important piece of teacher preparation programs. -Preservice teachers felt that field based experiences were more important than coursework in some instances. School climate was an important factor in staying.
146
Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein (2004)/ Research Study
Effects of working conditions and support on intent to stay in teaching.
The Impact of Supervised 147 Appendix H Studies on Effects of Supervision of Preservice Teachers Researchers/ Type of study Fayne (2007)/ Research study Focus of study/ Presentation Effects of supervisors on student teaching. Participants Student teachers completing 10 weeks of student teaching (n=222). Supervisors (n=4) Preservice teachers (n=10) in an elementary preparation program. Wide range of literature. Outcome Positive experience. Supervisors are important.
Goodman (1985)/ Case study
Effects of field based experiences on preservice teachers' teaching ideas. Examining reasons for research-topractice gap especially in special education.
"University supervisors need to help students see connections between theory and practice" (p. 42).
McLeskey & Billingsley (2008)/ Research survey
Shortage of special education teachers.
The Impact of Supervised Appendix I Studies about Length of Time Spent in Field Based Researchers/ Type of study Brown & Melear (2007)/ Qualitative research study Prater & Sileo (2002)/ Research Focus of study/ Presentation Effect of preservice teachers' practicum time in a science laboratory. Participants Secondary preservice teachers. (n=3) Experiences
148
Outcome Researchers found that "departments of teacher education must consider more avenues in giving teachers opportunities to perform..."(p. 594). Two times as many supervisor visits were made during student teaching as those made before student teaching. Both mentor teachers and supervisors evaluated. Evidence supports off-site videoconferencing as similar to on-site observation by supervisors with some qualifications.
Partnerships between schools and universities for field experiences in teacher preparation programs. Efficacy of videoconferencing for off-site supervision of preservice special education teachers.
Higher education faculty members (n=115)with knowledge about field experiences.
Dymond, Renzaglia, Halle, Chadsey, & Bentz (2008)/ Research
Two preservice teachers (n=2) and four university supervisors (n=4).
The Impact of Supervised Appendix J Examples of Research, Studies, and Literature Reviews on the Range of Time Spent in Field Experiences No Held based experience Darling-Hammond et al. (2002) Teach for America Denton (1982) (No field based for one class) Laczko-Kerr& Berlinger (2002) Teach for America Field based experience is equal to or less than one semester. Baldwin et al. (2007) (1 hour per week for 12 weeks) Not stated if connected to coursework Bell et al. (2007) (15 hours during one semester) One class connected to coursework. Brown & Melear (2007) (9 hours per week for 15 weeks) One class connected to coursework. Bulloch et al. (2002) (2 days a week for 13 weeks) Not stated if connected to coursework Denton (1982) (30 hours) Connected to coursework from one class. Fayne (2007) (10 weeks) Not stated if connected to course work Field experience is more than one semester. Brownell et al. (2005) (*Extensive) Connected to coursework Bulloch et al. (2002) Not stated if connected to coursework Goodman (1985) (4 quarters) Connected to coursework Hardman (2007) (*Continuous) Connected to coursework Kim etal. (2004) (*Extended experience) Connected to coursework Moore (2003) (3 weeks a semester for 3 semesters) Connected to course work Prater & Sileo (2002) (*Extended) Connected to coursework
149
Hutchinson & Martin (1999) (4 months) Not stated if connected to coursework.
*Note: Based on other information provided from the authors, it is assumed that this is longer than a semester.
The Impact of Supervised Appendix K PTPPO Survey Cover Letter Hello,
150
My name is Shane Christensen. I began working as a graduate assistant during the spring semester 2008 with students who were in Blocks II and IV, and will continuing working as a graduate assistant for the 2008-2009 school year. Since you have finished your block classes, completed your student internship, and are currently teaching, I have not worked with you during your time at our university. I am sending you this letter through email because I want to give you the opportunity to answer the attached survey questions that will be used as part of a study that Ginny Beck is completing for her dissertation. This study that Ginny is doing has two parts. The first part is about looking at archived data about undergraduates who were completing requirements of the practicum during Blocks n, III, and IV. These archived data have had all identifiers removed to assure confidentiality. The second part of the study is about examining your perceptions about the usefulness of observations/feedback that you received during the practicum classes in your blocked undergraduate classes. Your answers to the attached survey questions will give information about your perceptions for use in this second part of the study. Ginny and her research team will look at the data to see if observations with feedback from your supervisors have helped you to grow in your teaching abilities. The survey should take about 10-15 minutes for you to answer in your home. After I receive the survey from you through school district mail, I will remove any thing that would identify you before giving the surveys to Ginny. There will be no cost to you. You have the right to refuse to do the survey, and completion of the survey is voluntary. If you feel that the survey is offensive or concerning in any way, do not return it. However, if you do decide to return the survey, your answers can in no way affect you. Additionally, you will receive no benefit from completing this survey. If you choose to complete the survey, please return it to me through school mail by (date to be inserted upon IRB approval) at the address listed below. Please do not return your survey to me through email. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me. Additionally, should you have any concerns about the conduct of this study, please contact the UNR Office of Human Research Protection at 775-327-2368. Sincerely, Shane Christensen XXXXXX@XXXXXX Address: Shane Christensen Department of Educational Specialties Mail Stop 0299 University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV 89557-0299
