Michigan State University Teacher Preparation Program TEAC Inquiry Brief Final Report March 24, 2014

DEPARTMENT OF TEACHER EDUCATION

2

Michigan State University Teacher Education

TEAC Inquiry Brief Final Report

Faculty Approval: October 28, 2013

(Evidence available at the MSU Qualtrics site)

Submitted to the Teacher Education Accreditation Council

3

Primary Author

Suzanne M. Wilson, Professor/NEAG Endowed Professor Teacher Education, University of Connecticut

(Previously, Chair, Teacher Education, Michigan State University)

Contributing Authors/Editors

Donald (Jeff) Bale, Assistant Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Martha Beitner-Miller, Instructor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Kristen Bieda, Assistant Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Samantha Caughlan, Assistant Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Sandra Crespo, Associate Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Susan Dalebout, Assistant Dean, Student Affairs College of Education, Michigan State University Corey Drake, Director, Teacher Preparation Program Associate Chair/Associate Professor, Teacher Education Michigan State University Robert Floden, Associate Dean, Research College of Education, Michigan State University Margo Glew, Specialist Teacher Education, Michigan State University Amelia Gotwals, Assistant Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Kyle Greenwalt, Associate Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Sonya Gunnings-Moton Assistant Dean, Student Support Services and Recruitment College of Education, Michigan State University Theresa Gustafson, Assistant Director Center for Teaching and Technology College of Education, Michigan State University Anne-Lise Halvorsen, Assistant Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University

Kelly Hodges, Assistant Director, Teacher Preparation Program Teacher Education, Michigan State University Rebecca Jacobsen, Associate Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Mary Kennedy, Professor Emerita Teacher Education, Michigan State University Kristi Lowrie, Accountant Teacher Education, Michigan State University Susan Melnick, Assistant Dean/Associate Professor - Emerita College of Education, Michigan State University Jill Morningstar, Librarian Michigan State University Gail Nutter, Assistant Dean, College Operations and Budget College of Education, Michigan State University Gail Richmond, Associate Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Nancy Romig, Specialist Counseling, Ed Psychology and Special Ed Michigan State University Cheryl Rosaen, Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Avner Segall, Interim Chair/Associate Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University Susannah VanHorn, Assistant Professor – Fixed Term Teacher Education, Michigan State University Michelle Williams, Associate Professor Teacher Education, Michigan State University

4

Table of Contents

Program Checklist for the Inquiry Brief Proposal ...................................................... 7

INQUIRY BRIEF ............................................................................................................. 9 Part I. Program Overview ........................................................................................................................... 9

History ................................................................................................................................ 9 Program mission and logic ................................................................................................. 9 Organizational Culture .......................................................................................................14 Student and Faculty Demographics and Enrollment Trends ..............................................16

Part II. Claims and Rationale .................................................................................................................... 21 Our claims .........................................................................................................................21 Sources of Evidence .........................................................................................................22 Rationale and Trustworthiness of Evidence .......................................................................23

Part III. Methods of Assessment .............................................................................................................. 24 State Content Tests ...........................................................................................................24 Grades ..............................................................................................................................25 State Exit Survey of Interns ...............................................................................................26 State Exit Survey of Supervisors .......................................................................................27 Internship Evaluations .......................................................................................................27 ACT Scores .......................................................................................................................30 Course-specific Studies .....................................................................................................30

Part IV. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 31 MSU Claim 1. ....................................................................................................................31 MSU Claim 2. ....................................................................................................................39 MSU Claim 3. ....................................................................................................................54 MSU Claim 4. ....................................................................................................................57

Part V. Discussion and Plan.................................................................................................................... 61 Programmatic Changes Since the Last Accreditation ........................................................61 Lessons Learned from this IB ............................................................................................63

References ................................................................................................................................................. 66

Appendix A. Internal Audit ......................................................................................... 68

Appendix B. Dimensions of Institutional Capacity .................................................. 79

Appendix C: Faculty Qualifications .......................................................................... 81

Appendix D: Program Requirements ........................................................................ 87

Appendix E: Inventory of Evidence ......................................................................... 102

Appendix F: Local Assessments ............................................................................ 106

5

List of Tables

Table 1. New Admits enrollment, 2008-09 through 2012-13 ............................................................. 16 Table 2. Teacher Preparation Students’ Race/Ethnicity/Culture, AY 2008-2012 .............................. 16 Table 3. Number of Recommendations for Certification Fall 2008-Fall 2012 .................................... 17 Table 4: 2012-2013 Demography of Students within the Cohort Programs and MSU-Wide by Ethnic/Racial Origin ........ 18 Table 5: Demographic Profile of the 2012-2013 MSU Teacher Preparation Program ....................... 19 Table 6. Department of Teacher Education Tenure Stream, Fixed Term Faculty, and Doctoral Student

Teaching Assistant Demographics, AY 2012-2013 .................................................................... 20 Table 7. College of Education Tenure Stream Faculty, AY 2012. ..................................................... 20 Table 8. College of Education Tenure Stream Faculty Demographics, AY 2012-2013 ..................... 20 Table 9. College of Education Fixed Term Faculty Demographics, AY 2012-2013 ........................... 20 Table 10. Concordance of MSU Claims with TEAC Quality Principle 1 ............................................. 22 Table 11. Evidence Used to Inform Program Improvement and Student Progress............................ 22 Table 12. Sources of Evidence for the IB .......................................................................................... 23 Table 13. Reliability indices report for the MTTC ............................................................................... 24 Table 14. Lincoln and Guba’s Criteria Aligned with MSU Program Practices ................................... 29 Table 15. Summary Statistics for ACT, 2005-06................................................................................ 30 Table 16. Grade point averages for MSU Teacher Preparation Subject Matter Majors ..................... 31 Table 17. MTTC, Annual Summaries of State Results, 2009-12 ....................................................... 32 Table 18. Intern Exit Survey Questions Relevant to MSU Claim 1 .................................................... 33 Table 19. Interns’ Sense of Efficacy on MDE Exit Survey .................................................................. 35 Table 20. Supervisor Ratings of Interns’ Competence on MDE Exit Survey ..................................... 35 Table 21. Comparison of Intern ACT Scores with Entering MSU Freshmen 2008 ............................. 35 Table 22. Mean Scores for Content Knowledge for Teaching, Secondary Science ........................... 36 Table 23: Secondary Mathematics TCs’ Aggregate Scores on MKT Exams in TE 407 ..................... 38 Table 24: Math Interns’ Evaluation ratings for Area 1 over the Internship .......................................... 38 Table 25. Intern GPAs in Professional Courses, disaggregated by major ......................................... 40 Table 26. Aggregate Means and Standard Deviations in Professional Courses ............................... 40 Table 27. Interns Counseled Out in 2012-13 AY ............................................................................... 41 Table 28. GPAs in Professional Courses for Wkk-WWF Fellows, 2011-2013 .................................. 41 Table 29. Additional MDE Intern Exit Survey Questions Relevant to MSU Claim 2 .......................... 42 Table 30. Interns’ Self Reported Self Efficacy on MDE Intern Exit Survey Factors Relevant to MSU Claim 2 42 Table 31. Supervisors’ Reports on Interns’ Competencies on MDE Supervisor Survey, Claim 2 ...... 43 Table 32. Elementary TC’s Mean Evaluation Scores for Standards Related to MSU Claim 2 .......... 43 Table 33. Secondary Science Interns’ Mean Evaluation Scores for Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 2 ..... 44 Table 34. World Language Interns/ Mean Evaluation Scores on Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 2.......... 44 Table 35. Summary Table of Mean Evaluation Scores for Interns’ on Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 2 ... 45 Table 36. Secondary Science TCs’ Mean Scores for Planning ......................................................... 46 Table 37. Secondary Science TCs’ Mean Scores for Eliciting and Interpreting Student Responses. 47 Table 38. Frequencies and Examples from Secondary Science Interns’ EPDs ................................ 47 Table 39. Secondary Mathematics TCs’ Average Scores on “Mathematical Goals and Building on Prior

Knowledge” Across Time ........................................................................................................... 49 Table 40. Summary of Findings from Elementary Team Investigations ............................................. 51 Table 41. WKK-WWF Fellows’ GPAs in Community-Related Coursework ........................................ 54 Table 42. Additional Exit Survey Questions Relevant to MSU Claims 3 and 4 ................................. 54 Table 43. Interns’ Sense of Self Efficacy in Learning to Learn and Commitment/ Willingness to Work

within Communities .................................................................................................................... 55 Table 44. Supervisors’ Evaluations of Interns Ability to Work Across Varied Communities .............. 55 Table 45. Sample Comments about Secondary Science TCs’ competencies Relevant to MSU Claim 3 ....... 56 Table 46. Interns’ Mean /3 for Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 3 ................................................. 56 Table 47. TC Evaluations on Standards Relevant to Learning from Experience .............................. 58 Table A.1. The MSU Audit Process Organized Around TEAC Quality Components ......................... 70

6

List of Figures Figure 1. MSU Teacher Preparation Program Architecture ........................................................................ 12 Figure 2. MSU Teacher Preparation Program Infastructure ....................................................................... 15 Figure 3. Year to Completion for Interns in 2012-13 Cohort ...................................................................... 18 Figure 4. Example Developmental Trajectories Used in Periodic Evaluations ........................................... 30 Figure 5. Scatter plot of average percent correct for Secondary Mathematics Interns on MKT exams

compared to Area 1 average ratings .................................................................................................. 39 Figure A.1. Department of Teacher Education Program Committee Governance Structure .................... 69 Figure A.2. MSU Quality Control System Schematic, Random Sample of Interns ..................................... 69 Figure A.3 Quality Control System Schematic, Full Review of All Interns .................................................. 69 Figure A.4. MSU Governance System for Teacher Preparation Program .................................................. 77

7

Program Checklist for the Inquiry Brief Proposal

Requirement for the Brief Proposal Location

1. We identify the author(s) of the document. Woven throughout the document

2. We provide evidence that the faculty approved the document. Faculty Approval

3. We give a brief account of the history and logic of the program and its place within the institution.

History of the Program

4. We provide some demographics of program faculty and students (e.g., race and gender), broken out by year, by each program option.

Program Demographics

5. We state our claims explicitly and precisely. Claims and Rationale

6. We provide evidence to support our claims organized by their relationship to the components of QPI (1.1–1.3).

7. We provide evidence for all the subcomponents of QPI (I.4): learning how to learn (1.4.1),

multicultural perspectives and accuracy (1.4.2), and technology (1.4.3)

8. We have checked that our claims are consistent with other program documents (e.g., catalogs, websites, and brochures).

Woven throughout the document

9. In the rationale, we explain why we selected our particular measures and why we thought these measures would be reliable and valid indicators of our claims.

Reliability and Validity

10. In the rationale, we also explain why we think the criteria and standards we have selected as indicating success are appropriate.

Rationale

11. We describe our method of acquiring our evidence – the overall design of our approach, including sampling and comparison groups (if applicable).

Method of Assessment

12. We provide at least two measures for each claim unless there is a single measure of certain or authentic validity.

Claims and Rationale

13. For each measure we include empirical evidence of the degree of reliability and validity. Reliability and Validity of the Assessments

14. We present findings related to each claim, and we offer a conclusion for each claim, explaining how our evidence supports or does not support the claim.

15. We describe how we have recently used evidence of student performance in making decisions to change and improve the program.

16. We provide a plan for making future decisions concerning program improvements based on evidence of our students’ performance.

Discussion and Plan

17. We provide evidence that we have conducted an internal audit of our quality control system (QCS), and we present and discuss the implications of the findings from our internal audit (Appendix A).

Appendix A

18. We provide Appendix C that describes faculty qualifications. Appendix C

19. We provide Appendix D that describes our program requirements and their alignment with state and national standards.

Appendix D

20. We make a case for institutional commitment to the program (Appendix B). Appendix B

21. We make a case that we have sufficient capacity to offer a quality program (Appendix B).

Appendix B

22. We list all evidence (related to accreditation) available to the program (Appendix E). Appendix E

23. We provide copies of all locally developed assessments in Appendix F. Appendix F

24. We provide, if applicable, copies of decisions by other recognized accreditors for professional education programs not covered in the Inquiry Brief (Appendix G).

25. If our program or any program option is delivered in distance education format, we make the case that we have the capacity to ensure timely delivery of distance education and support services and to accommodate current student numbers and expected near-term growth in enrollment.

26. If our program or any program option is delivered in distance education format, we describe the process by which we verify the identity of students taking distance education courses.

*The checklist for the Inquiry Brief Proposal need not have entries for rows 6, 7, 13, 14 and 15.

8

Glossary

CSD Communicative Sciences and Disorders ELSMT Entry Level Standards for Michigan Teachers EPD Exit Performance Description FI Field Instructor GECP Global Educator Cohort Program MT Mentor Teacher MTTC Michigan Test for Teacher Certification PBA Post B.A. teacher candidate PDP Professional Development Plan PGP Professional Growth Plan PMST Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers SAL Subject Area Leader SAO Student Affairs Office TC Teacher Candidate TPC Teacher Preparation Committee UECP Urban Educator Cohort Program IB Inquiry Brief COE College of Education MDE Michigan Department of Education PLC Professional Learning Communities SIS Student Information System

9

INQUIRY BRIEF

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM

FALL 2013

This Inquiry Brief (IB) represents the work of the faculty in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University to examine the available and relevant evidence concerning our programmatic claims. Having received accreditation through TEAC in 2008, this IB builds on what we learned from that experience, as well as what we learn from our regular examination of feedback from multiple stakeholders and sources about the quality of the teachers we educate. We begin with a brief summary of our program. We then summarize our claims, the kinds of evidence we draw upon, and the results of our inquiry, which focused on the intern cohort of Academic Year 2012-13. Finally, we discuss the lessons we learned from this IB in the context of our on-going programmatic learning, and look forward.

Part I. Program Overview

History

In 1855, the Michigan legislature established what is now Michigan State University with a grant of lands and operating funds. The first agricultural college in the country, it served as a model for later land-grant colleges established under the Morrill Act of 1862. Courses in education were first offered in 1902, with a Department of Education established in 1907. As the college grew into a university in the first half of the century, the department grew into a college.

Throughout its history as a college, MSU's College of Education (COE) has maintained a large

teacher preparation program. Since the mid-1970s, MSU has also maintained a record of success in securing external support for research and development, and as a Research I institution, the COE is committed to maintaining strong relationships between the teacher preparation program and cutting edge research. As a land grant and now world grant institution, we are also committed to maintaining close relationships with Michigan’s public schools. As a consequence, faculty regularly revise the program based on new research, new developments in curricular materials and technology, and feedback from our partner schools.

The college was the first headquarters for the Holmes Group, which published reports about

teaching and teacher preparation, influential nationally and locally (1986, 1990, 1995). As a Holmes institution, the faculty radically redesigned the teacher preparation program in 1992 to resonate with three pillars of the Holmes agenda: the importance of content knowledge for teaching, the central role of clinical experience, and the importance of partnerships with K-12 schools. While the program has evolved substantially since then, it remains one of the oldest residency programs in the U.S., organized around a year long internship that is designed to immerse interns in practice while also providing them with substantial room for critical reflection. Program mission and logic

The mission of the teacher preparation program at Michigan State University (MSU) is to prepare critically reflective and responsive teachers who continue to learn across their careers. These teachers are well prepared in their content areas and with the most recent research-based knowledge of instruction and curriculum. They work to improve schooling in a democratic society and build a more just, sustainable world. They strive to help all children and youth develop conceptual understandings and fluency in content, become active citizens, and make significant contributions to society. Our field-based program is designed to prepare well-started beginning teachers who develop:

10

A strong foundation in the subject matter, and an understanding of how children and youth learn and engage with subject matter

Equitable and inclusive teaching practices that are responsive to diverse learners, communities, and a global society

The ability to work within and across a range of community and professional contexts

Disposition and skills to critically reflect on and learn from their practice

A strong sense of agency and the capacity to become leaders in their field

MSU's College of Education -- in collaboration with departments in eight other MSU colleges -- provides a wide range of teacher education options. Students preparing to teach at the elementary level can major in elementary education, childhood development, or special education. All prospective elementary teachers must also select one of four disciplinary elementary teaching majors in language arts, mathematics, social studies, or integrated science. Thus all elementary teachers have a degree major and a teaching major. Prospective secondary teachers may select from more than 20 major and close to 30 minor fields. The college also offers a Post-Baccalaureate program, which leads to teacher certification and provides opportunities for certified teachers to obtain additional endorsements (see http://education.msu.edu/academics/undergraduate/secondary/majors-minors.asp for secondary teaching majors and minors; http://education.msu.edu/academics/undergraduate/elementary/options.asp for elementary teaching majors; and http://education.msu.edu/academics/undergraduate/elementary/teaching-minors.asp for optional elementary minors.

Admissions. To be admitted to the teacher preparation program, applicants must submit an

online application and write a timed and proctored essay, usually during the first semester of the sophomore year for those completing professional courses as part of their undergraduate programs. College graduates seeking admission to the post-BA (PBA) program submit applications in fall, spring or summer for admission in a subsequent semester. To be considered for admission, students must have a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.75 and have passed each portion of the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) Professional Readiness Examination (formerly known as the Basic Skills test). Details of the initial admission process and criteria can be found at http://education.msu.edu/academics/undergraduate/apply-teacher-prep.asp for undergraduates, and http://education.msu.edu/certification /postba/http://education.msu.edu/certification/postba/post-bachelor-application.asp. PBA applicants must also have a GPA of at least 2.5 in coursework used to complete the teaching major and minor.

While MSU undergraduates are currently admitted to colleges in their junior year, we have

created two recruitment initiatives – the Global Educators Cohort Program (GECP) and the Urban Educators Cohort Program (UECP) – in an effort to capture the imagination of freshmen and shape their freshmen and sophomore year experiences so that they are well prepared to both be admitted to the COE in their junior year and to pursue their interests in being global and urban educators. The thematic-based programs seek to address complex and pressing issues in our society through the recruitment, preparation, and distribution of highly qualified pre-service teachers.

The Urban Educators Cohort Program seeks to respond to issues of demographic imperative in

education, where in the U.S. an increasingly diverse population of K-12 students is not matched with the diversity expressed in the population of the teaching force (Nieto, 2000; Robinson et al., 2003). Furthermore, the program targets the preparation of high quality teachers to serve in high-needs settings to respond to issues of educational equity.

The Global Educators Cohort Program focuses on preparing teachers for a highly globalized

world and on helping future educators face the challenges of teaching in both international and local contexts with a growing rate of cultural and linguistic diversity, for instance English language learners and migrant students. The program addresses issues inherent in the need to think about education differently in an age where societies are growing at an increasing rate in their diversities, interconnectedness, and even global competition with one another.

11

Both thematic programs aim to help future educators develop into highly effective teachers who

understand these complex issues and how they impact teaching and learning. GECP and UECP students fulfill the same certification requirements as prospective teachers who apply as juniors, although we create special sections of several classes (currently TE 150 (learning) and TE 250 (diversity), see brief descriptions below) in order to build the élan and rapport of the cohorts. For elementary students, we have also been able to create global- or urban-infused courses at the 300 and 400 levels.1 In addition, UECP students also take CEP 240 (diverse learning in multicultural perspectives) and TE 291A (UECP seminar); GECP students take TE 352 (immigrant language and culture) and TE 291A (GECP seminar) (see Appendix D for full descriptions of these courses).

To proceed to their internship, all students must successfully complete all course requirements for

their certification area(s) and pass the required State of Michigan certification test in their major; to be recommended for a Michigan Provisional Teaching Certificate, students must complete all course requirements for their certification area(s), pass the required State of Michigan certification tests in those areas for which they will seek certification, and successfully pass a year long internship. All students (both prospective elementary and secondary students) must also earn a GPA of 2.5 or above in each of the following: University overall cumulative GPA; teaching major, and teaching minors (where required); and professional education courses required for teacher certification. As of fall of 2014, students cannot have any individual grade below 2.0.2 In addition, elementary students must have grades of at least 2.0 in all courses on the Elementary Planned Program, which constitutes their content preparation in the content areas that are not included in their majors.

