Page 1

Proposal for an NCATE Transformational Initiative

A RESEARCH ON PRACTICE MODEL FOR IMPROVING

UNDERGRADUATE TEACHER EDUCATION.

College of Education, East Carolina University

Statement of Purpose

The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Transformation Initiative (TI) provides member institutions with an accreditation pathway that focuses on significant contributions to the field of education. NCATE believes that the field of education is in need of an expanded research base to document and substantiate promising and effective practices and innovations. Many of NCATE’s member institutions focus on improving the overall quality of education by preparing more effective future educators, enhancing the effectiveness of current educators, conducting practice-based research, and providing services in real-world schools. All of these endeavors have the potential to inform the field at large through a rigorous process of research and development. Thus, NCATE’s Transformation Initiative seeks accreditation proposals that document promising practices, innovations and interventions directed at transforming educator preparation for greater effectiveness. The following outlines the proposed TI Project of the College of Education at East Carolina University.

The East Carolina University (ECU) was founded as East Carolina Teachers College in 1907. In 2003, the School of Education became the College of Education (COE). The University and the region it serves see the COE as the preparer of teachers and administrators for eastern North Carolina. The pride that ECU teacher education graduates take into the field is evident in many ways: they willingly mentor candidates in early field experiences and internship, they attend annual professional development that keeps them abreast of program changes, and they provide candid feedback about candidate preparedness. The community of stakeholders in eastern North Carolina - candidates, faculty, public school partners, and business and community leaders want and need more effective novice teachers who can have a positive impact on PK-12 students as soon as they enter the classroom.

The ECU TI Proposal considers the institution’s historical role in eastern North Carolina and its key role in developing a better economic future for the region through practice-based initiatives transform key elements of teacher preparation yield positive impacts on the PK-12 schools in which our graduates work. During the past several years, the COE has embarked upon several initiatives that now form the foundation of this TI proposal. In 2006, the ECU and the COE began strategic investments in safe-guarding the institution’s teacher performance data and laid the groundwork for the development of an integrated assessment system. In 2009, the ECU COE received a USDOE Teacher Quality Partnership Grant (TQP) to reform teacher education in several key areas, including curriculum reform and clinical partnerships. In 2010, the COE joined the national Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium (TPAC) and began piloting and field testing the ed-Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) in several teacher education program areas. The present TI Proposal unites these efforts with a series of additional individual initiatives in our K-8 teacher preparation programs that previously operated as individual, separate activities within specific teacher education programs. In a sustained, integrated effort to strengthen teacher candidate development throughout our programs, the College of Education (COE) has developed the present the ECU TI Proposal: A Research on Practice Model for Improving Undergraduate Teacher Education.

I. Significance of the Proposed TI Project

The proposed ECU TI Proposal is both multi-faceted and coordinated. The project is multi-faceted in that the overall initiative consists of a series of components within the undergraduate teaching programs in Elementary Education and in Middle Grades Education. The Elementary Education and Middle Grades Education department prepares 50% of the COE candidates seeking an initial teaching license. While other areas of teacher education could implement the components with adaptations, they are not included in the ECU TI Proposal presented here. The idea that the components are coordinated is based on two complementary perspectives. The first is that the components themselves are explicit enhancements to the overall teacher education programs in the Elementary Education and Middle Grades Education areas. The second is that each of the components addresses systemic aspects of teacher education that enhance program quality and have been identified as issues in the field. Considered as a set of complementary components, the proposed ECU TI Proposal reflects a college-wide “Research on Practice” model through which the COE supports research and development (R&D) on systemic issues in teacher preparation.

Although teacher education is an active area of educational research, the involvement of Colleges of Education

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 2

whose primary mission is undergraduate teacher education has been an underutilized resource in such research. This is despite the fact that such Colleges of Education and their faculty whose focus is on preparing undergraduate teachers operate in a research-rich environment that naturally encompass all of the systemic dynamics in the process of teacher education. The proposed ECU TI Proposal demonstrates how development of the support capacity within a College of Education can provide the means to engage undergraduate teacher education faculty in the forms of research and development that address systemic elements of the teacher education process.

The significance of the Research on Practice Model for Improving Undergraduate Teacher Education is threefold. First, the model coordinates the implementation and research design for innovative initiatives across the teacher education curriculum by linking them vertically to study and assess their individual outcomes and overall integrated value to the programs. Second, the model leverages previous and current resource investments in curriculum development, instructional innovation, and systematic, integrated data collection to scaffold and sustain faculty research on practice. Lastly, the model engages teacher education faculty in practice-based research with an overall focus of preparing effective novice teachers (improving teacher candidate readiness to teach) who are able to have a positive impact on PK-12 student achievement.

Literature Review

The Research on Practice Model has roots in the research literature as a response to the current national focus on the need for increased accountability in teacher education and as overall conceptual framework to link the multifaceted components of the project. First, the project will be framed in the national context, and then the research literature for preparing effective novice teachers will be presented.

National Context for the TI Proposal

Accountability in schools of education has been influenced by the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The NCLB required that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects be “highly qualified.” However, the parameters of highly qualified were to be determined by each state, resulting in multiple definitions of the term. Therefore, a highly qualified teacher in one state may not be considered highly qualified in another. In 2004, the State Higher Education Executive Offices (SHEEO) established the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education and charged it to address the issue of accountability in higher education. In the overview of its background and purpose of the commission, Executive Director, Paul Lingenfelter identified the impact of NCLB as one of the “prominent features on the landscape.” Lingenfelter asserted that “the urgent national interest in improving educational attainment naturally leads to the suggestion that ‘reform’ in higher education along the lines experienced for K-12 is appropriate and inevitable” (2004, p. 2).

The current demand for accountability in post-secondary education can arguably be traced back to the 2006 report issued by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U. S. Higher Education (also known as the Spellings Report) addressed concerns about the deterioration of the American higher education system. The report addressed four primary areas of concern: access, affordability, quality, and accountability. The commission called for the development of a large, public database of information about colleges and universities including data about the learning outcomes of students. (p. 22). According to the commission, public access to this information would compel institutions of higher education to have a more vested interest in the success of their students.

The implementation of Race to the Top (RttT) has spurred a shift from requiring teachers to be “highly qualified” to assuring teachers are “highly effective.” One of the goals of the program is to hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing their graduates to positively impact student achievement in the PK-12 classroom. Each participating state is expected to publicly report data on the effectiveness of graduates from each state preparation program. In order to receive RttT funds, states must be willing to tie teacher evaluations to student performance.

Calls for accountability have also been addressed at the state level. In 1998, California enacted a law requiring all teacher candidates to successfully complete a state-approved performance assessment in order to be eligible for licensure. Until recently Connecticut required beginning teachers to pass a performance assessment in their second or third year of teaching in order to be eligible for a professional license. (The requirement was suspended in 2008 due to funding issues.) Both assessments have been validated to be predictors of student achievement (Pecheone & Chung, 2006; Wilson, Hallam, Pecheone, & Moss, 2007). Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington are on accelerated timelines to adopt a valid and reliable teacher performance assessment as mandated by state law (CCSSO, 2011).

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 3

In 2010, the NCATE Blue Ribbon Plan on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning released its report which included “10 Design Principles for Clinically Based Preparation.” This document was a call to action for teacher education programs nationwide. Elements of the ten design principles may be in place in certain programs, but it is the coordinated and integrated effect of all principles that is thought to bring about the change needed in teacher preparation. The shift proposed would require “structural, financial, programmatic, and policy changes for all partners (p.12).” National models for changing clinically based programs, financing the innovations, and assessing the impact of teacher preparation were highlighted. Of these promising programs, four are included in this TI proposal for a Research on Practice Model.

Elements in the Preparation of Effective Novice Teachers. Effective teaching is something people believe they are able to recognize when they see it. Having been students themselves, the public has experienced the benefits of effective teachers and shared horror stories of ineffective teachers. Despite this vast experience, much disagreement exists over how to define an effective teacher, much less how to prepare effective teachers. The issues are vast and include defining effective teaching, practicing effective teaching, assessing effective teaching, supporting effective teaching, and learning how to reflect effectively on teaching. A brief review of the literature in these areas follows.

Defining Effective Teaching. Effective teaching does not happen by chance. Researchers, educators, politicians, and the public have all tried to answer the question, “What essential qualities make an effective teacher?” Recently, various frameworks have emerged that provide research-based, comprehensive approaches to describing and identifying effective teaching.

In 2007, Charlotte Danielson released her Framework for Teaching. This research-based framework included 4 major domains: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities (Danielson, 2011). The domains were then broken into 22 components that are defined even further. Presently, the domains and categories align closely with the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards for new teachers. These INTASC standards are the national professional teaching standards for new teachers. Danielson’s framework has been widely accepted and incorporated into other projects including a collaborative partnership with Educational Testing Service (ETS) that resulted in the development of the Teachscape observation instrument for teachers (Teachscape, 2011).

The Danielson Framework was incorporated into another project through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as part of their Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. This project has been designed to find the best way to give teachers the information and support needed to be effective in the classroom. Emphasis is placed on how to measure effective teaching and teachers. Researchers in the study are collecting multiple points of data ranging from student feedback to videotaped classroom lessons. The intent is that the results will inform how to identify effective teaching and support teachers in reaching those levels (Danielson’s Framework for Teaching for Classroom Observations, 2010).

In addition to Danielson's work in defining effective teaching, Doug Lemov (2010) discovered in a five year project of recording the best teachers he could find across the country, according to test scores, that what looked like “natural-born genius was often deliberate technique in disguise.” Lemov’s book, Teach Like a Champion: The 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College, describes step by step techniques for effective teachers.

Lemov’s effective teaching techniques are minute decisions the teacher makes throughout the school day like “Stand still when you’re giving directions” and “call on students regardless of whether they have raised their hands.” By observing hundreds of classrooms where outstanding teachers had transformed at risk students into high achievers, Lemov found that there are techniques every teacher can learn and employ to become effective.

Linda Darling-Hammond defines effective teachers as those who engage students in active learning, create intellectually ambitious tasks, use a variety of teaching strategies, assess student learning continuously and adapt teaching to student needs, create effective scaffolds and supports, provide clear standards, constant feedback, and opportunities for revising work, and develop and effectively manage a collaborative classroom in which all students have membership (Darling-Hammond, 2012).

Building on the past work of Lemov, Danielson, and others, University of Michigan's Deborah Loewenberg Ball led the development of the Teaching Works framework. This initiative was designed to disseminate a core set of skills for beginning teachers while serving as a clearinghouse of information and research about high-quality teacher education. These high-leverage practices total 19 and include, but are not limited to, making content explicit through modeling, setting up group work, setting long- and short-term learning goals for students, designing a sequence of

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 4

lessons toward a specific learning goal, identifying and implementing an instructional response to common patterns of student thinking, eliciting and interpreting individual students' thinking, selecting particular methods to check understanding and monitor student learning, providing feedback, and communicating with other professionals (Sawchuk, 2011).