The Impact of Supervised Appendix L PTPPO Survey The range of answers is from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Neither Agree nor Disagree 3
151
Strongly Disagree 1.1 found the observation process with feedback during my practicum experiences useful to help improve my teaching practice. 2a. The number of observations with feedback in Blocks II-IV of my dual teacher preparation program was sufficient. 2b. If 1 or 2 is circled, please tell how many observations in each block would have been sufficient. 3. My practicum experiences tied closely with the content being taught in my university classes. 4. As a professional teacher, I use or will use what I learned from observations with feedback in my practicum experiences to help guide my instruction, today. 1
Somewhat Disagree 2
Somewhat Agree 4
Strongly Agree 5
The Impact of Supervised 5a. The time I spent in classrooms during practicum classes in Blocks H-IV was sufficient. 5b. If 1 or 2 is circled, please tell us how much time would have been sufficient. 6. The feedback I received from my university practicum supervisors during observations was useful and helps in my own classroom, today. 7. How prepared do you think that you were for teaching because of the observations with feedback that you did in your practicum classes? 8. The onsite support through observations/ feedback from university practicum supervisors is a vital component of the practicum experience.
152
The Impact of Supervised Appendix M Formal Observation Form/Rubric for Supervisor (FO) Student Scoring Rubric: Subject Taught
153
N/O: Not observed or Not Applicable 0: Unsatisfactory/Below Standard/Not Evident 1 - 3 : Developing/Partially Observed 4 - 6 : Proficient/Meets Standard/ Observed 7: Distinguished/Exceptional Note: Scores between 0 - 2 need to be justified by the observer.
Score
Area of Observation Goals and objectives were written in the lesson plan and tied to teaching. State standards were included in the lesson plan and tied to teaching. Teacher was prepared for the lesson. Gained and maintained student attention. Lesson was tied to previous/past learning. Lesson included active student involvement. Checked for student understanding. Managed the learning environment and student behaviors. Opportunities for student practice with support and feedback. Assessment was ongoing throughout the lesson. Formative and summative assessment pieces were used. A means of documentation of the assessment was supplied. Ended the lesson effectively and transitioned to the next activity or area. Pacing, voice projection, and wait time were apparent during the lesson. Rapport with student(s) Professional appearance/demeanor
Cheney /Beck
The Impact of Supervised Appendix N Two Examples of Formal Observations (FO) for Block IV Student: ***** Subject Taught: Reading/Literacy
154
Scoring Rubric:
N/O: Not observed or Not Applicable 0: Unsatisfactory/Below Standard/Not Evident 1 - 3 : Developing/Partially Observed 4 - 6 : Proficient/Meets Standard/ Observed 7: Distinguished/Exceptional Note: Scores between 0 - 2 need to be justified by the observer.
Score _1
Area of Observation Goals and objectives were written in the lesson plan and tied to teaching (Not student oriented objectives. Did not entirely match her lesson.)
_4 _2 _1
State standards were included in the lesson plan Teacher was prepared for the lesson Gained and maintained student attention (Multiple times, students were off task. One student was not paying attention throughout most of the table work.) Lesson was tied to previous/past learning Lesson included active student involvement (Not all of the students were included.) Checked for student understanding Managed the learning environment and student behaviors (***** chose to include the student that she is focusing on for EDES 414. However, she did not make adequate accommodations for his behavior. For example, ***** did not sit him close to her. Also, during the table time-approx 20 minutes of the lesson-***** only talked to one of the students 2 times. The rest of the time, the student was not paying attention.) Opportunities for student practice with support and feedback (Opportunities were provided, but not all of the students received the necessary support and feedback.) Assessment was ongoing throughout the lesson
_3 _1
N/O _1
_2
N/0_ _2
The Impact of Supervised Ended the lesson effectively and transitioned to the next activity or area
155
Pacing, voice projection, and wait time were apparent during the lesson (***** did not allow enough wait time between asking questions, and giving the answers. At other times, she did not pace herself for the amount of the time for the lesson. She took too long.) Rapport with student(s) (*** did not know all of the students' names who were in her group, nor did she include all of the students while teaching the lesson.) Professional appearance/demeanor (*** wore clothing that was inappropriate for the teaching environment.)
_3
C. Cheney/G. Beck
Note: University supervisor feedback was given after this observation. The following observation rubric shows the improvement after the feedback was given.
The Impact of Supervised Student: ******* Scoring Rubric: Subject Taught: Science
156