Required courses. Students may either enter teacher preparation while completing their

undergraduate degree (typically taking several required education courses in their freshman and sophomore years and being formally admitted to the program as juniors, see Figure 1), or may enter the program after completing a bachelor's degree. In either case, students begin with these introductory professional courses:

TE 150: Reflections on Learning: psychological, sociological, and anthropological theories and assumptions about learning and teaching in and out of school

CEP 240: Diverse Learners in Multicultural Perspective: Communicative, linguistic, physical, sensory, behavioral, affective, and cognitive differences in learning in multicultural classrooms (taken only by Child Development, Special Education, and UECP students)

TE 250: Human Diversity, Power, and Opportunity in Social Institutions: Comparative study of schools and other social institutions. Social construction and maintenance of diversity and inequality.

In their junior year (after admission to the program), prospective teachers enroll in TE301/302

(literacy):

TE 301: Literacy, Learners, and Learning in Context: Language and literacy development in sociocultural context at the elementary level (K-8).

TE 302: Learners and Learning in Contexts: Role of social context and sociocultural background in learning at the secondary level (7-12). Multiple literacies.

In their senior year, they are required to begin taking subject-specific methods classes ((TE 401-402 in 2012-2013, now numbered TE 403-406 for elementary, TE 407-408 for secondary). The program is planned in this way so as to build upon the subject matter study that all students have done in their

1 Thus far, the small number of prospective secondary teachers in any one subject area has made it mostly economically unfeasible

to create special sections for UECP and GECP students in these more advanced and specialized classes. The exception is that there are urban-focused sections of TE 801 and T 803 (Professional Roles and Teaching Practice) in the secondary internship year. 2 This requirement was “stiffened” after our investigation into which interns were having problems in their internships. We found that (especially elementary) interns who had low grades in courses (particularly subject matter courses) also demonstrated weaknesses in teaching those content areas in their internship year.

12

general education courses, and their undergraduate majors. Field experiences are built into all courses (except TE 150 and CEP 240). In fact, by the end of their senior year, most undergraduates in our program have spent at least 125 hours in structured classroom or community experiences.

Figure 1. MSU Teacher Preparation Program Architecture

Once they have graduated from the undergraduate program or once PBAs have completed the necessary pre-internship coursework, all prospective teachers participate in a year long internship. During that time, most students complete the following courses:

Fall (TE501 (field experience seminar), 801 (professional seminar) and 802 (subject matter methods course)) (secondary)

Spring (TE502 (field experience seminar), 803 (professional seminar) and 804 (subject matter methods courses) (secondary)

TE 801 through TE 804 (for elementary students, the foregoing content noted is integrated across all four courses)

Communicative Sciences and Disorders (CSD) and Music majors complete their own versions of these courses for the internship

Special education students complete TE501 and the special education (CEP) versions of 801, 802, 502, 803 and 804

Secondary

TE 302 Learners & Learning in

Context

TE 407/408 Subject Specific

Teaching Methods

TE 501/502 Internship

TE 801/803 Professional Roles

TE 802/804 Subject –Specific

Seminar

TE 501/502 Internship

TE 801-804 Subject methods

and professional roles integrated in elementary

and special education

TE 403/404/ 405/406

Subject Specific Teaching Methods

TE 301 Learners & Learning in

Context

TE 250/CEP 240 Human Diversity

TE 150 Reflections on

Learning

Elementary

Freshman/Sophomore Junior Senior Intern Year

Program Admission End of 2nd Year

Undergraduate Graduation

Certification

13

These courses represent three major strands of practical and intellectual work. First, all students participate as interns in K-12 schools (501-502). At the same time, they take a year long sequence of courses in advanced study of subject-specific methods (802, 804) that are intentionally designed to structure and guide their internship experiences, as well as build upon earlier study in methods. Finally, secondary students take a year long sequence in professional studies (801, 803), which focuses their attention on more generic and often extra-classroom aspects of the profession (See Figure 1). For elementary students, 801-804 are all advanced subject-specific methods courses; more generic professional issues are integrated into 501-502 and the content methods courses where appropriate.

Post BA. PBAs in our program participate in the internship and internship year classes as well. In addition, the Student Affairs Office (SAO) evaluates each individual applicant’s transcript for evidence that the program’s undergraduate requirements (disciplinary and professional courses) have been met. Any identified holes are filled by counseling students to take courses before the internship. At the very least, PBAs spend a full year taking coursework prior to the internship (TE 150, 250, 301 or 302, the relevant subject specific methods classes). In addition, many PBAs take disciplinary courses to complete teaching majors; a considerable number earn a second degree (especially if they are pursuing elementary or special education concentrations). Occasionally, post BA students have content requirements that are satisfied by taking summer courses after the internship is completed (this is most often the case with prospective science teachers who may have majored in one science and need to enhance their study in additional sciences as well).

W. K. Kellogg-Woodrow Wilson Fellows. Three years ago we launched an experimental program with funding from the W. K. Kellogg and Woodrow Wilson Foundations to create a post BA program for STEM teachers. WKK-WWF Fellows apply directly to the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Upon selection by the Foundation, MSU receives their complete applications, and the Director, Dr. Gail Richmond, along with staff from SAO review their application. Generally speaking, applicants are held to the same expectations regarding coursework and GPA as all of our students. They must maintain the university's minimum GPA requirement for graduate coursework while enrolled, and they must pass both the MTTC Basic Skills and subject matter test(s) for their proposed certification.

Fellows complete 14 months of course- and fieldwork, along with a full year of school-based residency. Students can remain in the program and receive a masters degree (in teaching and curriculum) after taking two additional on-line courses once they have been recommended for certification and are teaching full time.

While the WKK-WWF fellows experimental program follows the same logic as our overarching program, we have created specialized courses for that cohort who take their coursework in the summer before, during, and summer after the internship. During the internship, fellows are integrated into the courses that all interns take. In the summers prior to/following the internship, they also take:

TE 822 Adolescent development, learning theory, culture in classroom and curriculum; equity and social justice in teaching and learning. Involves both university- and school/community-based experiences

TE 825 Schools as cultural institutions; urban youth, families and communities; immigrant families; equity and social justice; content area literacy and special needs instruction.

TE 843 Knowledge and methodology for teaching language, literacy, and thinking in secondary school science and mathematics

TE 860Methods, materials, activities, and content important to teaching science or mathematics. Emphasis on conceptual understanding of science or mathematics, learner diversity, learning community, conceptual understanding, subject matter content, and learners' prior knowledge, particularly as related to planning and assessment.

TE 891 Introduction to issues of core content, standards and benchmarks in science or mathematics, learning from students through formative assessment, lesson planning.

In sum, the overarching program logic conceptualizes learning to teach as the mastery of a practice. Learning involves acquiring knowledge of foundational issues like theories of learning, social

14

reproduction, and instruction. Undergraduates spend their time in a small number of required education courses learning about those theories while also spending time in schools and other community organizations learning to "see" those abstractions as they are instantiated in the real world. Once they have graduated with sufficient subject matter study to launch them as "well prepared beginners," we place them in year long apprenticeships with mentor teachers (MTs) in schools throughout the state (concentrated in the greater Lansing area, the greater Detroit area, and the greater Grand Rapids area; a small cohort is placed in the Chicago Public Schools). While we no longer have professional development schools associated with the University, we do strive to develop partnerships with schools and MTs, so as to build capacity in understanding our program and in enabling MTs and their principals in being proactive members of our teacher preparation program and its on-going improvement.

The intention of the internship year is to gradually immerse prospective teachers in the practice of teaching. They observe, take responsibility for smaller tasks of teaching (teaching one lesson, working with students, tutoring) and gradually build up to taking full responsibility for one class, and then all classes at the elementary level and most classes at the secondary level. In the language of the program, we build up to periods of "lead teaching," in which we expect interns to be fully immersed in the work of the practice. The courses they take while going in and out of those periods of lead teaching are meant to both structure and build upon those field experiences.

Organizational Culture

Part of understanding our program is understanding the infrastructure and culture that supports it (see Figure 2). The program, by our university by-laws, is under the control of the faculty. The responsibility of the department chair is to assure quality. The program itself is run by Dr. Corey Drake, the Director of Teacher Preparation. The Director works very closely with Kelly Hodges, the Assistant Director of Teacher Preparation. Together they work with the faculty who are responsible for individual courses and for field placements, as well as with the elected Department standing committee, the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC, the formal mechanism for making changes in the program, see Figure A.1 in Appendix A). The leadership (the Director, Assistant Director and TPC) also work very closely with the Student Affairs Office (SAO), overseen by Assistant Dean Dr. Susan Dalebout, who, as the COE’s Certification Officer, serves as the COE’s most direct link to the Michigan Department of Education, as well as to admissions and student advising.

15

Figure 2. MSU Teacher Preparation Program Infastructure

MSU’s land grant, egalitarian tradition is reflected in the delegated and collaborative leadership of the teacher preparation program. Each course/set of linked courses is overseen by a Subject Area Leader (SAL), including: elementary literacy (TE 301, 405, 802, SAL: Dr. Cheryl Rosaen), elementary mathematics (TE 406, 801, SAL: Drs. Sandra Crespo and Beth Herbel Eisenmann),3 elementary social studies (TE 404, 803, SAL: Dr. Anne Lise Halvorsen); elementary science (TE 403, 804, SAL: Drs. Christina Schwarz and Michelle Williams), TE 250 (SAL: Drs. Dorinda Carter Andrews and Terry Flennaugh), secondary social studies (TE 407, 408, 802, and 804, SAL: Dr. Kyle Greenwalt), secondary English (TE 407, 408, 802, and 804, SAL: Dr. Samantha Caughlan), secondary mathematics (TE 407, 408, 802, and 804, SAL: Dr. Kristen Bieda), secondary science (TE 407, 408, 802, and 804, SAL: Drs. Amelia Gotwals and Gail Richmond (who also serves as Director of the WWF-WWK Fellows program), secondary World Language (TE 407, 408, 802, and 804; Dr. Jeff Bale), agriscience ( TE 407, 408, 802, and 804; SAL Dr. Matt Raven), art (TE 802, 804, SAL: Dr. Susannah Van Horn), TE 302 (SAL: Dr. Doug Hartman), and secondary TE 801/803 (SAL: Drs. Mary Kennedy and Rebecca Jacobsen). The SALs are responsible for overseeing the curriculum and instruction for all relevant sections, as well as hiring instructors and observing and evaluating them each term.

Each course can be understood as a professional learning community, as SALs meet regularly with all of the instructors under their supervision. All SALs also work together, split between elementary and secondary. Specifically, all SALs in elementary meet regularly with the Director of Teacher

3 Leadership of these groups rotates, and in some cases the leader for the focal year of this brief, 2012-13, is different than the

current leader. We include both names in those cases.

Department Chair

Director, Teacher Preparation Program Assistant Director,

Teacher Preparation Program

Elementary

GECP

Subject Area Leader Subject Area Leader

Coordination Lansing

Detroit Grand Rapids

Chicago

Coordination Lansing

Detroit Grand Rapids

Chicago

Course Instructor Course Instructor

Field Instructor Field Instructor

Teacher Preparation Committee

UECP

Secondary

16

Education, and the coordinator of elementary field placements. All SALs in secondary meet regularly with Kelly Hodges, along with the coordinator of secondary placement, Chris Kaiser. The monthly meetings of the elementary and secondary SALs allows for strong communication within the program. SALs collaborate on efforts to improve the program, identify major themes they want to pursue across the program, assess the degree to which the cross-cutting themes are being fully integrated, and raise issues that are coming to them from the field (e.g., the implications of Michigan’s new educator evaluation mandate for the teacher preparation program). There are also monthly field instructor meetings for the elementary part of the program, and staff who work with school placements also attend those. The coordinators of UECP (Dr. Sonya Gunnings-Moton) and GECP (Dr. Margo Glew) also attend the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC) meetings. Pre-internship and internship coordinators, including the special education coordinator and our three off-campus field coordinators in Detroit, Chicago, and Grand Rapids, meet monthly with the Director and Assistant Director of Teacher Preparation, along with representatives from the Student Affairs Office.

Student and Faculty Demographics and Enrollment Trends Our goal is to recruit and retain approximately 500 teachers (elementary, secondary, and special education combined) for each academic year. Given the Michigan economy and the decreasing prospect of finding a teaching job in Michigan (where most of our students want to teach), we have seen predictable decreases in applications. Admission trends for the last five years have been as follows:

Table 1. New Admits enrollment, 2008-09 through 2012-13 08-09 09-10 10-114 11-12 12-13

BA Post BA

BA Post BA

BA Post BA

BA Post BA

BA Post BA

Elementary 222 4 236 5 246 2 233 4 212 1

Secondary 287 15 291 15 320 11 257 22 242 18

Special Education

80 3 61 2 78 1 69 0 59 1

Totals 611 610 658 585 533

In any one year, we have students in three years of the program (junior, senior, and internship). Total enrollments for the program for the last five years, disaggregated by race/culture/ethnicity are as follows:

Table 2. Teacher Preparation Students’ Race/Ethnicity/Culture, AY 2008-20125 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13

F M Total F M Total F M Total F M Total F M Total

American Indian

5 1 6 5 1 6 5 0 5 4 1 5 3 0 3

Asian 18 1 19 23 2 25 34 5 39 22 9 31 19 10 29

Asian/PI 14 1 15 8 1 9

Black 41 9 50 41 7 48 41 10 51 53 11 64 56 12 68

Hawaii/PI 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 2

Hispanic 22 5 27 21 5 26 18 2 20 27 4 31 29 6 35

Multiple 11 1 12 14 1 15 15 0 15 21 3 24 23 5 28

Blank 6 2 8 9 4 13 9 6 15 16 9 25 16 7 23

Not requested

3 0 3 10 2 12 9 0 9 6 4 10 11 3 14

White 1116 337 1453 1078 321 1399 954 273 1227 1097 333 1430 1072 334 1406

Total 1595 1544 1383 1622 1608

As mentioned previously, students major in a number of content domains. In Table 3 we list the number of recommendations for certification made in each area in each spring (students can be recommended for multiple certifications, so this is not a “head count” of students enrolled in our program).

4 We note here that this largest class, would have been freshmen in the fall of 2008 the same year as the beginning of the financial

collapse, which led to a radical reduction in teaching jobs in Michigan.

5 We use the categories used in the relevant databases.

17

Table 3. Number of Recommendations for Certification Fall 2008-Fall 2012 SS09 SS10 SS11 SS12 SS13

Agriscience 3 4 1 4 5

Arabic 2

Biological Science 20 28 21 30 31

Chemistry 14 15 17 16 22

Chinese 5 19 18 15

Computer Science 1 2

Communicative Sciences Disorders 0 8 7 9 3

Early Childhood Education 29 18 21 21 20

Earth Science 3 8 4 2 2

Economics 4 1 5

Elementary 232 277 238 275 270

English 78 82 53 70 63

French 6 5 6 7 1

Geography 15 25 20 12 7

German 4 1 1 2 3

History 46 56 45 52 61

Integrated Science (elementary major) 28 32 41 39 34

Japanese 3 3

Journalism 5 7 5 2 2

Language Arts (elementary major) 109 78 85 94 114

Latin

Mathematics 48 68 68 94 93

Music Education 33 35 28 20 26

Phys Ed 10 14 10 7 3

Physical Science 1 4 2

Physics 5 7 4 13 7

Psychology 6 16 6 12 14

Russian

Social Science 78 100 78 100 102

Sociology 8 7 3 2 3

Spanish 31 32 10 31 32

Special Education 62 62 68 53 68

TESOL 34 25 26 52 59

Visual Arts Education 10 10 8 11 10

Totals 922 1030 897 1052 1080

In general, the program is designed to take five years to complete (for the undergraduates). For the graduating class of interns who completed the program in 2012-13, the mean time to completion rate was 5.21 years (s.d. = .96). Within that set of completers, one can see the typical variation our program has. One intern took one year to complete the program, one took 3, four took 3.5 years, 24 took 4, 11 took 4.5 years, 319 took 5 years. At the other end of the range, one intern took 19 years to complete the program, four took 9 years, one took 8, 8 took 7 years, 84 took six years (see Figure 3).

18

Figure 3. Year to Completion for Interns in 2012-13 Cohort

For the purposes of this IB, we also looked at the demographics and retention information we had on students in UECP and GECP. While students in the cohort programs are still predominantly White/Caucasian (at 78.4% in 2012, 75% in 2011, and 70.2% in 2010), the percentage of Black and Hispanic students within the Cohort Programs have consistently exceeded the percentage of African-American and Hispanic undergraduate students MSU-wide as demonstrated in Table 4 below. In the 2012-2013 academic year, out of more than 600 students in the cohort programs, 13% identify as Black and 4% as Hispanic, in comparison to the MSU-wide percentage of 6.2% Black and 3.4% Hispanic. Similarly in previous academic years, the percentage of Black students (17.2% in 2011 and 23.3% 2010) and Hispanic students (4.1% in 2011 and 3.3% in 2010) in the Cohorts has been larger than the percentage MSU-wide, for Black students 6.5% in 2011 and 6.7% in 2010, and Hispanic students 3.3% in 2011 and 3.1% in 2010.

Table 4: 2012-2013 Demography of Students within the Cohort Programs and MSU-Wide by Ethnic/Racial Origin

Ethnic Origin # of students in COHORTS 2012

# of undergraduate students at MSU

2012 COHORTS

2012 % MSU 2012 %

American Indian 1 136 0.2% 0.3%

Asian 13 2,080 2.1% 4.3%

Black/African-American 80 3,037 12.9% 6.2%

Hispanic 24 1,678 3.9% 3.4%

Mixed (two or more) 8 928 1.3% 1.9%

No Report 8 832 1.3% 1.7%

White/Caucasian 485 33,584 78.4% 68.7%

In terms of a national comparison, in a report published in 2010 the American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education (Ludwig, Kirshstein, Sidana, Ardila-Rey, & Bae, 2010) claims that nationally full-time undergraduates at its member institutions are 66% White, 7% Hispanic, and 11% Black (p. 17).

Looking at the percentage of overall ethnic minority students represented in the cohort programs alone (27.5% for reporting year 2009, 28.8% for 2010, and 29.5% for 2011), the cohort programs have consistently contributed to the diversity of the entire MSU teacher preparation program. MSU has

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

1 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 8 9 19

FS94

FS04

FS05

FS06

FS07

US07

SS08

US08

FS08

SS09

FS09

19

reported recommending 8%, 9%, and 9% of minority student candidates for the reporting years of 2010, 2011, and 2012 (MDE Teacher Preparation Institution Performance Scores, 2012). Meanwhile, the statewide percentage of minority students represented in Teacher Preparation Programs across Michigan is reported at 12.5% for both reporting years 2010 and 2011, and 13.5% for 2012. These rates are less than half those for MSU’s cohort programs.

MSU’s cohort programs draw minority students, particularly Black and Hispanic students, in much larger proportions than the regular teacher preparation program. Table 5 below provides a demographic profile of the 2012-2013 Teacher Preparation Program (freshmen through internship year). For 2012-13, 25.7% of the teacher preparation program was enrolled in a cohort program; however, two minority groups – Black and Hispanic enrolled in cohorts in disproportionately larger numbers. Over half of Black students in teacher preparation (54.7%) and more than 1/4 of Hispanic students in teacher preparation (28.6%) were enrolled in a cohort program.

Table 5: Demographic Profile of the 2012-2013 MSU Teacher Preparation Program Ethnic Origin Teacher Prep

Overall Cohort Cohort % of Overall

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Teacher

Prep.

Am Indian 5 0 0.0

Asian 37 8 21.6

Black 86 47 54.7

Blank 27 7 25.9

Hawaii/PI 2 0 0.0

Hispanic 56 16 28.6

Multiple 35 6 17.1

Not Requested 35 4 11.4

White 1785 444 24.9

TOTAL 2068 532 25.7

Not only did Black and Hispanic students enroll in cohort programs in disproportionately larger

numbers, but an indirect case can be made for the overall impact of the cohorts on minority student enrollment in teacher education in general as minority enrollment in MSU’s teacher preparation program has increased overall since the inception of the cohort programs.