The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (http://instructionalcoach.org/big4) found that there are four big teaching practices that have the most effect on teaching and learning. This comprehensive framework of excellence is titled “The Big Four” and includes these four areas: (1) classroom management, (2) content planning, (3) instruction, and (4) assessment for learning

Role of Clinical Practice in Effective Teacher Preparation. Current trends in the literature suggest that a quality clinical experience is a key essential in preparing teacher candidates. This experience is the teacher candidate’s chance to be in the classroom, experiment with strategies and content from methods courses, and begin making classroom decisions in a long-term teaching environment. Practicum experiences vary widely in different programs. Candidates experience practice in a variety of settings before beginning their internships.

 The expansion of practice as extended, multiple, supervised experiences in diverse settings closely conjoined with coursework is emerging as a protocol through which teacher preparation programs can better prepare preservice teachers for success with all students (Beyer, 1991; Bouas & Thompson, 2000; Cooper, Beare, & Thorman, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1991; Larke, Wiseman, & Bradley, 1990; Sleeter, 2001). Supervision and reflection become crucial in these types of practice as students’ beliefs and attitudes are impacted by the multiple field experiences (Bondy, Schmitz, & Johnson, 1993; Brown, 2004; Johnson, 2002).

Most educators value field experiences as an important part of learning to teach (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005). Discussion continues among educators as to what conditions create the most effective learning environment for preservice teachers (Zeichner, 2012). Some educators believe that more time in schools does not necessarily help preservice teachers. The main criticism with field experiences stems from their apparent lack of connectedness to the other components in the teacher preparation programs (Guyton & Byrd, 2000; NCATE, 2001; NCTE, 1996; Fein-Nemser, 2001; Richardson, 1996; Wilson, Floden & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Ziechner, 1990 as cited in Graham, 2006). The components that seem to be most effective in field experiences include field experiences that are carefully coordinated with coursework and are supervised (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, and Shulman, 2005; NAE, 2005; Zeichner, 2010).  Darling-Hammond (2010) stated that preservice teachers need to learn “to practice in practice, with expert guidance.” It is important the preservice teachers are given the opportunity to teach, receive feedback, reflect on the teaching episode, and then teach again in a cyclical fashion throughout the semester as well as the teacher education program (Darling-Hammond, 2010).  As a result, programs across the nation are reconsidering current practice and program requirements with a focal point of greater integration of coursework and practice, as well as expanded field experience.

Role of Assessing Effective Teaching Proficiency. An increasing challenge for faculty within colleges of teacher education is creating effective methods of assessing teacher candidates’ ability to use information they have learned in their university courses as they enter the classroom. While colleges of teacher education have attempted to do this for years, there is increased pressure coming from the public and state legislatures to produce evidence that graduates of programs are effective teachers. This challenge requires updated performance-based assessments that include innovative approaches to the assessment of preservice teachers including but not limited to attempts to evaluate knowledge and skills, preservice teacher learning, student learning, professional dispositions, and reflective practices.

Performance assessments have multiple benefits, including: providing documentation of individual student teacher performance, noting progress toward postsecondary program goals, creating a common language, focusing understanding, and dissecting programs’ strengths and weaknesses (Darling-Hammond, 2006).

Electronic portfolios (Eportfolios) are performance-based assessments that demonstrate positive course-based learning outcomes of preservice teachers (Whitford, Ruscoe, & Fickel, 2000). Portfolios are used for formative, summative, and predictive assessment (Bannink, 2009). Portfolio assessments help preservice teachers make connections between theory and practice because they require the meaningful application of the information that they have learned for planning and implementing lessons.  These lessons and their reflections are captured in a written document and placed in the portfolio.  Portfolio assessments categorize content in terms of documentation of planning, examples of instruction, methods of assessment, classroom management procedures, action research, and reflective activities. Caution should be noted in that while such forms of portfolio assessment may be beneficial for

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 5

documenting certain aspects of the teaching certification process, they may not be valid for the overall assessment of teacher performance competencies in authentic classroom settings (Yao, Thomas, Nickens, Downing, Burkett, & Lamson, 2008).  In other words, while this type of portfolio helps university faculty assess the preservice teacher’s ability to plan the lessons, this type of portfolio does not provide faculty with the means to see the implementation of a lesson in a “real life” situation.

For the preceding reason, when portfolios are paired with video narratives, they become far more meaningful representations of candidate teaching proficiency. Using such video narratives as an additional performance assessment format helps bridge the gap between theory and practice. Video narratives combine self-selected video snippets of the preservice teacher accompanied by narrative reflection discussing what was learned during the teaching episode. This assessment moves preservice teachers from just the planning involved in many portfolios to actual implementation. Bannink (2009) found that video narratives can demonstrate that preservice teachers have learned research-based instructional strategies in their teacher education coursework and are able to implement those in authentic classroom situations. This is important because preservice teachers who complete quality portfolios can be simultaneously evaluated as “weak teachers” by their internship supervisors (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000). Video narratives assess preservice teachers’ ability to connect theory and practice. This process moves assessment beyond planning and into implementation. Many video narratives serve as performance-based assessments during or after field experiences or internships.

Supporting Effective Teaching Internships. In the literature, clinical teachers and university supervisors are found to be the traditional supports for preservice teachers in the field. One of the benefits of such preservice clinical experience is that as pre-service teacher candidates develop increasing levels of understanding based on their own teaching experiences, they also are supported by their clinical teachers and university supervisors. The importance of these two individuals is evidenced in research that suggests a pre-service teacher’s teaching effectiveness and productivity are dependent on the help and support provided by the clinical teacher and university supervisor (Beck & Kosnik, 2000; Caires & Almeida, 2007; Levin & Rock, 2003). Because these two individuals play such an important role in the success of pre-service teachers, it is important for colleges of education to understand the roles of each person and how they affect the success of internships.

The clinical or cooperating teacher is usually the teacher of record in the classroom where a preservice teacher is placed. As such, the preservice teacher spends all day, every day with this individual. While the preservice teacher is in this classroom, he/she will gradually assume greater teaching responsibilities until he/she is responsible for the entire classroom all day for a certain number of days. It is no surprise that studies by Griffin et al. (1983), Karmos & Jacko (1977), Manning (1977), and McIntyre & Byrd (1998) identified the cooperating teacher as the individual with the most significant influence on preservice teachers. Preservice teachers benefit from their clinical teachers modeling classroom organization and management, positive student interactions, content knowledge and pedagogy, and daily routine (Glenn, 2006). Clinical teachers and preservice teachers work to establish a collaborative relationship allowing them to work together to improve the teaching of the preservice teacher (Glenn, 2006). Clinical teachers serve in a mentoring or coaching role that goes beyond modeling to encouraging interns to try new strategies while supporting them with materials, resources, and feedback (Fayne, 2007). The most effective mentors, “collaborate rather than dictate, relinquish an appropriate level of control, allow for personal relationships, share constructive feedback, and accept differences” (Glenn, 2006, p. 88).

Because clinical teachers have such a profound influence on the professional development of pre-service teachers, clinical teachers’ effectiveness should be ensured through careful selection and formal training for their role as supervisors (Killian & McIntyre, 1987; McIntyre & Byrd, 1998; Wang, 2000; Wilkins-Canter, 1996). According to Killian & Wilkins (2009), the most effective clinical teachers held master’s degrees in teacher leadership and had completed course work in observation, feedback and conferencing skills.

University supervisors also play an important part in internship support. University supervisors facilitate communication and collaboration between the clinical teacher and the pre-service teacher as well as the university and the public schools (Steadman, 2009). They help the preservice teachers use what they have learned in their college classes in their classrooms (Ediger, 2009). University supervisors oversee the internship experience, serve as confidante, and make evaluative judgments about pre-service teacher performance (Fayne, 2007). They mentor preservice teachers on broader, more conceptual issues (McNamara, 1995) or overarching questions that transcend the individual student teaching experience (Steadman, 2009; Talvitie, Peltokallio, & Mannisto, 2000). And as with clinical teachers, characteristics like honesty, active listening, collaboration and mutual help are priorities for

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 6

university supervisors as part of the student teacher/supervisor relationship (Beck & Kosnik, 2000; Caires & Almeida, 2007; Zantig, Verloop, & Vermut, 2001).

While clinical teachers and university supervisors are fixtures in the clinical internship triad, a new type of professional coach, instructional coaches, is emerging as an important support for preservice teachers. Instructional coaches have become an integral part of school systems following the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Instructional coaching is recommended by NCLB for schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two years or more (Kowal & Steiner, 2007; Annenberg, 2004). Rather than using instructional coaches for ongoing professional development for inservice teachers, some innovative institutions are using them with preservice teachers. While little research exists regarding the use of instructional coaches with preservice teachers, some research is emerging around the role of literacy coaches with inservice teachers (Kissel, Mraz, Algozzine, & Stover, 2011; Lynch & Ferguson, 2010; Scott, Cortina, & Carlisle, 2012; Stephens, et al., 2011).

The definition of instructional coach is still evolving, As a result, there is no standard model or uniform definition (Kowal & Steiner, 2007). However, Kowal and Steiner defined it as “someone whose primary professional responsibility is to bring practices that have been studied and validated using a variety of research methods into classrooms by working with adults rather than students. They set aside significant time to offer classroom modeling, supportive feedback, and specific observations of individual teaching practices” (Kowal & Steiner, 2007). In other words, instructional coaching programs blend “elements of effective professional development with the essential goals of professional learning communities in ways that advance both school and systemic improvement” (www.Annenberg.org). Working with an instructional coach helps inservice teachers apply their learning more often than when working alone; they improve their reflection skills, and apply their learning not only to their students but also with their colleagues (Neufeld and Roper, 2003; Poglinco et al., 2003). This collaborative, reflective approach, used by literacy coaches, has helped boost students’ reading scores by as much as 32 percent over 3 years (Viadero, 2010). Annenberg Institute suggests that, “when employed and supported effectively, instructional coaching enhances district professional development systems by providing school and central office personnel with sustained, targeted supports to build knowledge, improve practice, and promote student achievement” (www.Annenberg.org).

Effective instructional coaching requires long-term, substantive support by the district, principal, and teachers; therefore, additional data on instructional coaching support needs to be gathered and the results used to inform instructional practice (Walker, 2006). Instructional coaches must have strong pedagogical knowledge, content expertise, interpersonal skills, and they need training to continually improve their knowledge and skills. This training should be ongoing and collaborative while focusing on content areas, pedagogical techniques, and general coaching strategies (Kowal & Steiner, 2007).

Jim Knight, an expert on instructional coaching, (Knight, 2007) identified how to work with teachers to effectively implement proven teaching practices using what he has called a “Big Four Framework”. In guiding the focus of the teaching evaluation process on the extent to which proven teaching practices are being used in a classroom setting, observers use a reflective questioning process. Some examples of such focus questions are as follows:

“Does the teacher make significantly more positive comments than negative comments (at least a three to one ratio)?”