N/O: Not observed or Not Applicable 0: Unsatisfactory/Below Standard/Not Evident 1 - 3 : Developing/Partially Observed 4 - 6 : Proficient/Meets Standard/ Observed 7: Distinguished/Exceptional Note: Scores between 0 - 2 need to be justified by the observer. Score 4 5 *6 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 Area of Observation Goals and objectives were written in the lesson plan and tied to teaching State standards were included in the lesson plan and tied to teaching Teacher was prepared for the lesson Gained and maintained student attention Lesson was tied to previous/past learning Lesson included active student involvement Checked for student understanding Managed the learning environment and student behaviors Opportunities for student practice with support and feedback Assessment was ongoing throughout the lesson. Formative and summative assessment pieces were used. A means of documentation of the assessment was supplied. Ended the lesson effectively and transitioned to the next activity or area Pacing, voice projection, and wait time were apparent during the lesson Rapport with student(s) Professional appearance/demeanor
5 4 *6 *6
C. Cheney/G. Beck
The Impact of Supervised Appendix O Final Evaluation Form Final Evaluation from Lead Teachers (FN) Student's Name Scoring rubric: N/O: 1-3: 4 - 6: 7: Teacher Not observed Unsatisfactory/Below Standard Proficient/Meets Standard Distinguished/Exceptional
157
1. This practicum student was able to establish a good rapport with me and with the students while in my classroom. She/he asked pertinent questions about classroom procedures and the everyday running of a classroom. She/he coordinated efforts in the classroom and teaching plans with me. N / O l 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. This practicum student established rapport with students, interacting with them as individuals and communicating this regard and interest to students in a variety of ways, showing respect for their diverse talents and commitment to the development of selfconfidence and competence. N/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. This practicum student showed concern about all aspects of students' well-being by talking and listening to students, and by being thoughtful and responsive, especially to signs of distress. She/he sought out help as needed or appropriate to remedy problems. N / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. This practicum student used effective management strategies to foster positive student behavior, intervening when necessary. N/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. In preparation for teaching, this practicum student planned appropriately challenging instruction that demonstrated connection to students' previous learning, addressed state standards that were tied to appropriate goals and objectives. N/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Impact of Supervised 6. When teaching, this practicum student presented material in an inclusive manner, addressing multiple learning styles and cultural and gender differences. N / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
158
7. When teaching, this practicum student effectively structured and managed time, space, materials, and tasks to provide opportunities for equitable and active student engagement in learning. N/0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. When teaching, this practicum student used multiple teaching and learning strategies to provide opportunities for all students to become active learners, including appropriate pacing, voice projection, and wait time. N/O 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7
9. This practicum student demonstrated professional responsibility for engaging in and supporting respectful and appropriate professional practice, and demonstrated commitment to ongoing learning about subject matter and children's learning. N / O l 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. This practicum student maintained a professional appearance and demeanor. N/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
OVERALL SCORE: Please give an overall score, evaluating the practicum student's work throughout the time that the student spent with you. Take into consideration teaching that you saw the student do. N / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COMMENTS: All comments are valuable. When evaluating practicum students, please keep in mind that they are not yet at the level of student interns. Please provide suggestions for growth if you do not feel the student's work was satisfactory.
The Impact of Supervised Appendix P Feedback Process P O
159
I T I V E
SUGGESTIONS
IMPROVEMENT
The Impact of Supervised Appendix Q Data Collection Schedule for Blocks II-IV.
160
Preservice teachers were in Blocks II, HI, and IV for approximately 15 weeks. They entered the schools for their practicum classes in the fourth week of the semester. The th. final evaluations were collected from the lead teachers in the 14 week of the semester
2
th th
&
Informal observations began in the fourth week of the semester. The last informal observation was done immediately after the midterm evaluation in Block II, and the last informal observation was done during the last two weeks of the semester in Block III. The first formal observation was completed between semester weeks 6-8. The midterm evaluation was collected in the 7 -8 week of the semester. The second formal observation was completed between semester weeks 9-12.
Informal observations began in the fourth week of the semester, and continued throughout the semester for at least five times. The last informal observation was done during the last two weeks of the semester. The first formal observation was completed between semester weeks 5-7. The midterm evaluation was collected in the 8th week of the semester. The second formal observation was completed between semester weeks 8-10. The third formal observation was completed between semester weeks 11-13.