In the years 2006 and 2007, the UECP was able to attract a larger percentage of racially-based minority students in comparison to the total percentage of minority students MSU-wide. The following year of 2008, with the start of the GECP program, both cohort programs combined also were able to enroll larger percentage of minority students compared to the overall percentage of minority students MSU-wide. The percentage of minority students enrolled in the GECP continued a steady and significant increase during the years 2010 (9%), 2011 (15.8%), and 2012 (21.7%). The UECP, through the efforts to significantly increase overall cohort size, grew stronger in its ability to attract Caucasian students interested in issues of culturally-relevant teaching and challenges faced by high-need schools, with an average of 78% Caucasian students newly enrolled in the Program, and an enrollment average of 22% of racial/ethnic minority students during the years of 2009-2012.

Faculty. Instructors in our program include tenure stream faculty, fixed term faculty, and doctoral students. The demographics for all Department of Teacher Education faculty are provided in Table 6. Comparative demographics for the College of Education are presented in Tables 7-9.

20

Table 6. Department of Teacher Education Tenure Stream, Fixed Term Faculty, and Doctoral Student Teaching Assistant Demographics, AY 2012-2013

12-13

Tenure stream

Fixed term Doctoral Students

Caucasian 36 54 54

African American 6 13 13

Asian American 1 1 11

Hispanic 4 1 3

Two or more 1 n/a

Female 35 56 61

Male 12 13 20

Assistant professor 18 n/a

Associate professor 20 n/a

Full professor 9 n/a

Total 47 69 81

Table 7. College of Education Tenure Stream Faculty, AY 2012. 2012

Unit Assistant Professors Associate Professors

Professors Chairperson

CEP 5 11 15 1

EAD 6 3 9 1

TE 18 20 9 1

KIN 3 6 1 1

Total 32 40 34 4

Table 8. College of Education Tenure Stream Faculty Demographics, AY 2012-2013 Faculty Demographics 2012

Unit Total Female Male 2 or more races

Ca Af-Am As-Am His

CEP 32 10 22 0 29 0 2 1

EAD 19 9 10 0 14 3 2 0

TE 48 35 13 1 36 6 1 4

KIN 12 7 5 0 11 0 0 1

Dean’s Office

5 2 3 0 5 0 0 0

Total 117 63 54 1 96 9 5 6

Table 9. College of Education Fixed Term Faculty Demographics, AY 2012-2013 Fixed Term Faculty Demographics 2012

Unit Total Female Male Ca Af-Am As-Am His

CEP 92 78 14 35 2 55 0

EAD 7 4 3 7 0 0 0

TE 69 56 13 54 13 1 1

KIN 9 3 6 8 1 0 0

Dean’s Office

28 21 7 17 9 1 1

Total 205 162 43 121 25 27 2

21

Part II. Claims and Rationale

Our claims Our program makes four claims about our graduates:

A strong foundation in the subject matter, and an understanding of how children and youth learn and engage with subject matter

Equitable and inclusive teaching practices that are responsive to diverse learners, communities, and a global society

The ability to work within and across a range of community and professional contexts

Disposition and skills to critically reflect on and learn from their practice6

Admissions requirements, courses, assessments embedded in those courses, and clinical experiences are designed and structured to meet these goals. We also claim that five strands are integrated across the curriculum -- special education, technology, classroom management, English language learners, and globalization – as these are issues that need to be embedded in everything that new teachers are learning. These goals grow out of our belief that teachers are professionals, and as with all professions, teachers need specialized knowledge and skill that they bring to bear in specific contexts that require professional judgment. We see teaching as situated, contextualized work and we see schools as the major U.S. social institution responsible for the on-going American experiment in democracy. We believe that teachers are responsible for providing high quality learning opportunities to all children, and that this requires teachers to know a great deal about the communities and children with whom they work. We also believe that teachers learn from practice, but that learning from experience is itself a skill, as not all experience is inherently educative. We have become increasingly clear that we are focused on preparing teachers who will stay in teaching long enough to become both good teachers and educational leaders.

These ideas are neither new, nor unique to Michigan State University. They are informed by

scholarship and research, ranging from Dewey (e.g., 1997) to Shulman (2004) to Britzman (2003) to Darling Hammond (2010) to Delpit (2006, 2013). They are informed by the best current research on teacher preparation quality (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; and the National Research Council, 2010), and current efforts to redesign and improve teacher preparation (e.g., American Federation of Teachers, 2012; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012; National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). These commitments also resonate strongly with other professional organizations associated with teaching, including INTASC and NBPTS, and with professional standards issued by relevant professional organizations.

While MSU faculty agree that teacher preparation programs ought to be tied closely to education

research (e.g., Levine, 2006), we also understand teacher preparation as an ethical and moral enterprise, one that cannot be solely determined by empirical evidence, no matter how widely one casts the net of relevant education scholarship.

We offer these citations to relevant ideas as evocative; they cannot represent the breadth and

depth of scholarly thinking that informs our work as teacher educators and that informs our interpretation of our claims.

When we consider the MSU claims against TEAC’s quality principle 1 (see Table 10), we also

see considerable alignment although we could not see explicit attention to the capacity to work across a range of community contexts (MSU Claim 3).

6 We also make a fifth claim: “A strong sense of agency and the capacity to become leaders in their field.” In considering the

evidence we regularly use for program improvement, we came to see this as an aspiration, and not a claim about which we can currently marshal persuasive evidence. We discuss this issue in the section on lessons learned and next steps.

22

Table 10. Concordance of MSU Claims with TEAC Quality Principle 1 MSU Teacher Preparation Claims TEAC Quality Principles and Standards

MSU1. A strong foundation in the subject matter, and an understanding of how children and youth learn and engage with subject matter

TEAC 1.1 TEAC 1.2 TEAC 1.3 TEAC 1.4.2 TEAC 1.4.3

MSU2. Equitable and inclusive teaching practices that are responsive to diverse learners, communities, and a global society

TEAC 1.2 TEAC 1.3 TEAC 1.4.2 TEAC 1.4.3

MSU3. The ability to work within and across a range of community and professional contexts

To exercise one’s ability to adapt instruction, communicate with learners and with teachers, and productively learn from experience (TEAC 1.1-1.4, along with the cross cutting themes of learning to learn and multicultural awareness), prospective teachers need to also learn to work within and across a range of contexts. We see this as a resource for all TEAC quality principle 1 domains.

MSU4. Disposition and skills to critically reflect on and learn from their practice

TEAC 1.4.1

Sources of Evidence The faculty in the MSU Teacher Preparation Program are constantly revising the coursework and fieldwork based on an array of evidence, including student evaluations of individual courses, surveys of and conversations with principals and collaborating teachers, observations of interns, observations and evaluations of instructors, and student work on in-course assignments (see Table 11). We have also been engaged in a project to design and build a system for integrating that information into one platform (we discuss this at the end of the brief).

Table 11. Evidence Used to Inform Program Improvement and Student Progress State content tests COE exit survey seniors Senior year mentor survey

Grades in disciplinary courses COE exit survey interns Final portfolio and portfolio defense

Grades in professional courses Department survey field instructors Intern professional concerns forms

State survey of interns Student evaluation feedback for courses

Department survey mentor teachers

Internship evaluations Department survey of principals

State survey of supervisors

For the purpose of this inquiry, we used several principles to guide our selection of our main

sources of evidence. First and foremost, we chose to capitalize on existing measures that would allow us to identify strengths and weaknesses in the measures already in our larger ecology. This principle also supports the integration of accreditation into the daily lives of our program staff. That is, instead of “doing TEAC,” the examination of existing information through existing groups would be an authentic and relevant exercise instead of a distracting and bureaucratic one. In addition, we opted to

select three measures for each claim so as to enhance the plausibility of our conclusions; aim to have those three measures vary in the use of qualitative and quantitative data; aim to have those three measures vary in terms of whose perspective is represented; aim to use measures that were largely consistent across different aspects of the program

(elementary/secondary; subject areas, etc.).

However, while we aimed for consistency, we also wanted to support subject-specific inquiries that faculty felt would enhance their understanding of the effectiveness and integrity of their curriculum and pedagogy, as well as overall program quality. The sources of evidence that we used for this IB are listed in Table 12.

23

Table 12. Sources of Evidence for the IB

MSU1

MSU2

(includes multicultural perspectives/

understanding)

MSU3

MSU4

(includes learning how to learn)

CC Theme: Technology

State content tests ✔

Grades in disciplinary courses ✔

Grades in professional courses ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

State exit survey of interns ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Internship evaluations ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

State exit survey of supervisors * * * *

ACT scores *

Course assignments used in subject-specific investigations

* * * *

The three main sources of evidence we use here are represented by checks. Secondary sources of evidence are represented with an asterisk. For state content tests, the cut scores for passing are established by the state. In disciplinary courses, students must maintain an overall GPA of 2.5, as well as a GPA of 2.5 in their teaching major area. In professional courses, students must also maintain an overall GPA of 2.5, with no grade below a 2.0. We have found that these cut scores represent, at a minimum, competent acquisition of the knowledge bases needed for learning to teach. For the internship evaluations and course assignments, the scales of ratings and the cut scores for competency vary across different parts of the program and different assignments, as detailed below. In all cases, however, we consider our program standards, state standards, and the standards of professional organization in establishing the competencies needed for effective beginning teaching. It is also important to note that, in all cases, the “cut score” for competent beginning teaching is appropriately located somewhere in the middle of the scale, recognizing that learning to teach is an ongoing practice and that competent beginning teaching is only one important step on the trajectory toward expert teaching. Rationale and Trustworthiness of Evidence The faculty involved in the collection and analysis of data did not create and carry out one coherent research design upon which to base this IB. Our views of research and inquiry are varied, so much so that we probably could never come to consensus around a single idea about what evidence is most persuasive. One lesson we learned in our first TEAC IB was that it is not in our best interest to impose uniformity on each other as inquirers. In deliberating over the challenges we faced in arguing for reliability in our last IB, we came to understand that, because we as scholars approach inquiry from diverse, complementary perspectives, we do not all establish the reliability and trustworthiness of our data in the same way. Our different epistemologies are an institutional strength. This led us to agree that we would not tackle the “problem” of establishing reliability and validity by taking a “one size fits all approach,” institutionalizing a set of common rubrics, or using common processes for “training” scorers and calculating interrater reliability. Instead, we decided to embrace our differences and use multiple forms of evidence. We note, however, that we do not see this IB as the product of a “mixed methods” study, primarily because there are scholars in the Department who believe that the epistemological differences across research differences make it impossible to reconcile data into one coherent, aligned, uniform investigation.

Nonetheless, as researchers, we all understand and adhere to the scholar’s obligation to consider validity and trustworthiness in inquiry. We handle this by considering each kind of data as a face of a prism (hence our choice to strategically include data that come from different perspectives). We strive to make sure that each face – that is, each form of evidence we used – is trustworthy. We use arguments from both interpretivist and positivist traditions as we explain each major form of evidence. This means that we do not always use reliability as an index, as reliability – an estimate of measurement error - is best

24

understood as a positivist’s strategy for estimating validity (which itself might best be understood as a chimera, something many strive for, but can only logically – not empirically – argue). At times, particularly in our use of the intern evaluations, we used criteria of trustworthy, plausible, and credible. We discuss these issues with the relevant forms of assessment below.

Part III. Methods of Assessment

State Content Tests

As per Section 1531 of Public Act 451 (1976), as amended by Public Act 267 (1986), Public Act 282 (1992), and Public Act 289 (1995), teacher testing is mandated as part of Michigan's teacher certification requirements. The purpose of the tests is to ensure that each certified teacher has the necessary basic skills and content knowledge to serve in Michigan schools. The Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) program is offered by Pearson; the tests are criterion-referenced and objective-based. Objectives are created collaboratively by the Evaluation Systems group of Pearson and teams of Michigan teachers, teacher educators, disciplinary experts, and MDE staff. Their work is guided by Michigan curriculum guides, textbooks, and teacher preparation and certification standards. Content validation surveys were conducted in each field of teaching, using random samples of practicing Michigan teachers and teacher educators. Many of our faculty have participated in both the development of objectives and these content validation surveys of the objectives. Test questions were matched to the objectives and verified as valid for testing by reviewers, all of whom were Michigan educators.

The MTTC program currently consists of subject matter tests, comprised of multiple-choice questions, except for the world language tests, which comprise both multiple-choice questions and two or more constructed-response assignments. The Professional Readiness Examination includes multiple-choice questions in the Reading and Mathematics subtests and multiple-choice questions and two constructed-response assignments in the Writing subtest.

The MDE provided us with the MTTC technical report (Pearson Education, 2013). The content validity of the tests was established through processes typically used for certification tests: test objectives were established using relevant state documents; those objectives were reviewed by a content advisory committee established for each test and a bias review committee; a content validation survey was sent out to Michigan teachers, teacher educators, and disciplinary experts; test items were reviewed by the bias review committee and the relevant content advisory committee; those draft items were field tested with students enrolled in Michigan teacher education programs; and items were validated through standard setting and item validation exercises with teachers and college faculty.

Test statistics are reported for every test that had at least 60 test takers. Several indices of reliability are provided, most notably: (a) the total test decision consistency (range of 0.00 to 1.00, with estimates closer to 1.00 being considered more reliable/consistent); and (b) (for multiple choices sections of the tests) the Kuder-Richardson 20 estimate (also with a range from 0.00 to 1.00, with estimates closer to 1.00 being more consistent/reliable). For the few language tests that also had performance assignment sections, a generalizability coefficient is reported. Example estimates are listed in Table 13.

Table 13. Reliability indices report for the MTTC Decision

consistency KR 20 G

coefficient

Basic skills mathematics .93-.96 .84-.90

Basic skills reading .91-1.00 .68-.83

Chemistry .84 .85

Early Childhood .80-.89 .70-.73

Elementary .78-.90 .76-.87

English .80-.86 .84-.87

25

Integrated Science Elementary .82 .86

Language arts (elementary) .79-.82 .78-.83

Learning Disabilities .84 .79-.81

Mathematics (elementary) .79-.86 .88

Mathematics (secondary) .90 .91-.92

Social studies .85 .87

Spanish .92 .80 .79

Visual Arts education .87 .77

In general, reliability estimates were between .80 and .94. For the content tests relevant to our program, reliability estimates all met the requirement for being above .70 (with .70-.79 being adequate) except for three sections of students who took the basic skills reading tests (with KR 20s of .68). In general, we find the evidence provided by the state concerning the validity and reliability of the content tests trustworthy.

Grades

Grades in disciplinary courses. Validity of these grades depends on the assumption that the faculty who assigned the grades were competent to do so, and graded with integrity. Given the cross-University commitment to teacher preparation and the positive relations of the Department of Teacher Education with relevant departments and colleges, we believe this assumption is reasonable.

Grades in professional courses. Validity of these grades depends on the assumption that the

faculty who assigned the grades were competent to do so, and graded with integrity. Many of our professional courses are taught by doctoral students and a small number of fixed term faculty. We have rigorous processes for the selection of instructors, but we acknowledge that they are not yet well-seasoned teacher educators. Thus, all instructors work in teams throughout the year, which includes an orientation to the course in late August and biweekly meetings in which instructors discuss assignments, readings, class activities, and the syllabus. As part of those groups, faculty have varied approaches to calibrating grading across sections.

In general, major assignments are standard across different sections of any course, and each

assignment also has a cross-course rubric. Based on lessons learned from our first inquiry brief in 2008 when we discovered that we had not done enough capacity building among instructors to understand and use common rubrics in grading, faculty decided to build educative opportunities for calibrating grading across sections. This largely entails collectively examining key activities and looking at several samples of student work and scoring them with a rubric for a specific assignment. Teams discuss similarities and differences in scores and how they can converge their individual and collective understanding of our criteria and how to meet them. Faculty leaders of the teams also look at the grade distribution for particular instructors to determine whether they are in line with others; faculty leaders also remind all instructors that there should be a distribution that represents the nature and quality of the work our students do.

For high quality grading, SALs spend time talking about the main projects and the rubrics within

their instructor groups: the evolution of the assignments, their major aims, how they fit within the course and the larger program’s mission and goals. SALs often have instructors bring in examples of previous assignments and discuss how these were graded (using rubrics). At the end of the semester, SALs often also have instructors select projects that they think are exemplary, typical, and not very good quality. Instructor groups discuss the similarities and differences across projects and how to better support prospective teachers to create exemplary projects and units. This, we believe, builds capacity for more consistent grading and helps instructors also understand more about the course, the curriculum, the program, and their roles. Much like the role that focusing on student work plays in K-12 teacher professional development, we have come to see these examinations of prospective teachers’

26

assignments, both as professional development for grading and as significant professional development more generally.7

SALs also vary in terms of their practices with instructors. For example, Dr. Halvorsen, the SAL

for elementary social studies observes all new instructors (and some returning instructors, if they struggled their first year) and debriefs with them about their instruction. She uses the digital course system (formerly ANGEL, now D2L) to provide all resources for the course. Additionally, for TE404, each instructor adopts an assignment/class activity to revise and share with the rest of the team. Instructors share other strategies and resources frequently.

With regard to grading, most SALs revisit the rubrics for each assignment (and sometimes revise them) each new year to familiarize instructors with the assignments' expectations. These rubrics are extremely detailed and help standardize evaluation. SALs often also share examples of former students' work (of both strong and weak students) and their evaluation of and comments on that work. SALs and instructors usually also practice scoring assignments with the relevant rubric, share scores and discuss discrepancies, and then practice scoring until the group reaches some agreement that they are grading with sufficient intergrader reliability. Some SALs also collect instructors' grades for all assignments and give a quick review of them to check that the distribution of grades is fairly even across sections.

Instructors vary considerably in terms of their experience – both in terms of U.S. classroom teaching experience and teacher education experience-and SALs use the same apprenticeship model that guides our thinking in the teacher preparation program. Less experienced doctoral students are hired to assist instructors; in some instances, doctoral students observe and serve as an aide for a semester before being assigned as the teacher of record for a section.8 Experienced instructors take on the role of mentoring new instructors for classes; while the SAL is responsible for this mentoring, each SAL also intentionally builds collective responsibility and capacity by delegating some mentoring to more experienced instructors (whether they are fixed term faculty or doctoral students).

Given our thorough and on-going attention to supporting new instructors in learning to grade

course assignments and assess prospective teachers, and SALs monitoring the grading of every instructor, we believe the assumption that these grades are reliable and valid is reasonable. We do not collect formal reliability measures from instructor teams, but instead rely on SALs and their teams to reach consensus on grading processes and standards, reinforced through team grading of samples of common assignments and group discussion of any assignments that are challenging to assess for any reason. Given the overall more qualitative and more interpretive approach we chose, we did not believe that using other measures like the Chronbach alpha would give stronger nor substantially different results for reliability

State Exit Survey of Interns

Every spring, all graduates of all teacher preparation programs in the state of Michigan are required to take a survey administered by the Michigan Department of Education. Institutions are provided the data from the MDE, and directed to calculate results by clustering the items into factors that the state has validated through conducting a crosswalk of the surveys with the Entry Level Standards for Michigan Teachers (ELSMT) in the state and, after 2008, the revised Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers (PSMT, Michigan State Board of Education, 2008). Factors include the following topics (reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, which identified the internal consistency of the factor):

7 How much time is spent calibrating grading across course sections varies in subject matter groups year to year. If a SAL has

many inexperienced instructors, grading is a major focus of the PLC’s work. If the instructors are experienced graders, less time is spent working on this area. 8 New TE 250 instructors have served as apprentices before taking responsibility for their own section; and most international

doctoral students also serve as apprentices before having responsibility for their own course in the teacher preparation program. It is financially prohibitive to use this model for all fixed term and doctoral student instructors; however, we are committed to providing apprenticeships for all doctoral students who are not yet prepared to take on the responsibility as a teacher-of-record.