“Has the teacher clearly communicated expectations, and do the students understand them?”

“Does the teacher care about his or her students’ welfare?”

“Does the teacher respect his or her students?”

“Has the teacher developed essential questions for all units?”

“Do those questions align with the state standards?”

“Does the teacher ask questions at an appropriate variety of levels?”

“Does the teacher effectively sum up lessons at the end of the class?”

“Does the teacher use formative assessments or checks for understanding to gauge how well students are learning?”

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 7

Knight suggests that the technique for effective teaching lies with instructional coaches who work in partnerships to accelerate teachers’ professional learning. Instructional coaches are colleagues, and confidants who listen with care and share valuable information with teachers to improve the quality of teaching.

Support for Reflective Teaching. Reflective teaching is an important part of our present teacher preparation program, but it is not the main focus of the present Research on Practice Model. Once we are able to incorporate the research-based TI operational building blocks within our refined teacher education program, we will embed critical reflective commentary into key points within the resulting program.

Relationship between Identified Needs, Project Goals and Objectives, and Research Questions.

All teacher education programs have pockets of excellence and areas in need of improvement. At ECU, the open dialogue with our program partners provides regular feedback on program strengths and weaknesses from an external perspective, from the level of the University of North Carolina system to our public school partners in the Latham Clinical Schools Network. When this feedback is joined with internal, annual assessment reviews by program faculty across teacher education at ECU, a targeted list of program needs is clarified.

The areas of need addressed in the Research on Practice Model were developed using input from several key constituencies, including, but not limited to:

Input from the University of North Carolina System General Administration, specifically their commissioning of value-added studies linking K-12 student achievement to teacher preparation institutions by program and pathway.

Input from a series of drill down studies by the Carolina Institute for Public Policy that found that ECU’s teacher performance assessments were not valid or reliable, nor were they discerning enough to predict which candidates would become successful teachers.

Input from the TQP Grant, which identified the need to build a solid instructional foundation – an instructional toolbox – from which teacher candidates would be able to develop and implement effective instruction for PK-12 learners.

Input from Latham Clinical Schools Network partners, including concerns about the number of early field placement requests and the amount of instructional time clinical teachers give up when hosting a teacher candidate for the student teaching internship.

Input from clinical teachers and part-time university supervisors at annual Clinical Teacher Conferences, identifying the lack of clear communication between programs and clinical teachers, the need to update clinical teachers on changes in program expectations, and the roles of all involved in the student teaching internship semester.

Input from program faculty as part of annual assessment reporting, including focused assessment of edTPA implementation.

Table 1. Research on Practice Model Needs, Goals, and Proposed Research Questions

Needs Proposed Project Component

Goals and Objectives Proposed Major Research Questions

Reduce demand on public school partners for early field placements while improving observation skills of novice observers

Introductory Clinical Observation for Novice Observers/Video Grand Rounds

Develop and validate a structured observation protocol using video segments prior to field experiences

Will the incorporation of classroom video segments for observation in conjunction with an observational guide result in higher quality classroom observations and student course satisfaction than the traditional unstructured observation process in the current ELEM 2123 course?

Core set of instructional ISLES Instructional Design a series of online How effectively do interns

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 8

strategies for all teacher education candidates

Strategies Modules modules to increase knowledge of select, research-based, instructional strategies

apply ISLES instructional strategies in authentic classroom settings?

Clear curriculum mapping and formative assessment to improve teacher candidate preparation for new summative portfolio

edTPA Preparation Modules Integrating ISD-Development Strategies

Incorporate edTPA-relevant instructional development strategies leading to effective edTPA module design and implementation

Were candidates able to display mastery of and incorporate the series of ISD strategies in effective simulated and actual edTPA tasks?

More coaching support for teacher candidates during internship

Clinical Internship Observation Model Support with Instructional Coaches

Provide coordinated support for enhancing clinical internship effectiveness using a coaching model

What impact does the instructional coach have on the pre-service teacher’s ability to effectively use the TQP instructional strategies?

Improved communication and training for clinical teachers, university supervisors, and faculty in support of teacher candidates

Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development

Develop a professional development model to link and clarify the roles of clinical teachers, university supervisors, and instructional coaches during the internship

What impact does the revised professional development model have on the clinical internship model? Does professional development increase the ability to effectively support interns?

How effective is the internship coordination of the roles of communication between clinical teachers, university supervisors, instructional coaches, and faculty?

Reduce demands on public school partners for internship sites while increasing the quality of those placements

Clinical Internship Experience Co-Teaching Model

Experiment with different co-teaching models to optimize teacher candidate learning

Of the co-teaching models being implemented, what differences exist in the teaching ability of the participants as compared to traditional placements?

More valid and reliable summative portfolio assessment to replace previous portfolio assessment

edTPA Administration Develop a replicable model for edTPA implementation to improve candidate readiness, consistency of instruction, and inter-rater reliability

Was the edTPA administrative model successful in implementing the edTPA summative portfolio, collecting the necessary data, and the scoring candidate performance?

Potential of the Project to Contribute to Advance Teacher Preparation

Making a systemic contribution to improving the field of teacher education requires the proposed TI project to provide information in a timely manner that is relevant to theory and practice at the local, state, regional, and/or national levels. The Research on Practice Model proposed here as a TI initiative has the potential to offer substantive contributions to the field of teacher education for several reasons. First, each project component addresses a key element in teacher education that is well-grounded in research. Second, the effectiveness of each project component will be evaluated throughout the implementation time frame. Third, each project component will be documented in a form appropriate for dissemination. And, fourth, each of the project components will be developed in a manner allowing them to be utilized in other teacher education programs and in school-based professional development initiatives.

Additionally, because the Research on Practice Model at the core of the proposed TI initiative has conducted prototype development work on some project components (see Table 3), COE faculty researchers have already participated in dissemination activities describing the prototype models and preliminary findings at the local, state,

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 9

and national levels. As a result, the scope of dissemination of the overall Research on Practice Model and on the individual TI project components will be a natural expansion of these experiences. Examples of preliminary dissemination of the prototype components and the overall college wide Research on Practice Model include:

Presentations at the 2012 and 2013 AACTE national conference by faculty involved in:

o Implementation of the ISLES strategies as a part of the TQP grant.

o Implementation of the edTPA in a large scale teacher education program.

o Development of an integrated assessment system.

Structured poster session acceptance for the 2013 AERA national conference titled, “Building the Capacity for Research on Practice within a Large Undergraduate Teacher Education Program.”

Other national presentations at NCTE, AMLE/NMSA, among others.

State level presentations to UNC System colleagues, UNC Teacher Education Dean Meetings, and at the NC-ACTE Annual Fall Teacher Education Forum.

Local presentations include poster sessions at the annual ECU Assessment Day, 2011 and 2012.

Potential for Unit Capacity Development and as a Model to Improve Teacher Education

The proposed TI project will demonstrate how development of the R&D capacity in the COE can serve as a resource within a “Research on Practice” framework for improving teacher education. In this regard, the proposed TI project will provide a framework for unit capacity development and in this regard, serve as a national model for improving teacher education. Often high-production colleges of teacher education do not engage in substantive research on their practice because they are fully engaged in the process of developing future teachers. The Research on Practice Model provides the opportunity for this COE, and potentially others, to develop an R&D capacity as a means for enhancing the knowledge base of the discipline. Once established, this model could be expanded to include other areas of professional educator preparation, such as school leadership, school counseling, and school librarianship.

The ability of the Research on Practice Model to serve as a national model is rooted in the current literature. The specific components in the TI proposal address identified needs for transformational changes in current teacher preparation programs. By focusing on effective teaching, this model provides a clear framework within which all project components are linked. As noted previously, in 2010, the NCATE Blue Ribbon Plan on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning released its report in which it highlighted promising programs that could be replicated in new venues. Of the program highlighted, four have been investigated, adopted, adapted and are being implemented as part of this TI proposal, Research on Practice Model. They are: Co-teaching; the use of video for observation skill development; a teacher performance assessment instrument like the edTPA; and the use of value-added data analysis to replicate effective efforts. While other institutions’ implementations will differ from the one presented here, it is the unification of these efforts under one transformational umbrella that may serve as a national model for what NCATE (2010) called, “mapping the shift” in teacher education (p. 12).

II. Quality of the Project Design

Recent national emphases on the need to improve teacher education and teacher effectiveness all imply interdependency among preservice teacher preparation, teacher professional development, effective classroom teaching, and teacher accountability. In combination with curricular content and structure, these teacher-oriented components are key elements that have the potential to determine the degree to which K-12 educational institutions are able to prepare teacher education students to engender K-12 student academic achievement.

Overview of the Research on Practice Model

An important dynamic aspect of the Research on Practice model is that it has an operational framework that integrates research and development (R&D) with implementation. To be able to effectively and efficiently implement any form of transformative initiative, project leadership must articulate the connections between the research questions and the innovative activities. Often these two perspectives (R&D and implementation) do not share the same academic language. Therefore, the Research on Practice Model has adopted and emphasized a common referential context for all R&D activities addressing aspects of the ongoing teacher education process in the

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 10

College. Being the home of the ECU Pirates, it is common for students and faculty to identify with all things “pirate related”. Linking the TI to the idea of expertise development and/or refinement using the familiar ECU mascot, provides this TI project with an implementation framework that is meaningful, and thus, accessible to faculty and candidates and aligned with the educational goals of the College of Education.

As a result, the COE’s commitment to developing professional expertise is at the heart of the TI project design. The Research on Practice Model embodies the knowledge, pedagogy, skills, and experiences that the COE believes will produce candidates who are exceptional novice teachers. Within the components of this TI initiative, sophomore candidates begin with structured observations defining and describing effective teaching in the clinical setting, then progress to a finite set of research-based instructional strategies for effective teaching as junior candidates (ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules). These candidates then extend their understanding of effective teaching through successive ISLES modules infused with clinical examples. This preparation is extended to candidates’ experiences in junior practica. During the senior year, interns complete the ISLES modules and demonstrate planning and teaching with research-based instructional strategies in ways that meet the needs of all learners. At the same time, interns are teamed with an Instructional Coach from the local school district whose primary responsibility is to mentor interns in planning, teaching, and assessing effectively for the diverse learners in their internship setting. While receiving coaching, interns are provided opportunities to practice effective teaching in traditional internship settings or in co-teaching settings. These experiences then set the stage for interns to complete a final summative Teacher Performance Assessment. It is in this final performance assessment that the interns are able to showcase their effective teaching. The connective tissue in the Research on Practice model is the continual linking of classroom theory to clinical experience. Candidates repeatedly and consistently see effective teaching, plan effective teaching, implement effective teaching, and evaluate effective teaching. They clearly articulate what they know and are able to do as effective novice teachers.

As shown in Table 2, the specific components in the proposed Research on Practice Model TI initiative include: (1) Introductory Clinical Observation for Novice Observers/ Video Grand Rounds, (2) ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules, (3) edTPA Preparation Modules Integrating ISD-Development Strategies, (4) Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches, (5) Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Support and Professional Development, (6) Clinical Internship Experience: Co-Teaching, and (7) edTPA Administration.