Feedback

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feedback

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Nevada, Reno

by Virginia L. Beck Tammy V. Abernathy / Dissertation Advisor

UMI Number: 3362216

Copyright 2009 by Beck, Virginia L.

by Virginia L. Beck 2009 All Rights Reserved

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

The Impact of Supervised

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 1 1 4 6 7 8 10 11 11 13 16 16 16 16 17 18 18 19 19

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised ix

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

University methods courses are connected to the field experience.

Three semesters of field experience are supervised with extensive feedback.

Days at School Site

Small group instruction

1 day per week

Large group/ whole class instruction

1 day per week

3 afternoons per week

The Impact of Supervised Field Experiences or Practicum Experiences

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised PTPPO Survey

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised Preparation of Basic Teaching Skills

The Impact of Supervised

Little preservice preparation.

Preparation at several different institutions.

Preparation in one teacher preparation program.

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

Continuum of Field Based Experiences

Required field based experience is equal to or less than one semester.

Required field based experience is more than one semester.

The Impact of Supervised

Current Survey Data

The Impact of Supervised Table 3

Internship (student teaching)

Washoe County School District, 2006-2007 School Accountability Summary Report.

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

Block III Grade K 6 1 5 1 3

The Impact of Supervised

Taken from categories on formal observation rubric found in Appendix N.

Formal Observation item numbers

The Impact of Supervised Procedure

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised

The Impact of Supervised Overall Results on Final Evaluations by Lead Teachers

The Impact of Supervised Table 13

The Impact of Supervised

Formal Observation Block II

The Impact of Supervised

.625** .705** .694**

.625 .705 .694**