27

Factors/groupings for all graduates:

Literacy (4 items, reliability = .89)

ELSMT/PSMT 1 (liberal arts and sciences, 6 items, reliability = .88)

ELSMT/PSMT 2 (learning for all students, 8 items, reliability = .88)

ELSMT/PSMT 3 (knowledge of content and pedagogical content knowledge, 4 items, reliability = .85)

ELSMT/PSMT 4 (ability to manage students learning, 9 items, reliability = .93)

ELSMT/PSMT 5 (ability to organize teaching practices and learn from experience, 4 items, reliability = .76)

ELSMT/PSMT 6 (commitment to participate in learning communities, 8 items, reliability = .90)

ELSMT/PSMT 7 (ability to use information age learning and technology, 6 items, reliability = .93)

Program contribution 1 (preparedness for classroom activity, 9 items)

Program contribution 2 (preparedness for activity beyond the classroom, 7 items)

Certificate-specific factors/groupings:

Elementary (7 items, reliability = .82)

Secondary (4 items, reliability = .79)

Special education (4 items, reliability = .77)

K-12 (4 items, reliability = .67)

George and Mallery (2003) suggest that a coefficient that is greater than or equal to .9 is excellent, greater than or equal to .8, good, greater than or equal to .7 is acceptable, and .6 questionable. Thus, these reliabilities are within the acceptable to excellent range, save for the factor on K-12 content knowledge. Given the fact that the domains within that factor (music, art, physical education, library, etc.) are so diverse, it makes sense that it would be challenging to get high reliability. In general, however, we feel that the technical information provided by the MDE is sufficient warrant for using these data as one trustworthy source.

State Exit Survey of Supervisors The MDE also administers an exit survey with supervisors. The supervisor survey is much shorter, with respondents asked to rate each of these prompts on a four-point Likert scale:

ability regarding subject matter knowledge

ability to support student literacy

ability in organizing the classroom environment

ability to maximize student learning opportunities

ability to assess learning

ability in using technology to maximize student learning

ability to work in school and district environments

ability in participating in extended learning communities The MDE has not done any analyses of the reliability of this survey, and so we use it only as supplementary to the exit survey taken by the interns. Internship Evaluations

Field instructors observe interns regularly over the course of the year. At four points in the year,

field instructors – in collaboration with mentor teachers (MTs) and the interns – submit midterm or end-of-term evaluations of interns to the program secretaries. The elementary interns are all evaluated using the same form; the secondary subject areas, as well as the K-12 certification areas have developed forms that are specific to their domain. The final evaluation of the year – the Exit Performance Description

28

(EPD) – is more holistic and typically does not involve using the same scoring rubric used for the other three evaluations.9 These four evaluations involve the active participation of the intern, the MT, and the field instructor. Some field instructors (FI) and MTs submit separate evaluations, while some combine their evaluations. All evaluations are submitted to the Department as official documentation of the intern’s progress. Each of the assessments is aligned with the Teacher Preparation Program Standards; this alignment, in turn, supports the program in using the intern evaluations to provide evidence related to each of the TEAC Claims, as detailed below.

In terms of the trustworthiness of this evidence, we draw on varied arguments about qualitative data. Merriam (1998) argues that the qualitative researcher, instead of striving for the positivist’s internal validity, deals with the question, “How congruent are the findings with reality?” Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose four factors to help establish the plausiblility that one’s findings are congruent with reality: a) credibility (in preference to internal validity); b) transferability (in preference to external validity/generalizability); c) dependability (in preference to reliability); d) confirmability (in preference to objectivity).

For example, in August of each year, we hold two program-wide orientation meetings for all field

instructors. A central focus of the first meeting, even for returning field instructors, is on developing practices of observation and evaluation in working with interns. We discuss the differences between observation and evaluation and observe video together using different observation and evaluation frameworks to develop reliability in the kinds of teaching moves that are noticed and how those teaching moves are documented on the forms. During the second meeting, we break into grade-band and subject-specific groups to observe and/or evaluate instances of teaching using the particular forms that are relevant to each group. These meetings are followed by regular field instructor meetings – again in grade-level and/or subject-specific groups – in which the forms are further discussed, ratings are calibrated, and ongoing discussions of the different standards and ratings are deliberated. To develop greater dependability/reliability, we have also conducted paired or team field instructor observations in several parts of the program. Finally, most new field instructors are mentored by experienced field instructors, further enhancing reliability and continuity in the use of the forms.

In addition, at the four formal points of assessment in which forms are turned into the Department,

the MT, FI, and intern meet together to discuss the assessment. If any one disagrees with the general trend of that discussion and the written form turned in, that is, if the assessment is not credible, there are clear procedures in place for reconsidering the evaluation. Interns can discuss their concerns with the MT, FI, course instructors, school liaison, or Corey Drake/Kelly Hodges. The internship guides make this explicit:

I’m having a conflict with my mentor teacher/field instructor/course instructor. With whom do I speak about this conflict? Field instructors are a good source of support for negotiating the relationships between mentor teachers and interns. Subject area leaders oversee the work of field instructors and course instructors and are a good place to start if you are having difficulty with one of these people. Team coordinators are also available to help with resolving conflicts among members of the intern’s support network. If interns are struggling in the field, the program leadership automatically consults with instructors

to check on interns’ progress in classes as well. In cases where there are serious concerns, a professional concerns form is used. A Professional Development/Growth Plan (alternatively known as PGPs or PDPs) consists of the following:

A description of the areas of concern, using specific examples from the intern’s practice.

An indication of the program standards the intern is struggling to meet, as a result of these areas

9 One impetus for the more holistic and narrative approach to the final end-of-spring evaluation is that it serves as a rough draft for

letters of recommendation that FIs and MTs are often asked to write.

29

of concern.

A list of specific behaviors the intern must demonstrate in order to illustrate they are making progress on the areas of concern.

Any special forms of support or guidance that the intern will receive to enact the expectations of the Professional Development Plan, and who will provide them.

A specific date for an assessment meeting during which the intern’s progress toward meeting the expectations of the Professional Development Plan will be reviewed.

The consequences for the intern should s/he fail to meet the expectations of the Professional Development Plan by the specified meeting date.

PDPs/PGPs must be signed by interns indicating they have read and understood the document and signed copies are kept in their electronic files. In this way, interns are well aware of all concerns about their progress, and a paper trail is left, serving an important role if interns later raise issues about their progress (or lack thereof).

In sum, we understand Lincoln and Guba’s criteria (see also Ballinger, 2006), in the context of our

own work in the following way:

Table 14. Lincoln and Guba’s Criteria Aligned with MSU Program Practices Conventional/

Positivist Inquiry Naturalistic/ Interpretivist

Inquiry

Methods to Ensure Quality in Research

Methods to Insure Quality in MSU Teacher Preparation

Program

Internal validity Credibility Member checks; prolonged engagement in the field; data triangulation

8-10 observations over the year; supervision of FIs by SALs and building liaisons; checking with FIs, MTs, and interns

External validity Transferability Thick description of setting and/or participants

4 evaluations, each with descriptions of practice and intern development; EPD with thick description of intern development over the year

Reliability Dependability Audit – researcher’s documentation of data, methods and decisions; researcher triangulation

Supervision of FIs by SALs and building liaisons; checking with FIs, MTs, course instructors and interns

Objectivity Confirmability Audit and reflexivity Regular member checking with FIs, building liaisons, MTs, school principals, course instructors, and interns

A note about how we use the evaluation information in this IB. Because we chose to include all

interns in the program as the study sample,10 we do not report the evaluation data in traditional qualitative ways (e.g., with sample quotes from forms). There was no way that we could do this and not run the risk of misrepresenting the full population. Instead, we use the mean holistic scores that were reported on forms. However, we do not treat these numbers as “hard and fast” numbers, detaching them from the context in which they were generated. Instead, we always consider them in relationship to the range of scores given (e.g., 1.43/5 or 2.7/4), and provide the estimated s.d. as a means for representing how varied scores were by FIs. For our program, these numbers only have meaning in so far as they represent places on a trajectory of learning to teach. Each area of the program has a slightly different language for mapping that trajectory (see Figure 4 on next page):11Again, as noted above, these trajectories are mapped onto each of the categories on the evaluation forms; these categories in turn map onto the Program Standards and therefore provide a comprehensive measure of intern progress across the standadrds.

10 Individual subject-specific studies sometimes used a smaller sample. However, for our major forms of evidence, the sample is

all interns. 11 See evaluation rubrics in Appendix F for rubrics and definitions of each term, along with examples.

30

Figure 4. Example Developmental Trajectories Used in Periodic Evaluations

In general, each area of the program emphasizes the qualitative and narrative aspects of these

evaluations with interns, and underplays the numbers, as they are seen as shorthand for more narrative and holistic feedback that the faculty believes interns need to improve.

Given the processes in place to structure, review, and keep track of the four evaluation points, we

believe that the evidence provided on the periodic evaluations meets the criteria of credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability. ACT Scores The ACT is a well known college readiness program, which includes a test administered to about 16 million high school students each year. It is distributed by ACT, a nonprofit organization, and the ACT test a battery of four multiple choice tests of educational achievement—English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science—and an optional Writing Test. In a nationally representative sample used to do a validation study (ACT, 2010), researchers report the following scale score summary statistics for 2005-2006 test dates:

Table 15. Summary Statistics for ACT, 2005-06 English Mathematics Reading Science Composite

Mean 20.99 21.12 21.55 21.10 21.32

SD 5.70 5.00 5.82 4.51 4.68

Reliability .91 .91 .85 .80 .96

Given the thoroughness of the technical manual and these reliability coefficients, all of which are

within acceptable range, we believe there is sufficient evidence of the ACT’s trustworthiness. Course-specific Studies The trustworthiness of course-specific studies will be discussed in the sections in which we refer to them since each used a different methodology. As a program, we made a decision that different

Elementary: Does not meet

expectations (1)

Meets expectations

(2-4)

Exceeds expectations

(5)

Special education:

Does not meet expectations (1)

Meets expectations

(beginning, often, achieved) (2-4)

Exceeds expectations

(5)

Secondary English:

Beginning (1)

Expanding (2)

Connecting (3)

Secondary mathematics:

Novice (1)

Beginning (2)Accomplished

(3)Expert (4)

Secondary social studies:

Needs immediate improvement (1)

Performing as expected of a

beginning teachers (3)

Performing at an outstanding level

(5)

Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources: Novice

(1-2)

Beginning (3-4)

Accomplished (5-6)

Expert (7)

31

courses within the program would assess different standards. We use the course-specific studies, as a set, to address each of our Claims, though no single study addresses all of the Claims. All course-specific studies are available in supplements to Appendix F.

Part IV. Results

MSU Claim 1. A strong foundation in the subject matter, and an understanding of how children and youth learn and engage with subject matter. This claim refers both to the knowledge of subject matter that teachers need and to the aspects of pedagogical content knowledge that involve understanding how students understand the content, learn it, and engage with it. In this sense, we weave together subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in ways similar to evolving understanding of content knowledge for teaching (e.g., Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008).

Grades in disciplinary coursework. We begin by considering the grades of our interns in their disciplinary coursework (see Table 16). In general, our students do very well in their disciplinary studies. For elementary prospective teachers, the mean GPAs in their elementary major range from 3.16 (s.d. = .50) in integrated science to 3.49 (s.d. = .32), in language arts (one elementary candidate was an English major with a GPA of 2.88). Secondary majors have mean GPAs that range from a low of 3.08 (chemistry, s.d.=.54) and 3.10 (mathematics. s.d.=.41) to highs of 3.59 (English, s.d. = .23) and 3.65 (music, s.d. .= 22).12

Table 16. Grade point averages for MSU Teacher Preparation Subject Matter Majors

Level Major Number of

Majors Major GPA

SD for Major GPA

Elementary English 1 2.88 n/a

Elementary Integrated Science 12 3.16 0.5019

Elementary Language Arts 149 3.49 0.321

Elementary Mathematics 29 3.39 0.4303

Elementary Social Studies 68 3.22 0.4354

Secondary Agriscience 5 3.39 0.3688

Secondary Arabic 1 4.00 n/a

Secondary Art 2 3.29 0.3606

Secondary Biological Sciences 22 3.18 0.4434

Secondary Chemistry 7 3.08 0.5438

Secondary CommunicativeSciDisorder 3 3.80 0.1815

Secondary Earth Science 1 3.00 n/a

Secondary English 44 3.59 0.2328

Secondary French 1 3.68 n/a

Secondary German 2 4.00 0

Secondary History 37 3.47 0.3319

Secondary IDS-Social Studies 24 3.40 0.3748

Secondary Japanese 3 3.66 0.225

Secondary JMC-Social Studies 2 2.89 0.2758

Secondary Journalism 2 3.26 0.1626

Secondary Mathematics 33 3.10 0.4113

Secondary Music 7 3.65 0.2238

Secondary Physics 3 3.02 0.3511

Secondary Social Studies 4 3.35 0.3208

Secondary Spanish 13 3.40 0.3492

Secondary Visual Arts 9 3.62 0.293

Total Averages

484 3.39

MTTC Scores. These GPA results resonate with the state assessments of our interns’ content

knowledge. Between 2009 and 2012, when most of the interns who are the focus of this IB would have taken their content examinations, overall, our prospective teachers had a 84.6% pass rate on their initial

12 We did not include majors that had fewer than 5 interns in these ranges.

32

taking of the test, and a 92.1% cumulative pass rate. (NOTE: No intern can progress to the internship year without passing the relevant content examinations, so every intern in the group we are examining here passed this test).

Elementary prospective teachers had initial pass rates of 98.2% and cumulative pass rates of

100% (see Table 17). Those majoring in language arts had initial pass rates of 78.1% and cumulative pass rates of 87%; among our elementary mathematics majors, the initial pass rate was 94%, with a cumulative one of 96.4%; among our integrated science elementary majors, the initial pass rate was 90.9% and the cumulative rate was 97.7%. The early childhood majors had a 100% initial and cumulative pass rate. There has only been one test for social studies majors (whether elementary or secondary), which might explain the lower pass rate on that test: our elementary teachers might have a harder time with the test because they have not had a complete BA in that field, but rather an elementary major that consists of fewer courses.

In terms of our secondary majors, we see more variability. In general, most secondary majors have high cumulative pass rates, ranging from 80.8% for German to 100% in environmental studies, computer science, and physical science. Areas where we have reason to be concerned include journalism (50% initial, 66.7% cumulative), psychology (78.1% initial and cumulative), French (40% initial, 66.7% cumulative), and social studies (66.3% initial and 73.3% cumulative). We regularly meet with disciplinary departments when pass rates for our enrolled students are low to examine the requirements for content knowledge on the state test and the courses that are required of our students. We note that these rates include students who are not actually enrolled in our teacher preparation program and who might be considering entering either the PBA or applying to another program in the future.

In our major areas of content specialization, the scores are consistently high: English (84.9% initial, 93% cumulative), history (76.6% initial, 85.7% cumulative), mathematics (secondary) (92.6% initial, 98.5% cumulative), Spanish (71% initial, 85% cumulative), learning disabilities (89.8% initial, 98.8% cumulative), elementary (98.2% initial, 100% cumulative), language arts (78.1% initial, 87% cumulative). Correlation of MTTC scores and GPA in subject matter will be available at the audit visit.

We note here that, going forward, we have phased out the following: anthropology, environmental studies, guidance counselor, emotional impairment, hearing impaired, and physical education as areas in which we recommend certification.

Table 17. MTTC, Annual Summaries of State Results, 2009-1213

Area N N

Passed Initial

% Pass initial

N Pass Cum

% Pass cum

Area N N

Passed Initial

% Pass initial

N Pass Cum

% Pass cum

English 199 169 84.9% 185 93.0% Guidance Counselor

15 14 93.3% 14 93.3%

Journalism 18 9 50.0% 12 66.7% Speech and Language Impaired

13 7 53.8% 11

84.6%

Economics 7 5 71.4% 6 85.7% Emotionally Impaired

12 11 91.7% 12 100.0%

Geography 41 33 80.5% 34 82.9% Hearing Impaired

32 32 100.0% 32 100.0%

History 175 134 76.6% 150 85.7% Learning Disabilities

166 149 89.8% 164 98.8%

Political Science

18 17 94.4% 17 94.4% Autism Spectrum Disorder

22 21 95.5% 22 100.0%

Psychology 32 25 78.1% 25 78.1% Early Childhood Education

65 65 100.0% 65 100.0%

Sociology 10 9 90.0% 9 90.0% Elementary 833 818 98.2% 833 100.0%

13 We include here only fields for which we recommend certification to the state. Some test takers from MSU are not in the TE

program, take the wrong tests, or do not progress to the internship.

33

Anthropology 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Social Studies 309 205 66.3% 239 77.3%

Science English as a Second Language

128 107 83.6% 117 91.4%

Biology 73 46 63.0% 66 90.4% Mathematics (Elementary)

83 78 94.0% 80 96.4%

Chemistry 67 39 58.2% 54 90.6% Language Arts (Elementary)

324 253 78.1% 282 87.0%

Physics 26 21 80.8% 23 88.5% Communication Arts (Secondary)

1 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Earth/Space Science

9 1 11.1% 8 88.9% Reading Specialist

10 10 100.0% 10 100.0%

Mathematics (Secondary)

136 126 92.6% 134 98.5% Integrated Science (Elementary)

44 40 90.9% 43 97.7%

French 15 6 40.0% 10 66.7% Integrated Science (Secondary)

59 44 74.6% 55 93.2%

German 11 9 81.8% 9 80.8% Visual Arts Education

31 27 87.1% 29 93.5%

Russian 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Japanese 13 12 66.7% 12 92.3%

Spanish 100 71 71.0% 85 85.0% Chinese

Agriculture Ed 11 11 100.0% 11 100.0% Chinese (Mandarin)

54 49 90.7% 53 98.1%

Music Ed Arabic

Family and Consumer Sciences

Arabic (Modern Standard)

3 3 100.0% 3 100.0%

Art Education Bus., Mgmt, Mrktng and Tech

1 1 100.0% 1 100.0%

Physical Education

12 10 83.3% 12 100.0% Physical Science

3 2 66.7% 3 100.0%

Environmental Studies

2 2 100.0% 2 100.0% Music 46 44 95.7% 44 95.7%

Computer Science

4 3 75.0% 4 100.0% All tests 3237 2738 84.6% 2980 92.1%

MDE Intern Exit Survey. In terms of the data from the MDE exit survey of our graduates, seven factors are relevant: an understanding of the general liberal arts and sciences (ELSMT/PSMT1), knowledge of content and pedagogical content knowledge (ELSMT/PSMT3),14 and the four certificate-specific factors of elementary, secondary, special education, and K-12 arts, physical education, music, and library content and pedagogical content knowledge. The items contributing to these factors are as follows:

Table 18. Intern Exit Survey Questions Relevant to MSU Claim 1 Survey factor Survey questions

PSMT 1 An understanding and appreciation of general and liberal arts including English, literature, humanities, social sciences, mathematics, natural or physical sciences, and the arts, and the ability to…

use knowledge from the liberal arts to enrich my teaching practice communicate effectively in several forms of writing make interdisciplinary connections with my content area demonstrate understanding of multiple perspectives and individual differences demonstrate an understanding of responsible citizenship articulate my responsibility to prepare students to succeed in a world that is ever-changing

ELSMT/PSMT 3 Knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy with reference to the MCF and other state sponsored resources, for consistent and equitable learning in

help students become independent learners teach the core concepts of my content area relate classroom learning in my content area to the real world integrate my subject matter with other content areas help students think critically about my content area

14 Recall that the state changed the professional standards for teachers in the state in 2008, hence the shift in acronyms from

Entry Level Standards for Michigan Teachers (ELSMT) to Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers (PSMT).