Table 2 overviews each of the seven components addressed in the TI Project within the Elementary and Middle Grades Programs. Each project component is described below. Another essential project support component, the unit’s integrated assessment system which will serve as an evaluative tool, is described in the following section.

Table 2. Overview of Research on Practice Model Project ComponentsProject

CodeProject Component Level Description

1

Introductory Clinical Observation for Novice Observers/ Video Grand Rounds

Soph.Structured observation approach for students' initial observation of classroom instruction prior to beginning the teacher education program.

2 ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules Jr.-Sr.

Computer-based modules modeling key TQP teaching strategies within teacher education coursework in combination with coaching support for use of the TQP Instructional Strategy Lessons for Educators Series Strategies in clinical classroom applications.

3edTPA Preparation Modules Integrating ISD-Development Strategies

Jr.-Sr.Integration of Instructional Systems Development strategies within core teacher preparation coursework leading to effective design of edTPA classroom tasks.

4 Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches Sr.

Observational support model for guiding the systematic incorporation of ISD, edTPA, and other evidence-based teaching strategies within the internship experience.

5Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development

Sr.Initiative for coordinating clinical intern supervisors, clinical teachers, and teacher education faculty to provide professional development using edTPA orientation for instruction.

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 11

6 Clinical Internship Experience Co-Teaching Model Sr.

Clinical internship in which pairs of students are placed in a single classroom internships to provide classroom relevant instruction in collaboration with the clinical teacher.

7 edTPA Administration Sr. Completion of the summative edTPA portfolio assessment.

Detailed Description of Project Components

The following describes each of the project components in Table 2.

1- Early Experience Observation for Novice Observers/Video Grand Rounds. The focus of this project component is to develop and validate a structured observation approach for students' initial observation of classroom instruction prior to beginning the teacher education program. Complementing the structured observation process, this component uses video segments to enhance prospective teacher use of the structured observation model.

Prior to formal admission to undergraduate teacher education programs, a national accreditation guideline requires students enrollment in a preliminary clinical experience course in which they spend a specified number of hours (e.g., 16) in unstructured school observation and engage in complementary seminar-oriented discussions with college faculty.

Considering the possible role of such classes in teacher education, two elements are important. The first is to provide prospective teacher education students with exposure to representative K-8 classroom settings in a manner that helps them determine if obtaining a teaching degree aligns with their future goals. The second is, given that participating students are committed to pursuing a teaching degree, to provide students with an introductory framework for such observations and subsequent discussions guided by faculty that provide a sound conceptual foundation for their future study in the teacher education program.

This component provides a three-part perspective for framing an early clinical experience course: 1) video segments of typical K-8 classrooms are viewed in class; 2) a structured classroom observation instrument is used to analyze the video segment viewed in class; and 3) the structured classroom observation instrument is used to focus subsequent the classroom observations in the field. By introducing such a conceptual framework for student observations using video “snippets,” students are provided with a standardized and efficient means for guiding the series of classroom observation experiences that comprise the remainder of the course.

Ideally, a conceptual framework for classroom observations by students who are novice observers must meet several methodological requirements:

First, the requirements for observing, conceptualizing and categorizing the observed video content must be within the cognitive/experiential capacity of the participating students.

Second, the conceptual framework for the observation task(s) should focus on systemic classroom dynamics that are extensible for use in an increasingly detailed fashion in the teacher education program itself.

Third, each category of classroom dynamics observed should be explainable by instructors in the form of specific procedures that teachers could apply to accomplish the observed outcomes in a manner that represents effective classroom practice.

Overall, these standards potentially allow the introductory clinical experiences to serve as a general introduction to important aspects of teaching practices that provides an initial conceptual framework for students beginning a teacher education program. In the design of the student observation model, two complementary components of a structured observation system were developed: (a) general characteristics common to all classrooms (elements of the structured observation model include: Classroom Organization; Affective Classroom Quality; Student Engagement in Instruction; Teacher Informational Feedback); and, (b) selected instructional behaviors/actions exhibited by teachers. The observation protocol requires candidates to cite specific evidence from the video snippets. This required use of evidence and structured articulation serves as the foundation for the development of skills needed for effective novice teaching.

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 12

The specific model developed for the revised initial clinical experience course is illustrative of how the explicit design of a model for use in Elementary Education can contribute toward a college-wide Research on Practice Model. Considering these key factors, the development of the model and of the potential capacity for evaluative research support exemplifies criteria for improving the teacher education process.

2- ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules. Upon completion of the early experience course, junior-level candidates are introduced to online modules modeling key Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) instructional strategies. The TQP strategies were identified and refined for use through a multi-year USDOE-funded project. The first step in the curriculum reform process was to identify the research-based instructional strategies that would be the focus of modules. Ten research-based strategies identified for this grant were culled from a list of 28 instructional strategies in implementation with a partner school district. Faculty at the university examined the list of strategies and reviewed the literature for evidence of effectiveness of the teaching strategies. Additionally, faculty examined potential overlap with current effective strategies already being taught in teacher education programs. A framework including 5 instructional categories and 10 strategies was developed (see Figure 2).

Figure1. Framework for TQP Instructional Practices: Five Instructional Categories and Ten Instructional Strategies.

Faculty then developed interactive, reflective online modules called ISLES (Instructional Strategy Lessons for Educators Series). These web-based modules infused instruction within undergraduate coursework to develop and enhance declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge of the identified instructional strategies and technology integration within a Universal Design for Learning framework. The ISLES modules utilized the STAR Legacy Model framework developed by educators at Vanderbilt University (http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/hpl/chalcycle.htm). The STAR Legacy framework is based on How People Learn theory by John Bransford (1999) from the University of Washington. The model contains 5 parts (or points of the star): Challenge, Thoughts, Perspectives and Resources, Assessment and Wrap up.

Three ISLES Modules were developed to teach the 10 instructional strategies to teacher candidates in the elementary, middle grades, and special education programs. Modules were developed at the declarative, procedural, and conditional levels. The modules were then integrated in selected courses throughout each program sequence. The declarative module was integrated in the teacher candidate’s introductory methods course, the procedural module integrated in an intermediate methods course, and the conditional module integrated in the first semester of the senior year. This spiraling curriculum allowed candidates to build their knowledge of the instructional strategies as they progressed through their program.

Additionally, video snippets were utilized in the ISLES modules. The use of video snippets was two-fold. First, faculty members videoed in-service teachers modeling the 10 research-based instructional strategies. Faculty vetted the videos together, coming to a consensus about which videos illustrated effective strategy usage. Examples and non-examples of the instructional strategies were identified. Video snippets of clinical examples were then produced and included in the ISLES modules, specifically ISLES 2. Incorporating these videos into the modules allowed preservice teachers to see “real life” models of the instructional strategies. Having access to examples and non-examples of the strategies allowed university faculty to lead in-depth discussions of instructional decision making and implementation.

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 13

Second, when candidates completed ISLES 3 in their Junior year, they moved from watching videos to recording themselves teaching a lesson with instructional strategies. The candidates then trimmed videos into 10 minute snippets that best met the standards set forth in a scoring rubric. This reflective practice of analyzing teaching was modeled after Task 2 in the edTPA created by SCALE at Stanford University.

3– edTPA Preparation Modules Integrating ISD-Development Strategies. The focus of this project component is to prepare teacher education students to effectively design segments of instruction, including the design of edTPA classroom tasks, utilizing Instructional Systems Development (ISD) strategies. The product is a series of online modules that will guide candidates through various check-points as they prepare to complete the edTPA during their student teaching/internship semester. Of the seven project components, this component is most nascent and currently in development, hence the description of it as a future product.

As an assessment tool, the edTPA requires students to design, develop, implement, and analytically evaluate a 3-5 lesson/hour learning segment on academic content representative of their course of study (e.g., elementary, middle grade content areas) in authentic K-12 classroom settings. The focus and guidelines of the edTPA model incorporate a number of important instructional dynamics, including the coordination of content focus, student learning objectives, instructional strategies, and student performance assessment. While the content in the edTPA is nothing new to most teacher preparation programs, the edTPA requires a shift in the focus of the internship. The edTPA portoflio goes beyond just candidate teaching performance to include their ability to articulate what they taught, why they taught it, how they met the needs of individual learners, how well the K-12 students learned the content, and what should be taught next.

The objective of this particular project component is to implement modules incorporating a set of interdisciplinary-based enhancements into an existing teacher education junior level course that, in effect, establish a “curricular trajectory” for student edTPA preparation within the ELEM, MIDG, and SPED teacher education programs. The specific operational components of this initiative include the following steps:

Identifying and developing a set of modular and integrative components that address the scope of major edTPA task requirements is the first step in ISD module devleopment. These components will be embedded within selected teacher education school courses beginning semester 1 of the junior year through semester 2 of the senior year.

Determining both an ordered-sequence and the specific courses in which the components would be embedded.

Determining both an ordered-sequence and the specific courses in which the components would be embedded.

Evaluating the feasibility of embedding the components within courses that will include the assessment of student proficiency across the set of components.

Assessing the cumulative impact of the initiative on student edTPA performance, and, eventually, on their initial success in teaching.

Documenting and disseminating the set of components in the form of a model that facilitates adaptation to other areas of teacher preparation.

The framework of the initiative is straightforward. Once teacher education students master modules addressing components of edTPA tasks, they will be assigned integrative tasks in which edTPA-style lessons are developed, piloted, and refined. As a result, as the preceding is accomplished, candidates will develop professional expertise in the area of performance assessment.

4 – Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches. The focus of this project component is to provide coordinated support for enhancing clinical internship effectiveness. Within the model developed, TQP-funded instructional coaches enhance the focus of the traditional triad of clinical teacher, intern, and supervisor to provide support of the use of effective instructional practices in classroom settings.

As an initial effort, a prototype observation model was implemented to enhance the curriculum and structure of the internship experience. Specifically, the model focused on the use of evidence-based strategies resulting from a public school - university collaborative partnership project, Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP), grant funded by the USDOE as a means of making the present clinical internship a more effective experience for preservice teachers and the public school teachers with whom they work. In doing so, through the systemic use of the strategies were

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 14

employed to positively impact student achievement. The results of the clinical field-testing of the prototype model and data collection system provide evidence that instructional coaches strengthen the internship experience for candidates; initial qualitative and quantitative data are emerging to support anecdotal findings.

As the implementation of Instructional Coaches matures, this project component will be refined. Through the use of an integrated data-collection system, the Elementary Education and Middle Grades programs will continually evaluate the effect of instructional coaching to enhancing the curriculum and student internship experience. The iterative refinement of the clinical internship model with instructional coaches will be essential as the model is expanded beyond these two initial program areas.