34

Michigan schools, including the ability to…

use curricular standards to plan instruction use state and local student learning standards to assess and improve my teaching use a variety of assessments, to guide my decisions about what to teach

ELEMENTARY Are specific to certification area and to the knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy, including the understanding and ability to…

teach mathematics teach social studies teach integrated science teach language arts teaching reading (including oral reading) teach writing in a variety of genres teach reading for comprehension across content areas

SECONDARY Are specific to certification area and to the knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy, including the understanding and ability to…

teach my major content area(s) teach my minor content area(s) help students with reading comprehension in my content area(s) help students write in my content area(s)

SPECIAL EDUCATION Are specific to certification area and to the knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy, including the understanding and ability to…

use teaching techniques effective for the identified disability use instructional strategies that help students with their reading comprehension across content use instructional strategies that help students to write collaborate with other teachers to meet student learning needs use adaptive technologies to accommodate students with special needs

K-12 Are specific to certification area and to the knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy, including the understanding and ability to…

teach my content area to elementary students. teach my content to secondary students help students with reading comprehension in my content area(s) make connections between my content area and other academic content

In the case of this survey, we have not yet received the state data for the interns from 2012-13,

and so we present the trends of interns from 07-08 through 11-12. Respondents reported self-efficacy levels of between 82-97%; their perceptions of the contribution of the teacher preparation program to their self-efficacy ranges between 81% (in the 08-09 graduating cohort of interns) and 87% (in the 09-10, and 10-11) graduating cohorts. Given the tendency of prospective teachers to not acknowledge the contributions of their formal programs to their developing expertise (e.g., Grossman & Richert, 1988), we see these percentages as reasonable, although – of course – we would like to see higher attribution to the program in the future. In general, we see a rise in each factor grouping for the last four years: literacy rose from 82% to 88%, liberal arts and sciences from 91% to 94%, elementary content and pedagogical content knowledge from 90% to 92%, secondary from 78% to 85%, special education from 89% to 97%, K-12 music, arts, and physical education from 89% to 98%. The factor for overall content and pedagogical content knowledge stays about the same, ranging from 95% to 97%. In general, given the fact that new teachers cannot possibly know all of the content or pedagogical content knowledge they need to know to be effective teachers, we see these levels of self confidence as somewhat inflated.

The lower levels of the secondary teachers might be due to the fact that many secondary teachers are assigned to teach content areas that do not align with their undergraduate major, especially in science and social studies. Our interpretation is that, almost exclusively, interns have placements teaching in their majors. While many pursue experiences in their minor area once they have a placement school, the majority of the internship experience focuses on preparing them in their major areas. Thus, we interpret these results to mean that interns do not feel well prepared in their minors. We discuss our on-going work on issues dealing with minors later in the IB. We also note that students with minors outside of their major field are shrinking in numbers; increasingly social studies and science majors have a minor that is within those content domains. We suspect that in coming years, we will see higher levels of self-confidence on this survey.

35

Table 19. Interns’ Sense of Efficacy on MDE Exit Survey 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

Literacy efficacy 82% 95% 86% Literacy efficacy 88%

ELSMT/PSMT 1. Efficacy (Liberal arts)

91% 95% 93% PSMT 1. Efficacy (Liberal arts) 94%

ELSMT/PSMT 3. Efficacy (Content knowledge and PCK)

96% 97% 96% PSMT 3. Efficacy (Content knowledge and PCK)

95%

Elementary content and pck 90% 95% 93% Elementary content and pck 92%

Secondary content and pck 78% 81% 85% Secondary content and pck 85%

Special education content and pck

89% 94% 92% Special education content and pck

97%

K-12 Music, art, physical education, and library content and pck

89% 85% 88% K-12 Music, art, physical education, and library content and pck

98%

Teacher preparation program contribution to professional knowledge and skill in classroom

84% 81% 87% Teacher preparation program contribution to professional knowledge and skill in classroom

87%

MDE Supervisor Exit Survey. Supervisors were even more confident about how prepared interns were in terms of Claim 1, with percentages in the mid to high 90s for the three relevant questions from that survey.

Table 20. Supervisor Ratings of Interns’ Competence on MDE Exit Survey 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

Q8-Subject matter knowledge 97% 98% 97% 95%

Q9-Support student literacy 92% 94% 95% 91%

Q14-Liberal arts background 94% 96% 95% 94%

ACT Scores. To supplement these analyses, we also conducted a study of the ACT scores of our interns. We first identified all of the students who were enrolled in their teaching internship during the 2012-13 academic year. We then collected their ACT scores from the University's Student Information System (SIS). We calculated this group's mean ACT scores (Composite, English, Social Science, Science, and Mathematics). From the MSU Office of Admissions, we received a report of the "Academic Profile" of each freshman class over a ten-year span. Finally, we compared the average ACT scores with the freshman class entering in 2008, which is roughly when most of the current group of Interns entered.

In the ACT, we employed a conservative strategy that was designed to minimize the comparative performance of TE students. For example, we compared the ACT performance of the 2012-13 TE interns with the entering class of 2008 at MSU. The university has been raising admissions standards across the last 10 years, so for most ACT subscores, the results for the 2008 entering class exceeded those of the earlier entering classes. Yet, many of the TE interns in the 2012-13 cohort actually took their ACTs as part of the earlier entering classes. As a consequence, comparing the 2012-13 TE cohort with only the 2008 entering MSU freshman class minimizes whatever performance advantage, or conversely would maximize any performance disadvantage, they would have with other non-TE students who actually entered MSU with them.

Table 21. Comparison of Intern ACT Scores with Entering MSU Freshmen 2008

MSU 2008 Freshmen TE Interns FS12

ACT Score ACT Score SD

English 24.6 25.01 4.06

Science 24.3 24.2 3.12

Math 24.6 24.34 3.89

Reading/SocSci 25 25.67 4.37

ACT Composite 24.8 24.61 24.61

36

Given these results, it seems reasonable to argue that there are no significant differences

between the ACT scores of our interns and the entering freshmen in fall 2008. The concerns that teacher preparation programs draw students from the lower quartile of undergraduates are not borne out in this analysis.

Subject-Specific Analyses. Several of our subject-specific studies also investigated the effect

of the program on students’ content knowledge. For example, Gotwals and Sharma (see supplements to Appendix F), investigated shifts in the science knowledge for secondary teaching by examining assignments from across TE 407, TE 408, TE 802 and TE 804, using a stratified sampling methodology with grades and certification area as variables used to choose the sample. There were 27 students who started TE 407 and finished TE 804; they selected 15 of them, with a representation from each major certification area (i.e., biology, chemistry, physics, Earth science) and with appropriate representation from each certification area in the upper, middle and lower third of the grade distribution. After finalizing their sample, the secondary science group gathered appropriate assignments for each course and the two authors coded a first round of assignments together to establish inter-rater reliability. After all assignments were coded, they returned to the data to ensure that they had maintained reliability and adjusted any codes after discussion of discrepancies. With the final database, they used SPSS software to run descriptive statistics for each variable, exploring the overall dimension (a sum of scores of each sub-dimension) and each sub-dimension separately.

Evidence (see Table 22) indicates that teacher candidates (TCs) entered the senior year

secondary science methods courses with a strong base in their respective subject areas. They could write about the “big ideas” in accurate and clear ways and they could frame their big ideas as more than a series of facts. They could identify the important underlying models and explanations for the big ideas. There is evidence that they maintain this high level of content knowledge throughout their experience in the program.

Table 22. Mean Scores for Content Knowledge for Teaching, Secondary Science TE 407 TE 408 TE 802 TE 804

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Big Ideas Total (max score: 12)

10.8 1.3 11.0 1.3 10.4 .94 11.0 .92

Big Ideas –Accuracy (max score: 4)

3.5 .51 3.6 .56 3.3 .37 3.5 .45

Big Ideas – Explanation (max score: 4)

3.3 .66 3.5 .57 3.2 .61 3.6 .52

Big Ideas – Language (max score: 4)

4.0 0 3.9 .36 3.9 .41 3.9 .40

Practice Total (max score: 8)

4.3 1.2 5.5 .84 5.2 .75 5.3 .89

Practice – Importance (max score: 4)

2.3 .57 2.6 .58 2.2 .50 2.4 .77

Practice –Connections (max score: 4)

2.0 .80 2.9 .41 3.0 .55 2.9 .49

Note: Total scores may not be the exact sum of the sub-scores due to rounding. Mean scores for content knowledge for teaching (N=14)

In addition to the scientific content, the coursework at MSU emphasizes scientific “practices” - as

defined in the Next Generation of Science Standards - as integral to the study of science (National Research Council (NRC), 2012; see also http://www.nextgenscience.org). In general, TCs struggle to work with science practices when they enter the secondary science methods courses; likely because they have never been explicitly taught these practices in prior science classes. However, there is a large improvement in TCs’ incorporation of science practices through their work in TE 407 and this is maintained over the course of their program. However, with a final total score of 5.2 out of a total possible score of 8, working with practices is still an area in which TCs need to continue to grow and a place where the methods courses could better scaffold TCs’ knowledge. We note here that since these assignments (i.e., unit and lesson plans) are very closely related to TCs’ field placement, the struggle with science practices could also indicate that science practices are not being used in their field placement.

37

Although we strive to select placements in which exemplary science teaching is modeled, national analyses of science teaching are sober reminders of how little scientific practice and inquiry is common in U.S. classrooms.

In addition, Gotwals and Sharma analyzed the EPDs, the final, holistic summaries of interns’

progress. The research question guiding this analysis was: What is the overall quality of TCs’ teaching in the field? Specifically, to what extent do mentors and field instructors report that TCs meet the TEAC quality principle? Using the TEAC quality principles as their categories, they pulled examples of text from EPDs to illustrate whether or not there was evidence that a TC had met that principle.

The secondary science group found substantial evidence that secondary science TCs are meeting TEAC quality principles in their internship year teaching. Text about each of the TEAC quality principles was mentioned in almost all field instructor and mentor teacher EPDs, with clear examples of high quality teaching practices. Relevant to MSU Claim 1, Gotwals and Sharma found 36 mentions in the 38 EPDs they examined. Example comments included:

FI: [Name] was very strong in her knowledge of the subject matter and confident in her ability to deliver content/grade level appropriate lessons. She understood the content deeply enough to make connections between the subject matter and the lives of her students to help them learn concepts being taught. Mentor: [Name] began her internship year with an excellent chemistry background and could readily identify major themes and sequence specific objectives within the curriculum content.

In a similar investigation, the secondary mathematics team examined evidence related to MSU

Claim 1 as well. In particular, they were interested in their mathematics-specific version of Claim 1, that our interns:

Connect content knowledge with student mathematical understanding: Design and enact instruction that reflects deep understanding of the subject matter and abilities to anticipate students’ thinking about the content. To investigate this claim, the secondary mathematics group considered evidence from two

Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) tests administered in fall 2011 in TE 407; two additional MKT tests administered to the same cohort in spring 2012 in TE 408, as well as the intern midterm and final evaluation ratings during the internship year. Briefly, some MKT questions were designed by mathematics education faculty, while other questions were taken from measures used in the Knowledge for Algebra Teaching project (McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. D., & Senk, 2012). An example of a question asked on an MKT exam:

There are two common forms that textbooks use for the volume of a rectangular prism: Volume = length*width*height and Volume = Area of base *height. Is there a difference between the two formulas? If so, describe the difference. Which would you choose to use with students, and why?

The number of questions, and MKT assessed by each question, varied. Some items assessed

multiple aspects of MKT. For this analysis, the team examined TCs’ aggregate scores on these four assessments during TE 407 and 408 in the senior year and then compared those values to ratings of their subject matter knowledge in the context of teaching lessons as evidenced in their internship evaluations. Recall that complete evaluations of interns’ performance are conducted at four time points during the internship year: mid-semester in the fall, end-of-semester in the fall, mid-semester in the spring, and end-of-semester in the spring.

On the secondary mathematics team, these evaluations rate interns’ performance in four areas:

(1) knowing subject matters and how to teach them; (2) working with students; (3) creating and managing a classroom learning environment; and (4) working and learning in a school and profession (see evaluation rubrics in Appendix F and supplements to Appendix F). Field instructors rate interns on subcomponent competencies within each area. To gather evidence of interns’ abilities to use their MKT in

38

planning and enacting instruction, the secondary mathematics team analyzed ratings assigned by field instructors for subcomponents in Area 1 across each of the four evaluation reports for all interns. The three subcomponents are: (1.1) the intern understands the subject matter(s) as needed to teach it (them) to students; (1.2) the intern implements a curriculum of understanding and thoughtfully links subject matter and students, creating a responsive curriculum; and (1.3) the intern is thoughtful about assessment and its relationship to planning and teaching.

Table 23 shows that interns’ mathematical knowledge for teaching algebra (taught in TE 407) is

stronger than their mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry (taught in TE 408). The standard deviations in the scores for each exam indicate that the members of this cohort are fairly comparable in their knowledge of these subject matters; the standard deviations for the MKT-algebra exams are less than 2 points from the mean score and the standard deviations for the MKT-geometry exams are less than 1 point from the mean score.

Table 23: Secondary Mathematics TCs’ Aggregate Scores on MKT Exams in TE 407

TE 407 Exam 1 TE 407 Exam 2 TE 408 Exam 1 TE 408 Exam 2

Average Percent Correct

87% 92% 73% 73%

These results suggest not only that TCs’ mathematics coursework in geometry should better prepare them for the depth of knowledge they need to teach the subject matter, but also that TCs need more opportunities to develop MKT for geometry in TE 407 and 408. One possible revision is to incorporate a blend of algebra and geometry content throughout the senior year, rather than focusing on one subject matter each semester. This revision would also support TCs in understanding connections between geometry and algebra. We return to these issues in Lessons Learned, later in this report.

Table 24 shows the interns’ performance in area 1 (knowing subject matter(s) and how to teach team) during the internship year based on evaluation ratings from their field instructors.

Table 24: Math Interns’ Evaluation ratings for Area 1 over the Internship

1.1 (Understands

Subject Matter)

1.2 (Implements a Responsive Curriculum)

1.3 (Thoughtful about

Assessment)

Average

Average midterm fall 2012 1.39 1.21 1.29 1.30

Average End of semester fall 2012 1.94 1.81 1.71 1.82

Average midterm spring 2013 2.54 2.36 2.46 2.45

Average end of spring 2013 2.74 2.74 2.81 2.76

The results show that average ratings across all three subcomponents in Area 1 increased steadily for the cohort during the internship year. At the end of the internship, the average score for the cohort was nearly “accomplished” performance in all three subcomponents. In particular, the most improvement is noted in subcomponent 1.2 (the intern implements a curriculum of understanding and thoughtfully links subject matter and students, creating a responsive curriculum). This is to be expected, as the internship is the first time when TCs have grappled with more than just an isolated lesson or a single unit. As they begin to take on responsibility for more than one class, and they teach these classes for several months, they become aware of how individual lessons fit into the curriculum for a course.

39

All but one intern (98%) experienced growth across all three subcomponents, which means that the interns’ end-of-semester spring 2013 ratings were higher than the ratings they earned in mid-semester fall 2012. The one intern who did not show growth maintained a consistent “beginning” performance throughout all four observations. Figure 5 shows interns’ average percent correct on all MKT exams compared to their aggregate evaluations in Area 1 during the internship year.15

Figure 5. Scatter plot of average percent correct for Secondary Mathematics Interns on MKT exams compared to Area 1 average ratings

While one can imagine a line around which most of the data cluster, there are at least 5 outliers that could be interpreted to show a potentially weak correlation between MKT exam scores and average Area 1 evaluations during the internship. However, the sample size is too small to determine whether MKT exam scores are significant predictors of Area 1 performance. Conducting this analysis with several cohorts’ worth of data could determine whether average MKT exam score is correlated with Area 1 performance in the internship year.

The ratings secondary mathematics TCs’ earn on evaluations of their teaching indicate they are

accomplished in their subject matter knowledge and ability to apply this knowledge when teaching. We discuss issues concerning program improvements in Lessons Learned and Next Steps.

Summary of Evidence for MSU Claim 1. In sum, across both the three standard sources of

evidence that we used to interrogate Claim 1 and several complementary studies, the preponderance of evidence supports the claim. Subject-specific investigations illuminate areas in which faculty feel there is more work to be done. We return to these issues later in the report.

MSU Claim 2. Equitable and inclusive teaching practices that are responsive to diverse learners, communities, and a global society. This claim represents MSU’s commitment to preparing teacher candidates to know about and enact instruction that is inclusive and responsive. This claim intentionally overlaps with Claim 1, as we strive to have graduates see content knowledge and teaching as two intertwined aspects of their professional knowledge and skill. For the purposes of this analysis, we used data that emphasized instruction, and learning about working with diverse learners in a wide range of communities.

15 Some students taking TE 407 and 408 in 2011-2012 did not continue on to the internship in 2012-2013 (for various reasons). In

addition, some students completing the internship in 2012-2013 did not have data for their MKT exam scores because they completed TE 407 and 408 as part of a cohort prior to 2011-2012.

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

2.5

60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

40

The major sources of evidence that we use for this claim include interns’ grades in their

professional coursework, the MDE Intern Exit Survey, and internship evaluations. We start with the GPA for students in their professional courses (see Appendix D for lists of relevant professional courses).

Grades in Professional Courses. In general, students do extremely well in their professional

courses, with average professional GPA ranging from 3.76 to a 3.92 in the majors with more than five interns in the area (see Table 25). Because the courses are designed as mastery classes, one would expect higher grades. However, one possible interpretation of these results is that the professional coursework is subject to considerable grade inflation. SALs strive to help their instructors use the full range of appropriate grades (as discussed earlier).

Table 25. Intern GPAs in Professional Courses, disaggregated by major

Level Major Number of

Majors Professional

GPA SD

Elementary English 1 3.70 -

Elementary Integrated Science 12 3.80 .19

Elementary Language Arts 149 3.81 .19

Elementary Mathematics 29 3.87 .20

Elementary Social Studies 68 3.76 .21

Secondary Agriscience 5 3.94 .11

Secondary Arabic 1 4.00 -

Secondary Art 2 3.71 .05

Secondary Biological Sciences 22 3.92 .08

Secondary Chemistry 7 3.77 .18

Secondary Communicative Sciences Disorder

3 3.95

.09

Secondary Earth Science 1 3.69 -

Secondary English 44 3.89 .13

Secondary French 1 3.72 -

Secondary German 2 4.00 -

Secondary History 37 3.88 .15

Secondary IDS-Social Studies 24 3.83 .29

Secondary Japanese 3 4.00 -

Secondary JMC-Social Studies 2 3.74 -

Secondary Journalism 2 3.64 .28

Secondary Mathematics 33 3.87 .14

Secondary Music 7 3.89 .14

Secondary Physics 3 3.80 .28

Secondary Social Studies 4 3.80 .07

Secondary Spanish 13 3.90 .13

Secondary Visual Arts 9 3.88 .17

Total Averages

484 3.84

When we consider the means and standard deviations in specific professional courses for the

internship year, there is a high level of consistency across instructors. While the 801 and 803 instructors and the 802 and 804 instructors are often the same for secondary interns, those instructors belong to different PLCs, which suggests a convergence of judgment across different instructor groups.

Table 26. Aggregate Means and Standard Deviations in Professional Courses TE

801 TE 802

TE 803

TE 804

CEP 801A

CEP 802A

CEP 803A

CEP 804A

CEP 802C

CEP 803C

CEP 804C

Mean 3.86 3.91 3.86 3.84 3.98 3.65 3.67 3.96 3.13 3.50 3.00

SD 0.40 0.29 0.38 0.42 0.13 0.46 0.29 0.16 0.22 n/a 0.71

Another possible explanation for the high grades is that students who make it through to the

internship tend to be more successful in general. Students are proactively encouraged to leave the program (either permanently or for a short period) if they demonstrate a pattern of inadequate performance. It is difficult to determine which students simply dropped out and which were counseled out

41

during the junior and senior years, we do know that 17 students were denied progression to the internship because they did not meet criteria such as GPA or passing scores on the MTTC. In addition, 22 students were counseled out during the internship (see Table 27).

Table 27. Interns Counseled Out in 2012-13 AY PROGRAM MONTH REASON

Intern 1 Secondary November Failure to meet program standards

Intern 2 Secondary November Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the area of professionalism

Intern 3 Elementary February Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the areas of instructional planning and delivery

Intern 4 Secondary December Withdrew from placement to pursue career other than teaching.

Intern 5 Secondary October Withdrew from placement to pursue career other than teaching.

Intern 6 Secondary January Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the areas of instructional planning, delivery and accepting feedback

Intern 7 Secondary October Failure to meet program standards

Intern 8 Elementary March Inappropriate behavior with students

Intern 9 Secondary December Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the areas of instructional planning, delivery and professionalism

Intern 10 Elementary February Failure to meet program standards.

Intern 11 Secondary February Failure to meet program standards.