Partnering school districts hire the instructional coaches to function as part of the educational team with clinical interns, clinical teachers, and university supervisors to enhance learning for preservice teachers during their year-long internship experience. These coaches mentor the interns, model best practices, conduct observations, and provide professional development to support interns in writing lesson plans, integrating technology, and embedding research based instructional strategies in their teaching.

During Senior 1,the first semester of a two-semester student teaching internship, interns were assigned to their local school classrooms one day a week to observe their clinical teachers, meet the students, and teach three lessons. The instructional coach observed the intern during the three teaching episodes and provided feedback, not as an evaluator, but as an additional resource for improving lesson planning and implementation in the authentic school setting. During Senior 2,the second semester, interns reported to their local schools every day to perform realistic duties of teaching. The instructional coaches continued to observe interns and offer suggestions, as well as after-school professional development specifically designed to meet the needs of the interns. Professional development focused on behavior management, technology integration, and explicit instructional practices the interns had experienced in their reformed coursework at the university.

The significance of this initiative consists of addressing the need for improving the coursework and internship experiences of preservice students while supporting their teachers and intern supervisors through a design that incorporates the use of evidence-based instructional strategies. This framework builds evaluative capacity for collecting the effectiveness data necessary to iteratively refine and evaluate the models effectiveness on a continuing basis.

As an initial pilot, a prototype observation model was implemented to enhance the feedback mechanisms in place in the internship experience. Specifically, the observation model focused on the use of TQP evidence-based strategies. Through the systemic use of the strategies explored in the ISLES modules, an important intent was to positively impact PK-12 student achievement outcomes. Results of the clinical field-testing of the prototype model and data collection system indicate increased specific guidance of candidate performance in the field.

The significance of this component provides additional, targeted support for interns as they apply their understanding of effective teaching in the field. This approach builds evaluative capacity for collecting the effectiveness data necessary to iteratively refine and evaluate the experiences of interns as they connect theory to practice.

5 – Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development. The focus of this project component is the development of a model that clarifies and informs the complementary roles of clinical intern supervisors, clinical teachers, and teacher education faculty. Professional development for intern supervisors, clinical teachers and teacher education faculty must provide all with a clear framework of where interns have been, what they have done, and what to expect.

In response to current efforts to identify effective models leading to the development and graduation of beginning teachers, one component of teacher education programs has attracted significant attention: the internship experience. During the internship experinces, clinical intern supervisors, clinical teachers, and teacher education faculty work together to promote the development of teacher candidates. In the past, much scholarly research has focused on the teacher candidate and the clinical teacher. But as often-overlooked members of the student teaching triad, university-based supervisors have long held a shadowy position, situated somewhere between the worlds of College of Education-based teacher education programs and the PK-12 classroom, and have attracted little scholarly attention and inconsistent definitions of their work. However, as teacher education programs adopt and implement more rigorous, authentic accountability instruments and standards for their teacher candidates during the internship

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 15

semester, university supervisors are attracting increased attention and are being recognized at ECU as an underutilized force in the development of teacher candidates.

This project component serves as a follow-up that emphasizes the changing role of clinical teacher and university supervisors by providing clinical teachers and university supervisors new professional development opportunities with teacher education faculty and within the internship triad. This model calls upon the theories of “socially-situated identity” (Gee, 1999, p. 13) and positioning theory (van Langenhove & Harre, 1999) to provide a contextual lens through which to view the ways that individuals position and identify themselves in new social situations.

In the pilot exploration at the beginning of the semester, faculty members were positioned as the knowledgeable members of a team dedicated to leading clinical teachers and college supervisors through a professional development process. However, by semesters end, all participants viewed themselves as equally knowledgeable based on the contribution of clinical teachers and university supervisors’ additional knowledge of what the clinical internship process looked like in relation to real interns. Drawing upon that knowledge, the refinement and validation of the model’s effectiveness is supportive of university supervisors and clinical teachers positioning themselves within schools and in relation to college faculty as experts who self-identified as more self-assured and knowledgeable mentors for preservice teachers.

6 – Clinical Internship Experience- Co-Teaching Model. The Co-teaching initiative is one extension of TQP Clinical Practice Reform. The design is patterned after Marilyn Friend’s (2008) Co-teaching research and the Academy for Co-Teaching and Collaboration at St. Cloud State University. During the spring semester 2012, the ECU Office of Teacher Education piloted one Co-teaching model at an elementary school in Pitt County with one clinical teacher supervising two interns. The success of this pilot led us to research and expand the model.

St. Cloud State University defines Co-teaching as two teachers (cooperating teacher and teacher candidate) working together with groups of students – sharing the planning, organization, delivery and assessment of instruction, as well as the physical space. Both teachers are actively involved and engaged in all aspects of instruction. In contrast, Friend’s Co-teaching model includes 7 Co-teaching strategies: 1) One Teach, One Observe 2) One Teach, One Assist 3) Station Teaching 4) Parallel Teaching 5) Supplemental Teaching 6) Alternative (Differentiated) Teaching 7) Team Teaching.

At ECU, investigations of Co-teaching have focused on select Co-teaching strategies and associated training. During the Senior 1 semester, interns and clinical teachers are trained in the Co-Teaching Foundations model. Later in Senior 2 interns and clinical teachers will participate in a Co-Teaching Pairs Workshop to reinforce the co-teaching Foundations Training and to prepare for Senior II. University supervisors, once assigned, will be trained in the Co-Teaching Foundations model. Co-Teaching lead faculty may observe during one or more of the required teaching episodes. During Senior 2, interns and clinical teachers will co-teach for the full semester with interns doing one week of “solo teaching”. University supervisors will complete the required minimum of four progress reports. Lead faculty and instructional coaches will document use of co-teaching strategies for research purposes.

Elementary and middle grades COE interns have the opportunity to teach in co-teaching classrooms during their internship experience. These classrooms are under investigation from several vantage points to ensure that our candidates are positively impacting student achievement in their initial years of teaching experience. During Senior II, interns and clinical teachers will co-teach for the full semester with interns doing one week of “solo teaching”. Lead faculty and instructional coaches will document use of co-teaching strategies for research purposes. As other institutions have found success in the effectiveness of co-teaching, it is the intent of this project component to replicate these successes through which candidates develop effective teaching skills.

7 – edTPA Administration. The focus of this project component is the development of a model for college-wide edTPA implementation to be replicated across content areas and institutions.

Over 25 states and 180 teacher preparation programs have adopted or are considering the adoption of the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) instrument developed at Stanford University (AACTE, 2013) as a measure of novice preservice teachers proficiency. In doing so, the systemic intention is to add successful edTPA performance as a requirement for licensure or certification upon completion of teacher education programs in Colleges of Education (see also Luster, 2010). As noted previously, the edTPA requires students to design, develop, implement, and analytically evaluate a 3-5 lesson/hour learning segment on academic content representative of their course of study (e.g., elementary, middle grade content areas) in authentic K-12 classroom settings. The focus and guidelines of the edTPA model incorporate a number of important instructional dynamics including the coordination of content

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 16

focus, student learning objectives, instructional strategies along with the evaluative performance-based recommendations for future lesson revision. Within the edTPA process, performance is evaluated through a combination of written and video documentation using edTPA-developed multi-level rubrics.

The edTPA is a capstone, summative performance assessment that links theory and practice in the internship. It is a nationally validated instrument that enables teacher education programs to discuss candidate successes and struggles in like terms. Though summative for the individual intern, the results are used formatively at the program level to guide future improvements. The edTPA is truly educative in nature. Additionally, common reliable training is a cornerstone of this assessment and strengthens the collaboration and communication between the university supervisor, clinical teacher, intern, and instructional coach as the same vocabulary and concepts are explored.

Use of the edTPA as a measure of teaching proficiency at the completion of teacher education programs places significant new requirements on Colleges of Education. For example, Colleges of Education must initiate, document, and establish valid and reliable formative assessment within their teacher education programs to provide students with the foundation necessary for successful completion of the edTPA. Additionally, Colleges of Education must develop the organizational capacity and faculty support infrastructure necessary for edTPA implementation and evaluation of edTPA student performance. Finally, the resulting dataset of candidate edTPA portfolios must be accessible in a well-structured college wide database tool.

The objective of the edTPA Administration component is to describe the development and phased implementation of a college wide organizational structure for implementing all aspects of the edTPA assessment system. Included in this description is (a) the hierarchical team-oriented administrative structure composed of College faculty used to implement the model, (b) issues arising as the implementation of the edTPA system evolved from including a few College teacher education programs to all in the College, and (c) the strategy for documenting the edTPA implementation model in a form detailed enough to be replicated in other Colleges engaged in offering teacher education programs.

Comprehensive Project Plan, Methodology, and Timelines

This section presents the comprehensive project plan for the seven project components, including specific component objectives, and a timeline for implementation. As noted earlier, within a Research on Practice Model, each of the project components addresses major issues in teacher education identified in the literature review and the development of each component will be documented in the form of a model that can be adopted by other teacher education programs.

The specific objectives and form(s) of measurement for each component are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Major Goals and Indicators of Success for Research on Practice Model Project Components

Project Code Project Component Major Goals and Success Indicators

1Introductory Clinical Observation for Novice Observers

Goal: Develop and validate a structured observation protocol using video segments prior to field experiences.Success Indicators: More coherent student observation reports of video and classroom observations and more focused follow-up discussions (vs. controls).

2 ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules

Goal: Design a series of online modules to increase the declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge of selected instructional strategies.Success Indicators: Assessment of student mastery of procedures for using TQP teaching strategies within teacher education coursework, tests in combination with evaluation of effectiveness of classroom use of strategies as evaluated by faculty, university supervisors, and instructional coaches.

3edTPA Preparation Integrating ISD-Development Strategies

Goal: Incorporate edTPA-relevant instructional development strategies leading to effective edTPA module design and implementation.Success Indicators: Assessment of student mastery of procedures for using the ISD-development strategies for edTPA-focused instruction within core teacher preparation coursework using both tests and applications applying the ISD development strategies.

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 17

4Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches

Goal: Provide coordinated support for enhancing clinical internship effectiveness using a coaching model.Success Indicators: Evaluation of the feasibility and effectiveness of the observational model to improve classroom effectiveness of internship based on observational data and complementary surveys of interns, classroom teachers, university supervisors and instructional coaches.

5

Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development

Goal: Develop a professional development model to link and clarify the roles of clinical teachers, university supervisors, instructional coaches during the internship.Success Indicators: Evaluation of the feasibility and effectiveness of the clinical support model based upon qualitative views of the three categories of professional participants supporting the internship experience. Identification of qualitative improvements to internship support process will be identified and documented.

6Clinical Internship Experience: Co-Teaching Model

Goal: Experiment with different co-teaching models to optimize teacher candidate learning as an alternative to traditional student teaching.Success Indicators: Evaluation of the feasibility and effectiveness of the co-teaching clinical internship model within the internship classroom setting based upon direct observation, the views of clinical teachers, and an assessment of differential achievement outcomes of K-8 students vs. demographically similar students.