Intern 12 Secondary February Failure to meet program standards

Intern 13 Secondary March Failure to meet program standards.

Intern 14 Secondary December Failure to meet program standards.

Intern 15 Elementary March Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the area of classroom management

Intern 16 Elementary February Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the area of professionalism

Intern 17 Elementary March Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the areas of instructional planning and delivery

Intern 18 Elementary January Student decision to pursue career other than teaching.

Intern 19 Secondary November Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the areas of instructional planning and accepting feedback

Intern 20 Elementary March Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the area of professionalism

Intern 21 Secondary December Withdrew from placement to pursue career other than teaching.

Intern 22 Secondary March Failure to meet program standards, particularly in the areas of attendance and professionalism

It may be, then, that the higher grades in professional classes are due to the fact that we are

studying interns who successfully made it to and through the internship. That is, the resulting high grades in professional courses may be due to a selection bias that results from the program’s design.

For our WKK-WWF fellows, we also examined their performance in professional courses. Here

the grades are even higher, which we presume is because of the high selection criteria for these TCs and their aspirations to be high quality teachers in a highly visible program offering them considerable support (see Table 28).

Table 28. GPAs in Professional Courses for Wkk-WWF Fellows, 2011-2013 2011-2012 2012-2013

TE 822 3.78 (.36) 4.00 (.00)

TE 825 3.83 (.25) 3.73 (.34)

TE 860 3.67 (.50) 3.95 (.15)

TE 891 3.89 (.22) 3.95 (.15)

TE 843 3.75 (.39) 3.91 (.20)

Average GPA 3.78 3.91

MDE Intern Exit Survey. In terms of the data from the MDE exit survey of our graduates, eight

factors are relevant: commitment to student achievement (ELSMT/PSMT2), knowledge of content and pedagogical content knowledge (ELSMT/PSMT3), managing and monitoring student learning (ELSMT/PSMT4), using technology to maximize student learning (ELSMT/PSMT7), and the four certificate-specific factors of elementary, secondary, special education, and K-12 arts, physical education, music, and library content and pedagogical content knowledge.

42

The content of these factors (see Table 18 for factors already described) include the following:

Table 29. Additional MDE Intern Exit Survey Questions Relevant to MSU Claim 2 Survey factor Survey questions

ELSMT/PSMT 2 Facilitation of learning and achievement of all students (in accordance with the SBE UDL, including the ability to…

plan for students with developmental disabilities challenge gifted and talented students motivate discouraged students for improved academic performance adapt instruction for students learning English as a second language modify assessments for students with special needs use a variety of authentic assessments

ELSMT/PSMT 4 Management and monitoring of students, classrooms, and relationships to enhance learning including the ability to…

provide alternative explanations or examples when students are confused choose methods that help students to value learning use instructional time effectively to promote student learning use a variety of instructional teaching methodologies structure an inclusive classroom environment that values the learning of all students sustain high expectations for students to maximize student learning implement a classroom management plan that promotes positive interactions uphold the legal responsibilities of teaching establish a learning environment that welcomes collaborative teaching practices differentiate between assessment and evaluation procedures to use each appropriately for student learning

ELSMT/PSMT 7 Use of technological tools, operations and concepts to enhance learning, personal/professional productivity, and communication, including the ability to…

integrate educational technology into my classroom instruction practice high ethical standards surrounding the use of technology use technology for my professional development develop on-line learning experiences for students in my classroom evaluate the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning environments support students' use of technology to enhance conceptual understanding

Interns generally report high self efficacy, with percentages ranging from 78% to 98% (see Table

30); interns perceive the teacher preparation program contributing to their competence in this domain between 81-87%. Here too we see increases over time, with all factors hovering between 83% and 97% in the 2010-11 year (recall that this is the last year of available data). Here too we feel that these levels of confidence are a bit inflated; given how hard it is to adapt instruction in effective ways across the diversity of students and their needs, we are not as confident as our graduates about their abilities in these domains.

Table 30. Interns’ Self Reported Self Efficacy on MDE Intern Exit Survey Factors Relevant to MSU Claim 2

08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

ELSMT 2. Efficacy (Commitment to student achievement)

80% 83% 84% PSMT 2. Efficacy (Commitment to student achievement)

83%

ELSMT 3. Efficacy (Content knowledge and PCK)

96% 97% 96% PSMT 3. Efficacy (Content knowledge and PCK)

95%

ELSMT 4. Efficacy (Managing and monitoring student learning)

95% 97% 97% PSMT 4. Efficacy (Managing and monitoring student learning)

96%

ELSMT 7. Efficacy (Use technology to maximize student learning)

89% 90% 94% PSMT 7. Efficacy (Use technology to maximize student learning)

92%

Elementary content and pck 90% 95% 93% Elementary content and pck 92%

Secondary content and pck 78% 81% 85% Secondary content and pck 85%

Special education content and pck 89% 94% 92% Special education content and pck 97%

K-12 Music, art, physical education, and library content and pck

89% 85% 88% K-12 Music, art, physical education, and library content and pck

98%

Teacher preparation program contribution to professional knowledge and skill in classroom

84% 81% 87% Teacher preparation program contribution to professional knowledge and skill in classroom

87%

43

MDE Supervisor Exit Survey. Again, supervisors were more confident than the interns’ in their

level of readiness with regard to Claim 2 (see Table 31). While this might be interpreted as supervisors having inflated levels of confidence in interns’ abilities, another plausible interpretation is that supervisors are reasonably accurately assessing the interns’ abilities relative to other novice teachers.

Table 31. Supervisors’ Reports on Interns’ Competencies on MDE Supervisor Survey, Claim 2 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

Q10- Organizing the classroom environment 94% 97% 93% 91%

Q11-Maximize learning opportunities 94% 96% 92% 92%

Q12-Assess learning 93% 95% 94% 92%

Q13-Using technology 94% 94% 93% 91%

Intern Evaluations. We also read all of the intern evaluations for the year with an eye toward evidence for this claim. In terms of Claim 2, every form had relevant standards. For example, the elementary form includes the following standards: teaches elementary subject matters (standard 2), works with students as individuals (standard 3), organizes a class (standard 4), uses an equipped schoolroom (standard 5). Interns are assessed on a scale of 1-5; during the fall, they are only assessed on standards 2, 3, and 4 so as to focus their attention on the core of instruction. In general, elementary TCs’ scores averaged in the low 3s (out of 5) across all three relevant evaluated standards in the fall, rising to the low 4s (out of 5) by mid spring.

Table 32. Elementary TC’s Mean Evaluation Scores for Standards Related to MSU Claim 2 Mid-fall End of fall Mid-spring

Teaches elementary subjects

3.07/5 (.0.61) 3.55/5 (0.60) 4.07/5 (0.68)

Works with students as individuals

3.30/5 (0.64) 3.73/5 (0.61) 4.17/5 (0.67)

Organizes a class 3.15/5 (0.60) 3.50/5 (0.61) 4.03/5 (0.72)

Uses an equipped school room

n/a n/a 4.15/5 (0.64)

The scale for the mean evaluation scores for standards related to MSU Claim 2 is 5.

To provide a sense of what these numbers mean in terms of development over time, we offer two brief narrative descriptions:

A was quiet and shy at the beginning of her internship. She was placed with a highly structured mentor teacher, who enabled her to easily take over the classroom organization and routines. Her lessons at the beginning of the school year were short – as if she was trying to get her “teaching” portion out of the way and move out of the spotlight to get the kids working. While it is important for teachers to allow students to do the intellectual work of a lesson, the lessons were so short that they seemed to lack some of the guided practice necessary to make independent work time successful. Students often had questions and did not know what to do. As the year progressed, A became more confident in her teaching ability and was able to hold the students’ attention longer and then gradually release responsibility back to them for independent work. During a literacy lesson on persuasive writing, A provided a very clear example of writing that she created and used in front of the class. Instead of telling the students what to do, she showed them what to do through her modeling. As the students moved into writers’ workshop, they were well equipped to follow her example and write their own persuasive pieces. Her increased confidence brought her content knowledge and teaching strategies together for a successful experience.

AC was strong from the start of his internship. He was placed with an energetic mentor teacher who understood how to coach new teachers, as well as how to teach children. These two were a perfect match for one another. The mentor teacher was a solid model for AC, but he also let the

44

intern implement new lessons and activities that hadn’t been tried in the classroom before. This partnership involved an equal exchange of ideas and allowed each participant to benefit – the students, the intern, and the mentor. AC learned to make his good teaching even better throughout the school year. He implemented a morning meeting to create team building in the classroom, he created innovative classroom management routines, he integrated technology into every lesson, and he started a school-wide student council and tutoring clubs. By the end of the internship, AC’s skill and effectiveness as a teacher were well refined and he exceeded expectations in the program standards.

Our reading and analysis of secondary evaluations generally demonstrate the same movement

toward more sophisticated knowledge and skill relevant to Claim 2. In secondary science, for example, interns are judged on three relevant high leverage practices - supporting students in inquiry and application, assessing understanding and leading discussions - as well as their management of the classroom and context. Interns were evaluated on a scale from 1-4. Here too interns’ scores showed improvement over time, hovering around 1.70 (out of 4) in the fall, rising a little at the end of the fall term, and rising to around 2.5 (out of 4) by mid-spring:

Table 33. Secondary Science Interns’ Mean Evaluation Scores for Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 2 Mid-fall End of fall Mid-spring

Supporting students in inquiry and application

1.75/4 (0.45) 1.94/4 (0.42) 2.42/4 (0.55)

Assessing understanding 1.63/4 (0.50) 1.80/4 (0.52) 2.47/4 (0.49)

Leading discussion 1.68/4 (0.45) 1.87/4 (0.41) 2.37/4 (0.53)

Classroom management and context

1.69/4 (0.38) 1.89/4 (0.45) 2.37/4 (0.60)

The scale for the mean evaluation scores for standards relevent to MSU Claim 2 is 4.

In secondary social studies, several criteria in the evaluations are relevant: teachers and students

co-create the curriculum and teachers value the cultural, social, and intellectual funds that students bring to school. Secondary social studies interns could receive scores between 1 and 5. In the fall, the mean score for “Teachers and students co-create the curriculum” was 3.22 (out of 5) with a standard deviation of 0.61; at the end of fall, their mean score rose to a 3.37 (s.d. = 0.59), in mid-spring the mean was 3.89 (s.d. = 0.71), and at the end of the year, the mean score along this dimension was 4.23 (s.d. = 0.72). For the second criterion – teachers value students’ funds – the mean score in mid-fall was 3.33 (out of 5) (s.d. = 0.63), by end of fall, it had risen to 3.61 (s.d. = 0.54), mid spring it was 4.07 (s.d. = 0.71), and by the end of the year 4.28 (s.d. = 0.75).

For our World Language interns, five standards are relevant, and interns are scored on a range

from 1-5. As with the other content areas, the mean scores for each standard generally rose over the course of the year:

Table 34. World Language Interns/ Mean Evaluation Scores on Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 2 Mid-fall End of fall Mid-spring*

Knows the target language and teaches for communicative and cultural competence

3.16/5 (0.68) 3.41/5 (0.61) 3.41/5 (0.54)

Works with students as individuals

2.91/5 (0.38) 3.44/5 (.48) 3.55/5 (0.52)

Assesses student learning 2.66/5 (0.47) 3.00/5 (0.37) 3.27/5 (0.34)

Organizes a class 2.94/5 (0.60) 3.34/5 (0.54) 3.36/5 (0.39)

Uses space and technologies in a classroom

3.16/5 (0.63) 3.50/5 (0.71) 3.55/5 (0.50)

* Five evaluation forms were not located, so these means are calculated on fewer students. The scale for the mean evaluation scores for standards related to MSU Claim 2 is 5.

As noted, several evaluation forms were missing from our files for World Language interns, and in this case – especially since we have a smaller group of World Language interns than other subject areas - it may be that averages are not as stable or representative of the larger population of interns. We discuss the issue of missing evaluation forms in Lessons Learned and Next Steps.

45

In reviewing the evaluation forms of all subject areas, the trend is toward rising scores across the year, accompanied with more positive feedback on how interns have progressed (see Table 35).

Table 35. Summary Table of Mean Evaluation Scores for Interns’ on Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 2

Relevant standards from rubrics Mid-fall End of fall Mid-spring Elementary Teaches elementary subjects 3.07/5 (.0.61) 3.55/5 (0.60) 4.07/5 (0.68)

Works with students as individuals 3.30/5 (0.64) 3.73/5 (0.61) 4.17/5 (0.67)

Organizes a class 3.15/5 (0.60) 3.50/5 (0.61) 4.03/5 (0.72)

Uses an equipped school room n/a n/a 4.15/5 (0.64) Secondary English

Knows and teaches English as a subject matter

1.67/3 (.48) 2.09/3 (.44) 2.64/3 (.50)

Works with students as individuals 1.56/3 (.53) 2.08/3 (.49) 2.58/3 (.56)

Organizes a class 1.64/3 (.50) 2.08/3 (.56) 2.64/3 (.53)

Uses space and technologies in a classroom

1.55/3 (.46) 1.98/3 (.60) 2.64/3 (.53)

Secondary science

Supporting students in inquiry and application

1.75/4 (0.45) 1.96/4 (0.42) 2.42/4 (0.55)

Assessing understanding 1.63/4 (0.50) 1.80/4 (0.52) 2.47/4 (0.49)

Leading discussion 1.68/4 (0.45) 1.87/4 (0.41) 2.37/4 (0.53)

Classroom management and context 1.69/4 (0.38) 1.89/4 (0.45) 2.37/4 (0.60)

Secondary Social Studies

Teachers and students co-create the curriculum

3.22/5 (.61) 3.37/5 (.59) 3.89/5 (.71)

Teachers value the cultural, social, ands intellectual funds that students bring to school

3.33/5 (.63) 3.61/5 (.54) 4.07/5 (.71)

SS teaching is interdisciplinary and connects students to the world around them

3.28/5 (.70) 3.57/5 (.69) 4.04/5 (.71)

Secondary Mathematics

implements a curriculum of understanding and thoughtfully links mathematics and students, creating a responsive curriculum

1.21/4 (.42) 1.81/4 (.54) 2.36/4 (.62)

is thoughtful about assessment and its relationship to planning and teaching

1.29/4 (.46) 1.71/4 (.64) 2.467/4 (.58)

builds on students' interests, strengths, and cultural backgrounds

1.18/4 (.39) 1.63/4 (.56) 2.18/4 (.48)

promotes active learning and thoughtfulness

1.32/4 (.48) 1.81/4 (.65) 2.21/4 (.42)

treats all students as capable of learning

1.43/4 (.57) 1.97/4 (.66) 2.64/4 (.62)

respects and cares for all students in his/her charge.

1.54/4(.58) 2.10/4 (.47) 2.64/4 (.56)

creates a safe, caring, productive environment in the classroom

1.46/4(.58) 1.94/4 (.68) 2.32/4 (.48)

makes the classroom an inclusive community

1.21/4 (.42) 1.77/4 (.62) 2.32/4 (.61)

helps students develop personal and social responsibility

1.29/4 (.46) 1.74/4 (.63) 2.21/4 (.63)

World language

Knows the target language and teaches for communicative and cultural competence

3.16/5 (0.68) 3.41/5 (0.61) 3.41/5 (0.54)

Works with students as individuals 2.91/5 (0.38) 3.44/5 (.48) 3.55/5 (0.52)

Assesses student learning 2.66/5 (0.47) 3.00/5 (0.37) 3.27/5 (0.34)

Organizes a class 2.94/5 (0.60) 3.34/5 (0.54) 3.36/5 (0.39)

Uses space and technologies in a classroom

3.16/5 (0.63) 3.50/5 (0.71) 3.35/5 (0.50)

Special education

Teaches subject matters 3.28/5 (.73) 3.83/5 (.59) 3.54/5 (.84)

Works with students as individuals 3.58/5 (.67) 4.05/5 (.72) 3.69/5 (.73)

Organizes and manages a class as an environment for learning

3.31/5 (.66) 3.70/5 (.68) 3.51/5 (.78)

Uses an equipped school room 3.45/5 (.70) 4.03/5 (.56) 3.67/5 (.81)

The scale for the mean evaluation scores for standards relevant to MSU Claim 2 is 5.

46

Subject-Specific Studies. All of the subject-specific studies examined data related to Claim 2. Gotwals and Sharma, for example, pursued the question: To what extent do TCs’ abilities to plan coherent activity sequences using clear objectives and application and/or inquiry change over the course of their work in our TE classes and their placements?

Evidence from Table 35 indicates that TCs make large strides in their abilities to formulate

objectives that fuse disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and science practices. However, writing objectives that fuse science practices with disciplinary core ideas remains difficult for TCs. This is a skill that may need to be improved as faculty consider changes to the secondary science sequence. The largest growth in writing objectives can be seen in TCs’ ability to make clear connections to prior and future units. This growth seems to occur through the course sequence, but most drastically in their internship year. The courses in the internship year (i.e., TE 802/4) emphasize unit planning and making connections between big ideas. In addition, this growth may be due to TCs’ full year experience in their field placement and being able to learn from how their mentor teacher weaves big ideas together.

There is also substantial growth in TCs’ abilities to plan engaging activity sequences matched to objectives. TCs show large growth throughout their senior year as a result of the focus on “backwards design” from the objectives. In addition, TCs make large gains in their abilities to design coherent application and inquiry lessons. Planning is a significant part of all coursework in the secondary science method sequence and TCs appear to continually grow in this important practice.

Table 36. Secondary Science TCs’ Mean Scores for Planning TE 407 TE 408 TE 802 TE 804

Objectives Total (max score: 8)

5.0 5.3 5.6 6.8

Objectives – fusion (max score: 4)

2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8

Objectives –Connections (max score: 4)

2.4 2.6 3.0 3.9

Activity Sequence Total (max score 8) 5.4 6.5 7.3 7.2 Activity Sequence- Matched (max score: 4)

2.8 3.2 3.7 3.6

Activity Sequence- application/inquiry (max score: 4)

2.5 3.4 3.6 3.6

Note: Total scores may not be the exact sum of the sub-scores due to rounding.

The secondary science group also examined evidence concerning TCs’ abilities to elicit and interpret student responses and whether those abilities change over the course of their professional preparation. Table 36 illustrates TCs’ growth in eliciting and interpreting students’ ideas. There is actually a dip in scores between TE 407 and TE 408 in TCs’ scores for eliciting students’ ideas. This can be explained by the high scaffolding that TCs receive in TE 407 for writing clear, useful questions aligned with the standards (i.e., instructors provided some of the questions for TCs in TE 407). The main growth, then, occurs in the internship year, when TCs make large strides in writing clear and meaningful questions that elicit students’ ideas. Making students’ ideas a focus of instruction is a large part of the internship year; with assignments and class time spent analyzing students’ ideas from video and written assignments. Thus, this focus allowed TCs to design meaningful questions to elicit important ideas from students.

There is also substantial growth in TCs’ abilities to interpret students’ ideas in productive ways.

TCs were able to design and use a rubric that included an ideal response and make meaningful insights in to what students’ ideas mean. However, despite the large gains over time, this is still an area in which TCs can improve and an area in which the methods courses may wish to focus future rounds of improvement.

47

Table 37. Secondary Science TCs’ Mean Scores for Eliciting and Interpreting Student Responses TE 407 TE 408 TE 802 TE 804

Eliciting ideas Total (max score: 12)

9.6 8.7 9.3 10.6

Eliciting ideas – usefulness (max score: 4)

3.3 2.8 3.0 3.6

Eliciting ideas – objectives (max score: 4)

3.1 2.8 3.1 3.6

Eliciting ideas – clarity (max score: 4) 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.4

Interpretation Total (max score: 8)

5.3 6.4 6.0 6.3

Interpretation -Ideal (max score: 4)

2.9 3.3 3.1 3.4

Interpretation - Insight (max score: 4)

2.4 3.2 3.0 3.0

Note: Total scores may not be the exact sum of the sub-scores due to rounding.

Using the EPDs, Gotwals and Sharma also examined the overall quality of the TCs’ instruction. Specifically, they asked: To what extent do mentors and field instructors report that TCs meet the TEAC quality principles? Table 37 indicates that there is substantial evidence that TCs are meeting TEAC quality principles in their internship year teaching. Text about each of the TEAC quality principles was mentioned in almost all field instructor and mentor teacher EPDs, with clear examples of high quality teaching practices. The lowest frequency mention is use of technology. While, some interns may not have used technology in their teaching and this is reflected in the low frequency, it may also be the case that the field instructors and mentors just failed to mention an intern’s use of technology. Regardless, incorporating technology in meaningful ways into science lessons may be an area in which the secondary science methods courses need to focus in the future.

Table 38. Frequencies and Examples from Secondary Science Interns’ EPDs

TEAC Quality Principle

Frequency Mentioned in EPD (N=38)

Example Excerpts from Mentor and Field Instructor EPDs

Evidence of Pedagogical knowledge: Planning

38 FI: His plans reflected his knowledge of students’ ability levels while maintaining high rigor. Teaching activities were linked to unit plan goals and were appropriate for the students’ abilities and interests. [Name] carefully planned each lesson. Mentor: [Name’s] lesson plans were well reasoned and comprehensive. Activities for students were very creative and engaging for students, and [Name] crafted those activities to be reflective of the content being taught and accessible to students at all levels

Evidence of caring and effective teaching

38 FI: [Name] demonstrated an exceptional ability to relate to his students in a caring and concerned manner and exhibiting a deep respect for his students that they reciprocated. [Name] also utilized many different teaching strategies and varied the lessons to accommodate different learning styles. Mentor: Throughout his internship, working with students has been an area of strength for [Name]. He works to create a learning community where all students participate and are interested in science

Evidence of Multicultural perspective

35 FI: I have observed [Name] leverage the funds of knowledge that students bring with them into the classroom by the use of discussion strategies that help students share their ideas with not only him as the teacher, but also with each other as students. Mentor: [Name] had the opportunity to work with many special needs students throughout the school year. [Name] has also had them opportunity to work within the coaching model that services our special needs population. [Name] experienced working with other professionals to meet the accommodations required for our diverse learners.

Evidence of technology use

28 FI: [Name] also used a variety of technological strategies such as the Elmo document camera both for note-taking and for students to display work, group PowerPoints for review sessions, review Jeopardy games, and the use of a classroom website with assignments, notes, and videos from class. Mentor: [Name] has integrated technology to enhance student learning including laboratory simulations, review games, on-line grading system and district EdLine resources.

48

Overall, Gotwals and Sharma argue that the evidence suggests that the secondary science

methods course sequence is preparing highly qualified beginning teachers who can translate their knowledge from the university to their teaching in the field. TCs seem to come to the program with high content knowledge. This content knowledge is enhanced throughout the program with greater recognition of science practices and enhanced coherence across the year. They also made great strides in writing objectives that fuse disciplinary core ideas with science practices, as well as in writing lesson sequences that are matched to these objectives and that engage students in important inquiry and application experiences. TCs learn how to work with students’ ideas throughout the course sequence and can elicit more student ideas and have practices for working with these ideas by the end of their internship. Finally, all of this coursework seems to translate into quality teaching in the field, as witnessed by the written reports of field instructors and mentor teachers. The secondary mathematics team examined evidence related to MSU Claim 2 as well. In particular, they were interested in their mathematics-specific claims that graduates could:

Plan effective instruction: Develop plans for instructional activities utilizing tasks that are appropriately sequenced and at an appropriate level of cognitive demand to achieve ambitious goals for students’ learning. (TEAC Quality Principle #1.2)

Implement effective instruction: Implement effective teaching at lesson and unit levels using the cycle "plan, teach, assess learning, reflect on and evaluate the lesson," in ways consistent with professional standards and research on mathematics learning. (TEAC Quality Principle #1.3)

To examine these claims, the team analyzed lesson plans completed by one cohort of students in

their senior-year coursework (TE 407 and 408) and their intern year coursework (TE 802 and 804). The lesson plans prepared during these courses assess the quality of prospective teachers’ planning in preparation for teaching mathematics. Specifically, the team collected evidence of secondary mathematics TCs’ skill in planning lessons at four time points from fall 2011to spring 2013. This evidence came from class assignments:

In TE 407, students completed a plan, teach, and reflect (PTR) assignment in their field placement.

In TE 408, half of the students completed PTR in their field placement, while half completed lesson planning as part of a mentor-guided lesson study assignment.

In both TE 802 and 804, all students completed lesson planning as part of a mentor-guided lesson study assignment.

The lesson plan format and requirements were the same across all of these assignments. TCs’

lesson plans were assessed in three areas: 1) mathematical goal and building on prior knowledge; 2) task selection, materials, and launch; and 3) anticipated student thinking/questions. The rubrics by which these areas were scored are available in the supplements to Appendix F: each dimension was scored between 0-2. Lesson plans were graded at the time the assignment was due in each course, by the course instructor. The lesson plans were independently scored in June 2013 by a graduate research assistant (see Table 38; instructor and the graduate student established inter-rater reliability, which is reflected in the scores noted in the table).

49

Table 39. Secondary Mathematics TCs’ Average Scores on “Mathematical Goals and Building on Prior Knowledge” Across Time

TE 407 TE 408 TE 802 TE 804

Mathematical goals and building on prior knowledge average 1.46

1.43

1.74 1.66

Task selection, materials, and launch average 1.61

1.57

1.84 1.66

Anticipated student thinking over time average 2.11

2.39

2.39 2.09

In sum, the lesson plans indicated that, by the end of their time in the program, secondary mathematics TCs were able to plan short (one- and two-day) lessons. The researchers’ qualitative analysis of TCs’ lesson plans indicated growth at least through the first half of their internship year in all three of the major areas of assessment (that is, their TE 802 scores were higher than their TE 407 scores). Further, for both “Mathematical Goals and Building on Prior Knowledge” and “Task Selection, Materials, and Launch,” TCs’ scores were higher at the end of the program than at the beginning. In particular, with respect to building on prior knowledge, TCs’ initial lesson plans, from TE 407, tended to have very little information on students’ prior knowledge outside of filling in the portion of the lesson plan template that asks for the prior lesson topic. Later in the program, however, they were much more likely to include things like questions they planned to ask their students in order to prompt recall of prior knowledge and to help them connect it to whatever new information they are learning. Further, some TCs added significant detail to their lesson plans by including in their Lesson Objectives section an outline indicating “The Ideal (Students will know/be able to…),” “The Actual (Students [already] know how to…),” and “The Gap (Students will need to…).” In this way, these prospective teachers made it very clear that they understood the connections between students’ prior knowledge and the lesson at hand.

The secondary mathematics team also found evidence that TCs developed in their ability to plan tasks that are of high cognitive demand and that provide students with the opportunity for discovery in their learning of mathematics. Prospective teachers’ early lesson plans often focused on tasks oriented around procedural knowledge, with the bulk of many of the plans being worksheets to practice how to do a task or even, in some cases, practice-based test review. These tasks tended to center on procedural knowledge, with new conceptual information being presented directly to students, usually in the Introduction or early “Explore” phase of the lesson. Even those TCs who included tasks of higher cognitive demand were less likely to receive a high score in this area because they tended to describe these tasks quite vaguely, possibly due to their relative inexperience with writing detailed lessons. Prospective teachers’ later lesson plans, though, were much more likely to include inquiry-based tasks that allowed students to discover conceptual knowledge on their own by giving them the opportunity to notice patterns or otherwise rely on their own observations to develop an understanding, which was then typically solidified through reflection or discussion in the “Summarize” or later “Explore” phase of the lesson. Alternatively, some TCs still relied on worksheets in their lessons, as they used them to provide their students with extensive experience with a concept; these prospective teachers still showed growth in this area by ensuring that these worksheet-based tasks included opportunities for students to build their conceptual knowledge.

There is evidence that secondary mathematics TCs experienced significant growth in their ability to anticipate the thought processes of their students and what misconceptions they would likely hold. At the beginning of their time in the program, prospective teachers’ lesson plans were very vague when predicting what students’ may be thinking. They provided few, if any, descriptions of students’ thinking paths, and often discussed only one approach to the task at hand. They were unlikely to include misconceptions that students may have, and many of the questions they predicted students would ask were procedural. By the time they completed the program, however, TCs much more frequently included complex descriptions of the thinking paths of their students, with a number of approaches to the task represented. In these later lesson plans, they often included a number of misconceptions that students

50

may hold and conceptual questions that they may ask, although many TCs still placed a large focus on procedural questions, as well.

In sum, while the secondary mathematics team (like the secondary science team) found areas

where they wish to improve the program (see Lessons Learned), in general, they argue that the evidence suggests that TCs gradually and steadily make progress toward meeting the program’s standards with regard to MSU Claim 2.

The elementary team did a collective investigation of two questions relevant to Claim 2:

How does students’ lesson planning develop over the course of the elementary education program?

To what extent are we preparing students to work with required curriculum materials while still maintaining research-based practices?

The elementary program subject area leaders orchestrated the administration of a lesson planning task to four sections of elementary education seniors (25 seniors per subject area). Each SAL selected the specific materials that would be used for her subject area, and coordinated the development of a rubric for evaluating TCs’ responses. Reliability was established within content area (see specific reports for details), mostly through establishing interrater agreement through independently scoring some items, discussing scores and discrepancies, and continuing that cycle until agreement was reached.

In general, the subject area leaders found that seniors were strong in some areas of lesson

planning and weak in others. Their results are summarized in Table 40. Highlights include the following:

The social studies elementary group found that students struggled with the assessment task, due in large part to the lack of specificity of the directions. While students could provide a well-grounded holistic evaluation of the lesson, they struggled with evaluating it, and justifying their evaluations, along the dimensions the SAL had developed.

The elementary literacy group found that TCs demonstrated strengths in appraising the overall quality of a reading comprehension lesson plan in published curriculum materials designed for third graders. Teacher candidates demonstrated diverse pedagogical content knowledge in identifying strengths and weaknesses in the quality, rigor, and grade-level appropriateness of the lesson plan, with 64% only “beginning to meet” expectations with this task, and others “meeting” or “exceeding” expectations. A majority of teacher candidates “exceeded” or “met” expectations in their analysis of integration of technology and other subject matters in the reading comprehension lesson. A majority of teacher candidates did not meet expectations regarding appraisal of (a) how the objectives, big ideas, and key concepts were aligned within the lesson, (b) how the assessment linked to the lesson’s sequence, and (c) the timing and orchestration of the lesson itself. Given the weaker areas indicated above, these students are not fully ready to plan instruction based on published curriculum materials.

The elementary mathematics group found that all TCs were scored at or above “beginning to meet expectations.” Very few TCs exceeded expectations. “Anticipating student thinking” was the prompt that was easiest for TCs to respond to, assessment was the hardest, and “identifying key concepts and ideas” also proved difficult for the TCs.

51

Table 40. Summary of Findings from Elementary Team Investigations Subject Matter Findings – Strengths Weaknesses Conclusions

Elementary literacy

TCs demonstrated strengths in their general decision-making for planning in their responses to whether they “would you use this lesson plan in full or in part” for the Reading Street reading comprehension lesson (question 1). Eighty-two percent met the category of “beginning to meet expectations” or higher. Forty-one percent of this 82% stated that they would only use specific parts of the lesson or found that it was incomplete and/or problematic in its current form. This is promising that these teacher candidates, who have had limited opportunities to plan comprehension lessons based on published curriculum materials, demonstrated that they are at least beginning to reflect and make decisions that are beneficial to students’ literacy learning. Others either met (9%) or exceeded (32%) our expectations by indicating that they would not use the plan in its entirety and they also identified specific areas for improvement. Eighteen percent did not meet the expectation for critiquing the lesson plan as whole. The TCs demonstrated diverse pedagogical content knowledge within this task. Sixty-four percent were at least “beginning to meet” the expectation of discussing the quality, rigor, and grade-level appropriateness of a lesson plan in reading comprehension (with some fitting within the “meet” or “exceeds” category). Additionally, a majority of the teacher candidates “exceeded” or “met” expectations in their analyses of the integration of technology and other subject matter in the reading comprehension lesson. They were able to identify that the lesson lacked both of these constructs and some extended their discussion with research-based suggestions on how to improve the lesson within these constructs.

Three questions in the assessment task dealt with the lesson sequence regarding (a) how the objectives, big ideas, and key concepts were aligned within the lesson, (b) how the assessment linked to the lesson’s sequence, and (c) the timing and orchestration (“doability”) of the lesson itself. A majority of our students did not meet the expectations we set for these questions. This demonstrates that further undergraduate experiences within their teacher preparation coursework, including our literacy courses, is needed to support our students’ analyses of structuring lesson plans for a variety of subjects and linking them to applicable assessments or time constraints. Overall, scores for the assessment task as a whole showed that 59% did “not meet expectations.” This demonstrates that, given the weaker areas indicated above, these students are not fully ready to plan instruction based on published curriculum materials. Yet they do show a beginning working knowledge in several areas that are key to the planning process.

The TCs who participated in this assessment task are in a reasonably strong position as they start to analyze and work with published literacy curricula full time during their internship year. They will receive further instruction in lesson and unit planning, particularly with working with required published materials that may need modification to meet the needs of their students during their professional development courses in their fifth year. They will also receive mentoring and field instruction to further their professional development in their clinical field experiences. Even with this small sample size (n=22), the assessment task results suggest the need for opportunities to further develop and expand our students’ experiences as teacher candidates prior to the internship. The two undergraduate elementary literacy courses, TE 301 and TE 405, can be used as additional opportunities to expose our teacher candidates to required literacy curricula within course-related learning activities. Students in TE 301 (junior year) learn how theoretical concepts (e.g., phonological awareness, reading comprehension) are assessed, but more opportunities could be included for them to evaluate how the constructs are planned and taught within required literacy curricula and how recommended assessments align (or not) with instruction. Instituting a project or a series of in-class activities with required literacy curricula in TE 405 (senior year) would provide opportunities for students to learn to unpack and grasp the overall structure and content of a basal reading series, identify strengths and weaknesses within single lessons and a unit as a whole, and learn to adapt the plans to meet students’ specific learning needs. These experiences would include opportunities for the students to link their pedagogical content knowledge and strategies learned within the course and review how to use them effectively as elementary literacy teachers with a basal reading series. The assessment task itself can also be improved upon for future use with our teacher candidates. The timing of administering the assessment (final course session in late April or early May) and the layout of the task (a chart for students to complete) did not yield the elaborated responses that we were hoping for within the assessment. This can be improved in a variety of ways. The layout of the chart can be changed or further elaborated so students understand that they should provide more elaborated responses with specific examples. The timing of the task can be earlier in the semester to ensure the students are given the proper time and focus to complete the task. Some course instructors, after the assessment task was given, seemed to be confused by the purpose and organization of the task. Their feedback stated that they wanted more information about the task design and purpose as it would have allowed them to make these areas clearer to our students.

52

Elementary mathematics

The overall results of the analysis was as follows: • 0 TCs were in the lower performance range – did not meet expectations • 6 TCs were coded as beginning to meet expectations (with 3 students close to meeting expectations – scoring 13 and 14 total points) • 14 TCs were coded as meeting expectations; and • 3 students were coded as -- Exceeded Expectations Question 5 (anticipating students’ thinking) was the easiest prompt for these TE students, which is consistent with the goals and a central practice studied in TE 402.

As predicted, question 7 (assessment) was the most challenging, but surprisingly question 2 (identifying key concepts, skill, and practices) was also challenging for these TCs.

A major implication from this assessment is the importance of continuing to work with our TE students on learning to specify and state the mathematical learning goals for their math lessons and units in ways that support and guide their students’ learning but also teacher learning. Notice in Table 1 that no response was coded as exceeding expectation in this prompt, and that students who typically did not meet expectation in specifying the learning goal (scored 2 or 1) ended up in the low end of meeting expectation or did not meet expectations. Doing this work is hugely important and often underestimated for the Plan-Teach-Reflect cycle of learning to teach that is foundational to the learning-to-teach process and that serves as underlying model for all of the TE math methods course projects. An important goal for the TE elementary math ed team to improve the quality of our courses’ outcomes is to focus our attention on the goal of helping our TE students gain fluency with formulating mathematical learning goals to guide their math lesson planning, the implementation of those lessons, and to be used when reflecting on episodes of math teaching and learning – (what evidence do I have that my lesson was successful, that my students, met/not met/ exceeded my specified learning goals). This should also be a goal for our own teaching practices as math teacher educators, and the elementary team but also of the individual course instructors as well. This implication (or lesson-learned) is consistent with the ongoing reflections and conclusions the elementary math team of instructors have reached over the past years based on our self-studies and assessments of our courses. It is also aligned with current literature in the field of mathematics education on skills that are important to develop in pre-service education that will sustain teacher learning in the future, as suggested in the quote below. The 5 practices book by Smith and Stein (2011) that is used as a support text for the 402-801 sequence has a short chapter on this very important point, but this will need to be made a more central theme in the course than it has been in the past.

53

Social studies Students scored the highest on dimension 1, which was the open-ended question about the overall evaluation of the lesson plan.

Students scored much lower on the assessments than we anticipated. We believe that these low scores are due in part to our unclear expectations in the task. Often students did not elaborate on their evaluation of the lesson plan; as such, we did not have enough evidence to evaluate whether they met expectations on given dimensions. However, even when students did elaborate, many of their responses did not meet expectations. We believe that structuring the task differently to provide more open-ended responses might yield richer responses from students.

Based on our analyses of students’ assessments, we recommend several modifications for TE404 (which we are now piloting in FS 2013) 1) Provide more opportunities for students to evaluate, and make suggestions for, existing curricular materials. 2) Devote more class time/readings/peer activities to teaching explicitly about all of the dimensions: (a) quality, rigor, and appropriateness of big ideas and key concepts in the lesson (b) alignment of objective, big ideas, and key concepts with the lesson sequence (c)lesson sequence (d)consideration of the needs of diverse learners (e)integration of technology (f)integration with other subjects (g)assessment

Science The scores for the Senior Performance (2012-2013) Science Assessment ranged from a high of 3.625 to a low score of 1.75, with an average score of 2.620. The results of this assessment show that the students had a basic understanding of how to use the EPE (Experiences, Patterns, Explanations ) table in the planning of their lessons around the given standard.

Students’ understanding was not exceptional.

There is a need to include an assessment task for the actual lesson. Given that students appear to be unclear about how many experiences, patterns, and explanations to include, more specific criteria could be added for the EPE table to include the three experiences, two patterns, and one experience. Students seemed to experience difficulty with the lesson example that was given to reference. I might be helpful if students were given the performance expectation or GLCE to plan a lesson. The task could be further enhanced by asking students to explain how they would differentiate for their students in the lesson plan design.

54

Summary of Evidence for MSU Claim 2. Combining the GPAs in professional coursework, MDE Intern Exit Survey responses, MDE Supervisor responses, written and holistic scoring of the periodic evaluations of interns, and the results of several subject-specific investigations, we believe that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that our graduates are meeting expectations for MSU Claim 2. That said, our on-going review of the program (including but not limited to the subject-specific investigations) continues to point out areas where we plan to improve the program. We discuss these issues later in this IB.

MSU Claim 3. The ability to work within and across a range of community and professional contexts. Our third claim concerns TCs’ developing abilities to work across an array of contexts, both inside of the university and schools and outside of the schools in communities. Here we use grades in TE 250 (a course that includes a service learning component that requires students work in school and/or community settings), the MDE Exit Survey of Interns, and the evaluations of interns over the course of the year.

TE 250 Grades. Given the particular emphasis we place on learning about students and their

diversity, we looked particularly at the GPA for students in TE 250, the course that anchors this theme in our program at the beginning of students’ professional studies. The mean GPA in that course was 3.76 (s.d. = .31, N = 448 (transfer students can receive credit for taking a course with identical content at another institution, hence the lower number). There are no significant differences between program options.

For the WKK-WWF Fellows, we looked to their grades in both TE 822 and TE 825, courses

designed to support their developing understandings of diverse communities. In both courses, GPAs are above 3.7, with small standard deviations, suggesting that students did very well in these courses.