7 edTPA Administration

Goal: Develop a replicable model for edTPA implementation to improve candidate readiness, consistency of instruction, and inter-rater reliabilitySuccess Indicators: Documentation of the effectiveness of the phased implementation framework for developing the capacity of College faculty to be engaged in the implementation of the edTPA. Evaluative data will include assessment of faculty proficiency resulting from edTPA training and of the consistency of faculty ratings of student edTPA performance materials.

Figure 2 details the structure of the project components in the Research on Practice Model. As Figure 2 indicates, a sequential series of seven parallel components across the scope of the overall Elementary Education and Middle Grades Education Teacher Education Programs will be developed and validated. As the shaded sections indicate, the initial development of some of the components has been initiated previously. As a result, these initial development efforts will serve as a foundation for the subsequent adaptation of components from one teacher education program to the other (see arrows in Figure 2). As Figure 2 also shows, the project development strategy will use the components previously initiated in the development sequence in one program (e.g., Elementary) as a foundation for adaptation by the other (e.g., Middle Grades).

In outlining the comprehensive TI project plan and methodology, Figure 3 shows the sequence of steps to be followed in the development of each different component, while Table 4 shows the present status of each component (2012-2013) and the projected stages of development beginning with the 2012-13 academic year through the 2016-17 academic year. As Figure 3 and Table 4 show, the R&D methodology used for the development of each component consists of 5 phases: (a) a careful analysis of the problem to be addressed, (b) a prototype design of the component, (c) field-testing and iterative refinement (emphasizing feasibility, fidelity of implementation, and targeted performance outcomes), (d) summative evaluation (focusing on the evaluative components in (c) above), and (e) component adoption in the teacher education program (with evaluative monitoring).

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 18

FINAL 6/18/2013

Figure 2. Framework for the proposed NCATE-TI Project showing the seven parallel components for Elementary and Middle Grades Programs. Shaded boxes indicate initial research and development (R&D) work in progress during 2012-13 (see Table 4 for details). Arrows indicate that the R&D work in one program will provide the foundation for the adaptation of the component by the other, providing a “fast-forward” R&D strategy. The College Integrated Database System described in a following section provides support for housing all of the data obtained in the project.

Page 19

Table 4 presents an overall timeline showing the status of each project component over the four-year project period: 2012-2013 through 2015-2016. As Table 3 shows, during the initial year (2012-2013) of the project, a number of components have been piloted in preliminary fashion in either the Elementary or Middle Grades areas.

Table 4. Phases of Proposed Research on Practice Model Project Components by Year.

Project Component 2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

TI Integrated Database Support Capacity (TEMS) Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

Elementary UG Teacher Preparation

E-1 Novice Clinical Observation/Video Grand Rounds (Soph) Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

FINAL 6/18/2013

Figure 3. The five-phase R&D methodology used for component development beginning with problem analysis (based on the literature review) through adoption. Different components in the proposed NCATE-TI project are at different phases/status (see Figure 1 and Table 3)

Page 20

E-2 ISLES Instructional Strategies Module (Jr-Sr) Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

E-3 edTPA Preparation Integrating ISD-Development Strategies (Jr-Sr) Phase 2 > Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5

E-4 Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches (Sr) Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

E-5Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development (Sr)

Phase 1 > Phase 2 > Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5

E-6 Clinical Internship Experience: Co-Teaching Model (Sr) Phase 2 > Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

E-7 edTPA Administration (Sr) Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

Middle Grades UG Teacher Preparation

MG-1

Novice Clinical Observation/Video Grand Rounds (Soph) Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

MG-2

ISLES Instructional Strategies Module (Jr-Sr) Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

MG-3

edTPA Preparation Integrating ISD-Development Strategies (Jr-Sr) Phase 2 > Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

MG-4

Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches (Sr) Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

MG-5

Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development (Sr

Phase 1 > Phase 2 > Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5

MG-6

Clinical Internship Experience: Co-Teaching Model (Sr) Phase 2 > Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5

MG-7 edTPA Administration (Sr) Phase 3 > Phase 4 > Phase 5 > Phase 5 > Phase 5

Note- Refer to Figure 2 for component status indicated by Phases 1 2 3 4 5.

As noted previously, a major objective is to document each component in a form that allows it to be replicated in other teacher education settings and that each component addresses a significant issue in teacher education as noted in the literature.

Collaborative Involvement of Appropriate Key Stakeholders

The cornerstone of much of the COE’s success has been its partnerships; partnerships across campus, across the state, with public school partners and with business and community leaders are at the unit’s core. The College of Education has several well-developed collaborative networks across the university service area consisting of representatives of area K-12 school districts, as well as business and community leaders. A sample of these partnerships is presented in Table 5. below. Public school partners are actively involved in the teacher education program at ECU and contributed to the development of each project component included in the Research on Practice Model through either their direct involvement or feedback. In addition, the proposed Research on Practice Model will be coordinated with the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction as a component of program approval documents and recommendation for initial teaching licensure.

Table 5. ECU and COE Partnerships with PK-12, Business, and Community Partners

Partnership Group Meeting Frequency Membership

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 21

Council for Teacher Education

Monthly during academic year

Representatives from all NCATE accredited programs at ECU, three PK-12 school district representatives, two student representatives (one undergraduate, one graduate)

Latham Clinical School Network

Monthly during academic year

The Walter and Daisy Carson Latham Clinical Schools Network is a partnership between East Carolina University and 36 public school systems in eastern North Carolina.

COE Professional Advisory Board

Twice each semester COE alumni, business leaders, community leaders, elected officials in service region

COE Junior Professional Advisory Board

Twice each semester Current COE students

III. Quality of the Research Design

The evaluative research design is an integral component of the 5-Phase R&D methodology to be used (see Figure 2, Table 4). In doing so, the project will address the major objectives for each component shown in Table 3. IRB approval has been obtained or is in process of being obtained for each project component.

Overview of Project Research Design

The project research design will follow a general framework that is based on the Phase for each of the seven project components. As the following indicates, the research design for each of the five phases will include both quantitative (e.g., direct observations, course-based tests, performance tests, participant surveys) and qualitative (e.g., participant interview) data.

Phase 1: Problem Analysis Research Design. Phase 1 for each component consists of “Problem Analysis.” In the Problem Analysis Phase, the evaluation will focus on the degree to which the solution advanced to address the identified problem would – in the judgment of education professionals (e.g., faculty, university supervisors, clinical teachers in K-8 schools, school district representatives to the Council of Teacher Education) – enhance the overall quality of the teacher education program by addressing the identified problem. The Phase 1 Research Design would follow an iterative refinement/feedback process until a consensus of affected educational professionals is reached. An important component of this evaluation design is the documentation of the process through which consensus was reached.

Phase 2: Prototype Research Design. Phase 2 for each component consists of “Prototype Design.” In the “Prototype Design” Phase, the evaluation will focus on the degree to which the specific model developed for implementation is judged by education professionals as feasible to implement and the degree to which anticipated model outcomes are measurable. As in Phase 1, the Phase 2 Prototype Design phase would follow an iterative refinement/feedback process until a consensus of affected education professionals is reached. An important component of this evaluation design is the documentation of the process through which consensus was reached.

Phase 3: Formative Research Design. Phase 3 for each component consists of “Field-Test and Iterative Refinement” of the prototype model developed in Phase 2. In the “Field-Test and Iterative Refinement” Phase, the formative evaluation will focus on the degree to which the field testing inidcates the prototype model is feasible to implement and engenders the specific measurable outcomes for the specific component.

The forms of data for determining feasibility will include both direct observation of the component implementation and interviews or surveys of participants. As appropriate, the forms of data for assessing outcomes will consist of course-based tests, performance tests, and interviews or surveys of participants. Because the purpose of the Phase 3 Formative Research Design is to provide information leading to the iterative refinement of the prototype model, during Phase 3, data will be obtained on a continuing basis and, based on the data; the prototype model will be refined on an iterative basis as necessary until the model is effective.

The result of the Phase 3 Formative Research Design will be a refined prototype model with implementation feasiblity and for which evidence of effectiveness has be obtained. As in Phases 1 and 2, the cumulative data obtained in Phase 3 and the evolutionary refinement of the model based upon the data obtained will be documented.

Phase 4: Summative Research Design. Phase 4 for each component will consist of rigorous Summative Evaluation of the model refined in Phase 3. As in Phase 3, the same forms of data will be collected in Phase 4. In

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 22

Phase 4, the Summative Evaluation focus will be on obtaining data that provides evidence of the feasibility and effectiveness of the component, using the same instrumentation in Phase 3. However, to the degree possible, the Phase 4 Summative Research Design will incorporate comparisons among participants (e.g., students) receiving the model as an intervention vs. comparison participants on the appropriate component outcome measures or in changes in measured outcomes or trends over several years.

In Phase 4, the Summative Evaluation findings for each component will be documented in written form that will include (a) documentation of the model in a form others can use to adopt the model, (b) the evaluative findings providing evidence of the feasibility and effectiveness of the model for that component, and (c) specification of factors affecting generalizability and/or limitations of the component model based upon the data collected. In the event that the summative evaluation of the model does not confirm feasibility and effectiveness of the model, then the model will require additional refinement and the Phase 4 Summative Research Design repeated.

Phase 5: Adaptation Research Design. Phase 5 for each component consists of the adaptation of the model validated though the Phase 4 Summative Evaluation within the teacher education program. As an important part of Phase 5, the assessment instruments used in Phases 3 and 4 will be used to monitor the implementation and outcomes of the model adopted for use.

Statistical Analysis of Data Obtained in Across the Research Design Phases

Quantitative Data. For all quantitative data collected, descriptive statistics will be computed and reported in aggregate and disaggregated form, as appropriate. In addition, general linear models (OLS, multilevel) will be conducted for correlational and experimental studies. As a supporting form of teacher education student data, relationships of student demographic characteristics to model outcomes will be explored. In a similar fashion, demographics of K-8 school students will be used as statistical controls in analyses of school achievement data measured by NC State tests.

Qualitative Data. For all participants (e.g., teacher education students, faculty, supervisors, clinical teachers), interview and discussion data will be recorded, transcribed/transferred into electronic form, and analyzed via NVivo software (version 10).

Assessment of Specific Project Component Feasibility and Outcomes

Following Table 2, this section details the major forms of data used in the development and validation of each project component across the four Phases of the R&D development process. Phase 5 data collection will consist of the same forms of data as Phase 4.

Table 6: Specific Research on Practice Model Project Component Outcomes and Feasibility

Project Code

Project Component

Goal Major Success Indicators Research Data Collection

1 Introductory Clinical Observation for Novice Observers/Video Grand Rounds

Develop and validate a structured observation protocol using video segments prior to field experiences.

More coherent observation reports of video and classroom observations and more focused follow-up discussions (vs. controls).

Phases 1-2: Interviews/ surveys of education professionals re: Adequacy of the modelPhases 3-4: Participant student observation reports and discussions; comparison of participant student observation reports vs. comparison students.

2 ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules

Design a series of online modules to increase the declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge of selected instructional strategies.

Assessment of student mastery of procedures for using TQP teaching strategies within teacher education coursework tests in combination with evaluation of effectiveness of classroom use of strategies as evaluated by faculty, university supervisors, and clinical

Phases 1-2: Interviews/ surveys of educational professionals re: Adequacy of the modelPhases 3-4: Student performance on course-tests; proficiency in implementing strategies in classroom settings; interviews/surveys of participant students and clinical support professionals re: Student classroom performance.

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 23

coaches.

3 edTPA Preparation Integrating ISD-Development Strategies

Incorporate edTPA-relevant instructional development strategies leading to effective edTPA module design and implementation.

Assessment of student mastery of procedures for using the ISD-development strategies for TPA-focused instruction within core teacher preparation coursework using both tests and applications applying the ISD development strategies.

Phases 1-2: Interviews/ surveys of educational professionals re: Adequacy of the modelPhases 3-4: Student performance on course-tests; proficiency in developing and field-testing multi-lesson instructional (teaching) sequences; interviews/surveys of participant students and clinical support professionals re: Student course-test achievement and classroom performance.

4 Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches

Provide coordinated support for enhancing clinical internship effectiveness using a coaching model.

Evaluation of the feasibility and effectiveness of the observational model during internship based on observational data and complementary surveys of interns, classroom teachers, and supervisors.

Phases 1-2: Interviews/ surveys of educational professionals re: Adequacy of the modelPhases 3-4: Observational data of student classroom performance; Interviews/ surveys of students and educational professionals.

5 Clinical Internship Model for Clinical Support and Professional Development

Develop a professional development model to link and clarify the roles of clinical teachers, university supervisors, instructional coaches during the internship.

Evaluation of the feasibility and effectiveness of the clinical support model based upon qualitative views of the three categories of professional participants supporting the internship experience. Identification of qualitative improvements to internship support process will also be identified and documented.

Phases 1-2: Interviews/ surveys of educational professionals re: Adequacy of the modelPhases 3-4: Interviews/ surveys of students and educational professionals re: perspectives resulting from the model implementation.

6 Clinical Internship Experience:Co-Teaching Model

Experiment with different co-teaching models to optimize teacher candidate learning as an alternative to traditional student teaching.

Evaluation of the feasibility and effectiveness of the co-teaching clinical internship model within the internship classroom setting based upon direct observation, the views of clinical teachers, and an assessment of differential achievement outcomes of K-8 students vs. demographically similar students.

Phases 1-2: Interviews/ surveys of educational professionals re: Adequacy of the modelPhases 3-4: Interviews/ surveys of students and educational professionals re: perspectives resulting from the model implementation; Determination of the effect of the co-teaching model on the academic achievement of K-8 students vs. classrooms with no interns.

7 edTPA Administration

Develop a replicable model for edTPA implementation to improve candidate readiness, consistency of instruction, and inter-rater reliability.

Documentation of the effectiveness of the phased implementation framework for developing the capacity of College faculty to be engaged in the implementation of the TPA. Evaluative data will include assessment of

Phases 1-2: Interviews/ surveys of educational professionals re: Adequacy of the modelPhases 3-4: Interviews/ surveys of educational professionals re: Effectiveness of the different elements of the TPA administrative model (e.g., outcomes of faculty

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 24

faculty proficiency resulting from TPA training and of the consistency of faculty ratings of student TPA performance materials.

training; reliability of faculty TPA scoring.

IV. Institutional Capacity to Conduct the Initiative

This section presents evidence showing the capacity of the institution to implement the proposed project. The description of the project components (Tables 2 and 3) provide a context for presenting the capacity of the COE to implement the project. An important additional factor (see Figure 1, Table 4) is that (a) initial work is being conducted by COE faculty and (b) that the overall project design involves cross-program adaptation between elementary and middle grades programs. Capacity for expansion and implementation of Research on Practice Model components beyond the Elementary and Middle Grades program is currently developing.

With regard to capacity, the focus of this section is on the factors resulting in the development of a college-wide culture of change that provided the impetus for the TI initiative itself and the corresponding role of the present college-wide database as a key tool for supporting the Research on Practice Model. In addition, the involvement of specific faculty on each project component is presented. In all cases for all components, external partners/ stakeholders will be actively involved in the project.

As noted in the introduction to the TI proposal, the institution and the COE have been laying the foundation for transformative change in its teacher education programs for several years. In addition to the strategic investments in integrated data collection, assessment, and in grant writing, the unit has the human capital to take on such a large project. As noted in the research literature, change in higher education is a slow, often deliberate process that requires a willingness to change (Scott, 1998). In order to effect change in teacher education programs, faculty committed to program improvement and student learning must be willing to adopt new ideas and change their own teaching in order to bring change to PK-12 classrooms (Schien, 1990). In following the Research on Practice Model, the COE has established a strong foundation for such faculty commitment. Ginsberg and Bernstein (2011) describe the roles involved in bringing organizational change to institutions of higher education, including a leader, change agents, and facilitators (see Table 7). Each role is essential in initiating transformational change in an institution and each role is addressed within the Research on Practice Model that serves as a foundation for the proposed TI initiative.

Table 7. Roles involved in organization change (Ginsberg and Bernstein, 2011).Role Importance Person(s) Playing RoleLeader Possesses institutional power and influence to help change

institutional cultureDean of COE

Change Agent Possesses passion and substantive knowledge to help make change occur

Project Lead Faculty

Facilitator Possesses combination of institutional clout and substantive knowledge to help smooth the process of change

Office of Assessment and AccreditationOffice of Teacher Education

Overview of the Teacher Education Integrated Assessment System

The Research on Practice Model will be supported by a strong and well-established teacher education database/implementation tool that serves as a key form of institutional capacity for the TI project. This comprehensive large-scale assessment/database system presently supports all aspects of the institution’s Teacher Education Programs and initial phases of project components that have been previously initiated by teacher education faculty (see Table 3). It has been designed and is fully capable of supporting all project components, including the expansion of components to new program areas in teacher education.

As undergraduate students progress through their teacher education programs, they generate extensive amounts of data that include their academic progress toward degree completion, completed work, clinical assignments and

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 25

evaluations, and self-report perspectives. This comprehensive teacher education database in the College of Education houses all records for all undergraduate teacher education students by uniting several data warehouses. Given the archiving of such individual student data, faculty and teacher education administrators are able to both enter and access data for both individual and groups of students. In addition, by linking the teacher education database to university records, status reports and projections can be conducted through structured database queries,

In addition to supporting students and faculty, the longitudinal database serves as a research tool for undergraduate teacher education faculty. First, it supports research-oriented queries of interest that explore facets of the teacher education program, either in general or in specified area. Second, of equal importance, the longitudinal database system is also able to support faculty research by developing web-based tools allowing either faculty or students to enter information relevant to research questions in the form of tabled database records that, in turn, can be integrated with existing database information and then accessed for analysis.

Figure 3. Elements of the Teacher Education Database Support System

By using a cross-sectional large scale systemic assessment program that accumulates reports into one universal database, faculty have the capability to evaluate performance levels through multiple elements. To ensure success, a comprehensible database management system has also been constructed to provide basic organization of data. Members of the Office of Assessment and Accreditation work with the university’s Information Technology and Computing Services group to upgrade the existing Teacher Education Management System (TEMS) to include data exported from the college’s electronic portfolio system. Because the proposed Research on Practice Model is an extension of initial work by faculty and the established database/implementation tool on selected components, the project has a well-established foundation for successful completion.

Involvement of College Faculty in Each Research on Practice Model Component

Table 8 summarizes the involvement of specific COE faculty in each project component. Currently, lead faculty in the Elementary and Middle Grades Education programs are leading several project components. As each project components moves through the R&D process, additional faculty in the target program areas and other teacher education programs are engaging in the effort. Additionally, for certain project components external partners, including our two TQP partner school districts – Pitt County Schools and Greene County Schools – are listed.

Table 8. Current Faculty Leaders, Unit Faculty Support, and External Partners

Project Code

Project Component Lead Faculty (current) Additional Faculty External Partners

Teacher Education Database Support System

Mary WorthingtonDiana Lys

Ellen Dobson ECU ITCSTaskStream

1 Introductory Clinical Observation for Novice Observers/Video Grand Rounds

Kristen CuthrellMichael VitaleDawn Shelton

Joy StapletonSharilyn SteadmanElizabeth HodgeLaura King

LCSN

2 ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules

Kristen Cuthrell Ann Bullock Pitt County Schools

FINAL 6/18/2013

Student records and other data

Institutional level data warehouse

e-portfolio assessments and licensure portfolios

Teacher performace assessment data

TEMS TaskStream

BannerTracDat

Page 26

Diane Kester Laura KingJane Manner

Greene County SchoolsOther LCSN districts

3 edTPA Preparation Integrating ISD-Development Strategies

Michael VitaleMark L’EsperanceJamin Carson

4 Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches

Judy SmithVivian CovingtonKristen Cuthrell

Joy Stapleton Pitt County SchoolsGreene County Schools

5 Clinical Internship- Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development

Sharilyn SteadmanSusan MorganVivian Covington

Judy Smith LCSN districts

6 Clinical Internship Experience:Co-Teaching Model

Liz FogartyJudy SmithVivian Covington

Kristen CuthrellAnn BullockDebbie MetcalfSusan MorganSharilyn SteadmanRon PrestonAllen Guidry

Pitt County SchoolsGreene County Schools

7 edTPA Administration Mark L’EsperanceKristen CuthrellEllen DobsonDiana Lys

Program Coordinators in 12 additional teacher education programs

SCALEUNC GA – NC TPAC Pilot Project

Timeline and Support for each Research on Practice Model Component

Support for the Research on Practice Model is being provided internally by the COE. As the project expands to other teacher education programs outside the COE, the ECU Provost’s Office has offered to consider the possibility of providing additional support. Certain parameters for funding support have been established within the COE and are linked to specific timelines and deliverables. For the years of the Research on Practice Model, the deliverables will consist of the Phase 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 outcomes in the form of research findings and models suitable for dissemination. That is, appropriate levels of funding will be linked to the R&D phase of each project component. More specifically, each Phase described in Figure 1 and Table 3 may anticipate funding, as available, as outlined below:

Phase 1 – No funding support; faculty exploration and project development

Phase 2 – Summer support for lead faculty

Phase 3 – Summer support for lead faculty

Phase 4 – Summer support decreased, move to in-load responsibility

Phase 5 – Embedded workload responsibility, no funding unless undergoing periodic review/update

Project Summary

The NCATE Transformational Initiative (TI) offers member institutions an accreditation pathway in the form of an option for pursuing significant, evidence-based contributions that have the potential to advance the field of teacher education. The project proposed by the COE at ECU addresses this NCATE-TI goal for systemically improving aspects of the teacher education process in a manner that is both multi-faceted and coordinated.

The ECU project is multi-faceted in that the overall initiative consists of a series of components within the undergraduate teaching programs in Elementary Education and in Middle Grades Education that ultimately could be adapted for all teacher education programs (see Figure 1, Tables 4 and 5). The underlying the project design for

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 27

coordinating the proposed project components is based on two complementary perspectives. The first is that the components themselves are explicit enhancements to the overall teacher education programs in the Elementary Education and Middle Grades Education areas. The second is that each of the components addresses systemic aspects of teacher education that enhance program quality and have been identified as issues in the field. Considered as a set of complementary components, the proposed ECU TI Proposal reflects a college-wide “Research on Practice” model through which the COE supports R&D on issues in teacher preparation.

Following an R&D model consisting of a rigorous five-phase evaluative process (see Figure 2), this TI project addresses the following specific undergraduate teacher preparation program components (see Table 2): (a) Introductory Clinical Observation for Novice Observers/ Video Grand Rounds, (b) ISLES Instructional Strategies Modules, (3) edTPA Preparation Modules Integrating ISD-Development Strategies, (d) Clinical Internship Support with Instructional Coaches, (e) Clinical Internship Model for Coordinating Clinical Support and Professional Development, (f) a Clinical Internship Experience Co-Teaching Model, and (g) a college wide edTPA Administration Model.Detailed in the proposal for each component intervention are: (a) Needs Addressed, (b) Goals and Objectives, and (c) Major Research Questions (see Table 1) along with component Success Indicators (see Table 3). Also shown in the proposal is a comprehensive project plan (see Table 4) in which a timeline is presented for each phase of research methodology for each component, including data collection for each R&D development phase (see Table 6).

Presented in the proposal is strong evidence of the institutional capacity of the COE to conduct the initiative that includes the following factors: (a) prior successful prototyping of several of the proposed interventions , (b) the use of the present COE comprehensive undergraduate teacher database in support of the project components, (c) a dedicated group of COE faculty committed to work collaboratively on the project (see Table 8) within a sound leadership framework (see Table 7) and a well-established COE collaborative framework (see Table 5) involving, K-12 school teachers and administrators in the COE university service area.

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 28

REFERENCES

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) (2013). About edTPA. Retrieved from:

http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa

Annenberg Institute for School Reform (2004). Instructional coaching: Professional

development strategies that improve instruction. Retrieved from www.annenberginstitute.org/

pdf/InstructionalCoaching.pdf

Bannink, A. (2009). How to capture growth? – Video narratives as an instrument for

assessment in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 244-250.

Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education. New York:

            Taylor & Francis.

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2000). Associate teachers in preservice education: Clarifying and enhancing their role.

Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 207-224.

Becker, J. (1979). The world and the school: A case for world-centered education. In J. Becker

(Ed.), Schooling for a global age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Beyer, L. (1991). Teacher education, reflective inquiry, and moral action. In B. Tabachnik & K. Zeichner (Eds.),

Inquiry-oriented practices in teacher education (pp113-129). New York: Falmer Press.

Bouas, J. & Thompson, P. (2000). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of reflective

thinking practices used in a reading/language arts practicum experience: A study with cross-cultural

implications. A paper presented for the World Congress of the International Reading Association, New

Zealand.

Brown, E. (2004). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness during a

multicultural course: The message or the method? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 325-340.

Brown, H. (1934). Curriculum revision in a teachers' college. The Journal of Higher Education. 5(9), 490-496.

Caires, S. & Alemida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: The student teachers’

perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 515-528.

Chung, R.R. (2008). Beyond assessment: Performance assessments in teacher education.

            Teacher Education Quarterly, winter, 7-28.

Cooper, A., Beare, P., & Thorman, J. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity: A

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 29

comparison of student teaching experiences in Minnesota and South Texas. Action in Teacher Education,

12(3), 1-4.

Danielson’s Framework for Teaching for Classroom Observations. (October 2010)  White Paper   by The MET

Project by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Retrieved from the www on August 30, 2012 at

http://metproject.org/resources/Danielson%20FFT_10_29_10.pdf

Danielson, C. (2011). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. 2nd edition, ASCD.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple

            measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2),

            120-135.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. The Journal of

Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.

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), 286-301.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Hammerness, K. (with Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L).

(2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (with P.

LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy) (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a changing world: What teachers

should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-417). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in

context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523-545.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context.

            Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523-545.

Duquette, C. (1993). A school-based teacher education program: Perceptions

            and attitudes. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 39(4), 419-432.

Ediger, M. (2009). Supervising the student teacher in the public school. Education, 130(2), 251-254.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.

            Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.

Fayne, H.R., (2007). Supervision from the student teacher’s perspective: An institutional case study. Studying

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 30

Teacher Education, 3(1), 53-66.

Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction,

2(2), 9-19.

Ginsberg, S. M., & Bernstein, J. L. (2011). Growing the scholarship of teaching and learning through

institutional culture change. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 1-12.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Glenn, W. J. (2006, Winter). Model versus mentor: Defining the necessary qualities of the effective cooperating

teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 85-95.

Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 22, 1118-1129.

Griffin, G., Barnes, S., Hughes, R., O’Neal, S., Defino, M., Edwards, S., et al. (1983).

Clinical preservice teacher education: Final report of a descriptive study.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED240101) Austin: University of Texas, Research and

Development Center for Education, Research in Teacher Education Program.

Johnson, L. (2002). My eyes have been opened: White teachers and racial awareness.

Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 153-167.

Karmos, A., & Jacko, C. (1977). The role of significant others during the student

teaching experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 28(5), 51-55.

Killian, J., & McIntyre, J. (1987). The influence of supervisory training for

cooperating teachers on preservice teachers’ development during early

field experiences. Journal of Education Research, 80(5), 277-282.

Killian, J. E. & Wilkins, E. A. (2009). Characteristics of highly effective cooperating

teachers: A study of their backgrounds and preparation. Action in Teacher

Education, 30(4), 67-83.

Kissel, B., Mraz, M., Algozzine, B., & Stover, K. (2011). Early childhood literacy coaches' role perceptions and

recommendations for change. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(3), 288-303.

doi:10.1080/02568543.2011.580207

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 31

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Kowal, J., & Steiner, L. (2007). Instructional coaching. Center for Comprehensive School Reform and

Improvement. Retrieved from: http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/CenterIssueBriefSept07Coaching.pdf

Ladson-Billings, G. (1991). When difference means disaster: Reflections on a teacher

education strategy for countering student resistance to diversity. A paper presented at the annual meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Larke, P. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of

preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30.

Larke, P., Wiseman, D., & Bradley, C. (1990). The minority mentorship project:

Changing attitudes of presence teachers for diverse classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 5-12.

Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path

            to college.  New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.

Levin, B.B, & Rock, T.C. (2003). The effects of collaborative action research on preservice and experienced teacher

partners in professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 135-149.

Luster, J. (2010). Why states should require a teaching performance assessment and a subject matter assessment for

a preliminary teaching credential. Research in Higher Education Journal 8, 1-16.

Lynch, J., & Ferguson, K. (2010). Reflections of elementary school literacy coaches on practice: Roles and

perspectives. Canadian Journal of Education, 33(1), 199-227. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=51974593&site=ehost-live

Manning, D. (1977). The influence of key individuals on student teachers in urban

and suburban settings. Teacher Educator, 13(2), 2-8.

McIntyre, D. J., & Byrd, D. M. (1998). Supervision in teacher education. In G.R. Firth

& E. Pajak (EDS.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 409-427).

New York: McMillan.

McNamara, D. (1995). The influence of student teachers’ tutors and mentors upon their classroom practice: An

exploratory study. Teacher and Teacher Education, 11, 51-61.

Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 32

Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional

capacity, promises, and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute

Program on Education and Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for

School Reform. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/publications/list.html

Poglinco, S., Bach, A., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., and Supovitz, J. (2003).

The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's Choice schools.

Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of

Pennsylvania. Retrieved from www.cpre.org/Publications?Publications_Research.htm

Sawchuk, S. (2011). University of Michigan project scales up "high leverage" teaching practices.

EducationWeek. Retrieved from the www on August 31, 2012 at

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/10/high_leverage_teaching_practices.html

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.45.2.109

Scott, S. E., Cortina, K. S., & Carlisle, J. F. (2012). Understanding coach-based professional development in reading

first : How do coaches spend their time and how do teachers perceive coaches' work? Literacy Research &

Instruction, 51(1), 68-85. doi:10.1080/19388071.2011.569845

Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the

overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106.

Steadman, S. C. (2009). Cycles of confidence: Supporting university supervisors’ recursive trajectories of

development. Teaching and Learning, 23(3), 98-110.

Stephens, D., Morgan, D. N., DeFord, D. E., Donnelly, A., Hamel, E., Keith, K. J., . . . Leigh, S. R. (2011). The

impact of literacy coaches on teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(3), 215-249.

doi:10.1177/1086296X11413716

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 33

Talvitie, U., Peltokallio, L., & Mannisto, P. (2000). Student teachers’ views about their relationships with university

supervisors, cooperating teachers and peer student teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, 44(1), 79-88.

Teachscape (2010). Framework for Teaching Proficiency system. Retrieved from the www on

August 30, 2012 at  http://www.teachscape.com/products/danielson-proficiency-system

The National Academy of Education, Committee on Teacher Education (2005) A good teacher in every classroom:

Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve.  Linda Darling-Hammond & Joan Baratz-

Snowden, eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Books.

Viadero, D. (2005). Review panel turns up little evidence to back teacher education

practices. Education Week, 24(41), 20.

Viadero, D. (2010). Coaching of teachers found to boost student reading. Education

Week, Retrieved from http://edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/

05/04/31literacy.html?tkn=YRQFeEEeCqUYAeve…

Walker, K. (2006). Instructional Coaches. Research Brief for the Principals’ Partnership. Retrieved from

http://www.principalspartnership.com/instructionalcoaches.pdf.

Wang, J. (2000). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: A

Comparative study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education,

17, 51-73.

Whitford, B.L., Ruscoe, G., & Fickel, L. (2000). Knitting it all together: Collaborative

Teacher education in Southern Main. In Darling-Hammond, L. (ED.), Studies of excellence in teacher

education: Preparation in the undergraduate years (pp. 172-257). New York: National Commission on

Teaching and America’s Future & Washington, DC: American Association of College for Teacher

Education.

Wilkins-Canter, E. A. (1996). Providing effective cooperative teacher feedback. In

D. J. McIntyre & D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Preparing tomorrow’s teachers: The field

experience. Teacher Education Yearbook IV (pp. 169-177). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Yao, Y., Thomas, M., Nickens, N., Downing, J.A., Burkett, R.S., & Lamson, S. (2008).

FINAL 6/18/2013

Page 34

Validity evidence for an electronic portfolio for preservice teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,

Spring, 10-23.

Zantig, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Student teacher’s beliefs about mentoring and learning to teach

during teaching practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 57-80.

Zeichner, K. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to

recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teacher’s College

Record, 105, 490-519.

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and

university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 61(1-2) 89-99.

FINAL 6/18/2013