Table 41. WKK-WWF Fellows’ GPAs in Community-Related Coursework 2011-2012 2012-2013

TE 822 3.78 (.36) 4.00 (.00)

TE 825 3.83 (.25) 3.73 (.34)

2011-2012 the N =9 and 2012-2013 = 11.

MDE Intern Exit Surveys. In terms of the MDE exit survey for interns, two factors are relevant:

ELSMT/PSMT 5 (Reflecting on experience and a commitment to improve one’s practice) and ELSMT/PSMT 6 (participating in learning communities) (see Table 42).

Table 42. Additional Exit Survey Questions Relevant to MSU Claims 3 and 4 Survey factor Survey questions

ELSMT/PSMT 5. Systematic reflection to organize and improve teaching and develop effective relationships, including the ability to…

communicate information about students' progress to parents and others. collaborate with parents, guardians, and students to enhance student development behave ethically in the variety of situations I will face as a teacher collaborate with colleagues and other school personnel. engage in reflection on my professional practice as part of a life-long learning process

ELSMT/PSMT 6. Participation in professional, local, state, national, and global learning communities, including the ability to…

use professional development opportunities to improve my teaching seek out district resources that students need take on service roles in the teaching profession (such as curriculum committees and school improvement teams). participate in the community in which I teach use home and community resources to teach students design learning activities for students that involve community groups

Interns report generally high levels of self-efficacy in both of these factors, ranging from 89%-96%.

They generally also attribute reasonable levels of contribution of the program to their capacities, and that figure has risen over the course of the last four years (see Table 43).

55

Table 43. Interns’ Sense of Self Efficacy in Learning to Learn and Commitment/ Willingness to Work within Communities 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

ELSMT/PSMT 5. Efficacy (Organizing practice to learn from experience)

90% 94% 96% PSMT 5. Efficacy (Organizing practice to learn from experience)

96%

ELSMT/PSMT 6. Efficacy (Commitment and willingness to participate in learning communities)

89% 92% 92% PSMT 6. Efficacy (Commitment and willingness to participate in learning communities)

90%

Teacher preparation program contribution to ability to collaborate with other teachers, use technology, take up range of responsibilities

75% 82% 80% Teacher preparation program contribution to ability to collaborate with other teachers, use technology, take up range of responsibilities

85%

Their supervisors agree, again reporting even higher levels of confidence in the interns than the

interns do themselves (see Table 44).

Table 44. Supervisors’ Evaluations of Interns Ability to Work Across Varied Communities 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

Q15-School and District Community 96% 98% 95% 95%

Q16-Participating in Extended Learning Communities 95% 94% 93% 93%

TC Evaluations. We also read all of the intern evaluations for the year with an eye toward evidence for this claim. Here too we looked to specific standards in the evaluation rubrics and at the comments offered by mentor teachers and field instructors. For secondary science interns, for example, evidence for this claim in the evaluation in the area of “Participating in School and Professional Communities.” Interns are assessed for the following:

Learning from others and participating in professional school communities

Typically involved with MSU and school communities

Reflectively uses suggestions to improve practice, contributes to school and MSU communities

Interacting with guardians and the school community

Guards students’ welfare

Recognizes diverse family structures

Creates learning environments that recognize diversity in family structures

Engages parents and guardians

Uses the community in teaching

Communicates with the community

Advocates for children

Interns are judged in these categories to be novice, beginning teacher, accomplished, or expert. Sample typical comments look like the following:

56

Table 45. Sample Comments about Secondary Science TCs’ competencies Relevant to MSU Claim 3 Final Fall Midterm Spring EPD

Learning from others and participating in professional school communities

Typically involved with MSU and school communities

Reflectively uses suggestions to improve practice, contributes to school and MSU communities

K has proven to be an excellent communicator and colleague. . . He is willing to share his concerns and reflections in a professional, thoughtful manner, He has clearly shown that he thinks very carefully

R has very good attendance and arrives to school early daily.

Interacting with guardians and the school community.

Guards students’ welfare

Recognizes diverse family structures

Creates learning environments that recognize diversity in family structures

Engages parents and guardians

Uses the community in teaching

Communicates with the community

Advocates for children

R helped her CT inform parents of students who need extra help and have attendance issues.

R tutors after school. She had had many discussions with students concerning their grades and future university requirements. One young man she spoke with started coming for help after school and was able to increase his grade from failing to a B.

R works with the parental group within the school to communicate with parents. This has helped her see the importance of family relationships and shown her students that she cares about their overall quality of education.

When we examined all of the evaluations for relevant standards and scores across all content

areas (see Table 46), we found evidence of steady improvement across the year (note that elementary TCs are not judged on the relevant standards in the fall as MTs and FIs focus on standards focused on instruction, responding to students, and learning from experience):

Table 46. Interns’ Mean /3 for Standards Relevant to MSU Claim 3 Relevant standards Fall mid term Fall end of term Spring midterm Spring end of

term/Final (optional)

Elementary Joins a faculty and school

4.32/5 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = .69

Engages parents and community

3.92/5 (meets expectations) s.d. = .82

Special education

Joins a faculty and school

4.02/5 (achieved) s.d. = .73

4.33/5 (achieved) s.d. = .66

4.07/5 (achieved) s.d. = .80

Engages parents and community

3.07/5 (often) s.d. = .80

3.41/5 (often) s.d. = .62

3.17/5 (often) s.d. = .83

Secondary English

Joins a faculty and school

1.80 (beginning, hi) s.d. = .54

2.10/3 (expanding) s.d. = .69

2.48/3 (expanding) s.d. = .52

2.76/3 (expanding, hi) s.d. = .37

Engages parents and community

1.42/3 (beginning) s.d. = .43

1.91/3 (beginning, hi) s.d. = .69

2.40/3 (expanding) s.d. = .54

2.78/3 (expanding, hi) s.d. = .34

Secondary math

Works well as a teacher in a school community

1.6/4 (novice) s.d. = .52

1.83/4 (novice, hi) s.d.= .75

2.89/4 (beginner, hi) s.d. = .60

Secondary social studies

Teachers and students are citizens

3.49/5 (beginner) s.d. = .77

4.38/5 beginner, hi) s.d. =

4.24/5 (beginner, hi) s.d. = .74

4.39/5 (beginner, hi) s.d. = .78

Secondary science

Participating in schools and professional

1.81/4 (novice, hi) s.d. = .43

1.94/4 (novice, hi) s.d. = .40

2.4/4 (beginner) s.d. = .49

57

communities

Secondary world languages

Joins a faculty and school

3.06/4 (includes many major elements of the standards) s.d. = .68

3.59/4 (includes many major elements of the standards) s.d. = .82

3.35/4 (includes many major elements of the standards) s.d. = .53

Engages parents and community

2.53/4 (includes some of the major elements of the standards) s.d. = .62

3.13/4 (includes many major elements of the standards) s.d. = .50

3.35/4 (includes many major elements of the standards) s.d. = .47

Music Interpersonal and relationship skills

Fall 4.9/5 (good, hi; excellent, lo) s.d. = .2

Spring 4.91/5 (good, hi; excellent, lo) s.d. = .24

Personal and professional qualities

Fall 4.92/5 (good, hi; excellent, lo) s.d. = .11

Spring 4.83/5 (good, hi; excellent, lo) s.d. = .25

Art Joins a faculty and school

4.86/7 (meets expectations) s.d. = .75

5.52/7 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = .88

5.54/7 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = .53

6.10/7(exceeds expectations, lo) s.d. = .82

Engages parents and community

4.68/7 (meets expectations) s.d. = .77

5.52/7 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = .88

5.52/7 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = .62

5.94/7(exceeds expectations, lo) s.d. = 1.22

Agriculture Professional roles and responsibilities

4/7 (beginner) s.d. = 0

4.80/7 (beginner, hi) s.d. = .27

Summary of Evidence in MSU Claim 3. In sum, across their grades in relevant professional

courses, their self evaluations and those of their supervisors, and the evaluations conducted across the year, the evidence suggests that interns are increasing their capacity to work across diverse communities and that they are meeting the program’s standards.

MSU Claim 4. Disposition and skills to critically reflect on and learn from their practice. The capacity and inclination to critically reflect on one’s own experience is assessed in every teacher preparation course offered. Self awareness is crucial to teaching, and learning from experience is – we believe – perhaps the most important trait for effective teaching.

GPAs in Professional Coursework. In discussion with the program leadership and SALs, it was agreed that TCs could not pass their professional courses, especially the senior year methods courses and the internship courses without demonstrating the ability to reflect and learn from experience. Thus we examined TCs’ grades in professional coursework for evidence relevant to this claim.

As already presented in Tables 25, 26, and 28, TCs’ grades in professional coursework are high, demonstrating that they have met the program’s standards concerning their ability to learn from experience. Here, too, it bears repeating that students who do not demonstrate the ability to learn from experience or to be reflective and self critical are often counseled out of the program, both before they enter the internship or during the internship year.

MDE Intern Exit Survey. Given the nature of the items that comprise factors ELSMT/PSMT 5 and 6 (discussed in Claim 3), they are equally relevant to Claim 4 (see Tables 42 and 43), and also provide evidence that TCs report generally high levels of self-efficacy in both of these factors, ranging

58

from 89%-96%. They generally also attribute reasonable levels of contribution of the program to their capacities, and that figure has risen over the course of the last four years. Recall also the high levels of confidence that the supervisors have in TCs’ abilities in these areas as well.

Interns’ Evaluations. Finally, we also considered the relevant evidence in the intern evaluations

documented across the year. Here too we examined each rubric for relevant standards, and examined patterns across the evaluations for the year. In every area, we see that interns received increasingly higher evaluations for their ability to analyze teaching (secondary science), see teaching as a profession of learning (secondary social studies), demonstrate their abilities as reflective learners (art, world language, secondary English), demonstrate their openness to constructive feedback and work productively with their MTs and FIs (secondary mathematics), and learn from experience (elementary, special education). Mean scores in each domain increased over the course of the year (see Table 46).

We note here again that the high scores in these areas are intimately related to program

expectations. TCs who cannot demonstrate the ability to learn from experience and accept constructive criticism are dropped from the program.

Table 47. TC Evaluations on Standards Relevant to Learning from Experience Fall mid term Fall end of term Spring mid term Spring end of

year (optional)

Secondary Science

HP 5: Analyzing and revising teaching

1.92/4 (hi novice) s.d. = .55

2.02/4 (low beginning teacher, BT) s.d. = .55

2.51/4 (BT) s.d. = .42

Secondary social studies

Teaching is a learning program

3.3/5 (BT) s.d. = .73

3.44/5(BT) s.d. = .75

3.9/5 (BT) s.d. = .72

4.25/5 (hi BT) s.d. = .77

Art Teacher as professional and reflective learner

4.89/8 (meets expectations) s.d. = .89

5.47/8 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = 1.16

5.59 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = .82

6.00 (exceeds expectations, lo) s.d. = .77

Secondary math

is open to alternatives and constructive feedback

1.9/4 (Novice, hi) s.d. = .32

2.67/4 (beginning, hi) s.d. = .52

2.94/4 (beginning, hi) s.d. = .63

Works productively with field instructor, mentor, and seminar instructor

2.5/4 (beginning) s.d. = .53

2.67 (beginning, hi) s.d. = .52

¾ (accomplished) s.d. = .71

reflects on his or her experience and seeks opportunities for continued learning

1.89/4 (novice, hi) s.d. = ..33

2.5 (beginning) s.d. = .55

3.11/4 (accomplished) s.d. = .60

World language

Engages profession of teaching as reflective learner

3.47/4 (included many elements of the standards) s.d. = .85

3.84/4 (included many elements of the standards, hi) s.d. = .93

3.9/4 (included many elements of the standards, hi) s.d. = .57

Special education

Teaches deliberatively and learns from experience

3.75 (often, hi) s.d. = .67

4.29 (achieves) s.d. = .58

3.98 (often hi/achieves lo) s.d. = .68

Secondary English

Engages with teaching as reflective learner

1.85/3 (beginning, hi) s.d. = .49

2.14/3 (expanding) s.d. = .57

2.64/3 (expanding) s.d. = .44

2.90/3 (expanding, hi) s.d. = .25

Elementary Teaches deliberately and learns from experience

3.28/5 (meets expectations) s.d. = .79

3.64/5 (meets expectations) s.d. = .86

4.17 (meets expectations, hi) s.d. = .86

Agriculture Professional roles and responsibilities

4/7 (beginning) s.d. = 0

4.80/7 (beginning, hi) s.d. = .27

Music Personal and professional qualities

Fall: 4.92/5 s.d. = .11

Spring: 4.83/5 s.d. = .25

59

In sum, across professional coursework, survey responses concerning interns’ self efficacy, and evaluations conducted across the year, the preponderance of evidence suggests that TCs are achieving program expectations in terms of Claim 4 and are learning to be teachers who take responsibility for learning from experience. Cross Cutting Themes TEAC also highlights the centrality of learning how to learn, multicultural perspectives and understanding, and technology (both as tools for scholarship and for the profession of teaching) as important goals of teacher preparation programs. As noted in Table 10, we see the cross cutting theme of learning how to learn as the heart of Claim 4. We also see the cross cutting theme of multicultural perspectives and understanding (defined by TEAC as an understanding of “confirmed scholarship on gender, race, individual differences, social class, and ethnic and cultural perspectives”16) as central to Claim 2, which emphasizes both TCs’ knowledge of relevant scholarship and their capacities use that knowledge to create a culturally responsive practice. As we have already presented evidence concerning both of these themes, we do not repeat that evidence here. We also understand technology as central to both a high quality liberal education more generally and to one’s professional work as a teacher. Our teacher preparation program is organized around two principles relevant to a discussion of technology: (1) bridging the theory-practice divide is enabled by coursework that weaves field experiences into what is being taught (that is, we strive to embed learning technology in university and K-12 classroom experiences); and (2) technology is a tool to enhance learning, the assessment of learning, and the dissemination of knowledge (that is, we teach technology in the context of learning to teach the content of schools and to support teacher professionalism, not as a separate subject). Thus, technology is infused in all professional courses in intentional and strategic ways. All professional courses involve using an electronic course management system (previously ANGEL, currently Desire2Learn); students regularly are required to participate in online discussion forums and they are clustered into groups on social networking sites for communication during the internship. Prospective teachers post videos of their teaching on Teacher.Tube or other similar sites or platforms, learn to develop and use PowerPoint presentations and become acquainted with Web 2.0 technologies (such as those offered for free through Google that facilitate learning and communication). These experiences enhance TCs’ capacity to both teach their students and participate in professional communities of educators. While our students typically demonstrate high comfort and literacy with a range of technologies, they know much less about subject-specific and meaningful ways to use technology to encourage learning. Because our program is organized around content knowledge, we especially emphasize the use of subject-specific technologies in learning to teach. To avoid redundancy and to build on previous learning, faculty regularly discuss how they weave technology into their classes in subject-relevant ways, as well as making sure that prospective teachers are exposed to the most recent technologies and that they are consistently expected to use technology – both as learners and as teachers – so that it becomes a tool they regularly turn to support their own – and their students’ – learning.

This “digital literacy” (or sometimes called "new literacy”) is not specific to teaching; it is a 21st century skill required of everyone, and it entails being proficient in basic computer and digital concepts/skills in order to use digital technology in everyday life. It is, we believe, fundamental to being a citizen of today’s world. And with that, there is an obligation to understand the ethics and etiquette of using the Internet and digital tools. Prospective teachers must themselves learn to be good digital citizens, and they must learn to help their future students take on those responsibilities as well.

But as teacher educators, we need to do more than prepare our students to be digitally literate. We must help them learn to enable that literacy in their own future students. In our program, we both

16 See http://www.teac.org/accreditation/goals-principles/quality-principles-for-teacher-education-programs/.

60

require TCs to use technologies as tools in their learning, reading, and writing and to acquire relevant professional knowledge about technologies as tools for one’s teaching practice, including subject-specific technologies.

At the instigation of State Superintendent of Schools Mike Flanagan and the Michigan Department of Education, we collected information on the role of technology in our preparation program, both in terms of learning opportunities for TCs and in terms of how faculty use and thus model technology use for their students [these reports will be available for auditors if they wish to review them]. These investigations documented the ubiquitous use of technology in our professional program. Thus, as evidence for this cross cutting claim, we use students’ GPA in program courses, the relevant standards in the intern evaluations, and interns’ self assessment as reported on the MDE Intern Exit Survey.

GPAs. It is impossible for TCs’ to successfully complete required course work in any

professional course without demonstrating the ability to use technologies for their own scholarly work. In addition, in every professional course in the senior and internship years (these are the methods courses and professional seminars in which TCs learn about general professional issues (e.g., ethical behavior, bullying (including cyberbullying), etc.), at least one major assignment involves demonstrating knowledge and skill with respect to relevant technological tools. TCs’ grades in these professional courses are high (see Tables 25, 26, and 28), providing evidence that they have met program standards for digital literacy and the professional use of technological tools.

MDE Intern Exit Survey. As reported earlier, the MDE survey includes questions designed to measure interns’ self efficacy for using technology to maximize student learning (ELSMT/PSMT 7). Items that were used to construct this factor included prompts concerning teachers’ ability to integrate technology into their classroom instruction, teachers’ ability to help their students use technology to develop conceptual understanding, and teachers’ ability to use technological tools to support their own professional development (see Table 29 for full list).

Exiting interns for the past four years have reported high levels of self efficacy in this domain,

ranging from 89 to 94 percent (see Table 30). Their supervisors report similarly high levels of confidence in interns’ technological knowledge and skill, with levels reported between 91-94% (see Table 31).

Intern evaluations. Another source of evidence regarding TCs’ knowledge and skill with

technology includes the written reports and holistic scores on periodic evaluations across the internship year (see Table 34). In general, mean evaluation scores for using technology are high by the end of the year: the mean for elementary interns in mid spring was 4.09/5, for secondary World language 3.5/4, for special education, 3.67/5, for secondary English, 2.63/3.

In other domains, technology use and mastery is not scored separately, as it is seen as integral to

making sound instruction decisions supporting inquiry, assessing (formatively and summatively) students’ understanding, and promoting active learning. For example, typical comments on TCs’ instruction are: “Ted continues to bring technology into the lesson whenever possible” (December) . . . .”Ted moves comfortably between using a white board or a computer. He discovers the resources that will best assist his students in their learning, and he uses all the technology available to drive his instruction” (March). In this way, FIs and MTs often weave technology into commentary that is written more generally about instruction.

Summary of Evidence for MSU Claim 4. Technology is a ubiquitous part of our world – as

citizens, consumers, learners, and teachers. Similarly, technology is ubiquitous in our teacher preparation program, both in courses and in field experiences. The preponderance of evidence – including GPAs for professional coursework, interns’ self reported self efficacy in the use of technology for teaching and their own learning, and periodic evaluations of TCs over the course of the program’s internship – suggests that TCs are meeting program expectations for mastery of this cross cutting theme.

61

Part V. Discussion and Plan

Our learning during the year that is the focus of this IB took place in a stream of on-going programmatic reflection and learning. We briefly summarize that larger context before summarizing what we learned from this IB and our intentions for next steps.

Programmatic Changes Since the Last Accreditation Course Number Changes. While most of what we discuss here is substantive, MSU’s program has also been engaged in a great deal of “housekeeping,” the changes that are needed within bureaucracies to keep the current program aligned with its representation in written materials, on line, in course catalogues and the like. One major change in this area was to set into motion the curriculum processes necessary to change some course numbers. The elementary 400-level methods courses changed numbers, names, and structures. The changes were approved in Spring 2012 and fully implemented in fall of 2013. Instead of two large methods courses (TE 401 and 402), we now have four separate methods courses (TE 403-406), one for each of the four major content areas.

This change reflects the current structure and practices of the program, in which each of the content areas has essentially been teaching a separate methods class anyway, even under the earlier structure. The change also provides transcript visibility for these courses, which now more accurately "name" the content of the courses (e.g., TE 406, Teaching of Mathematics to Diverse Learners - Elementary). This transcript helps the increasing number of graduates who seek certification across state lines given the downturn in available teaching positions in Michigan.

Elementary Mathematics Support Program. As we raised expectations for elementary TCs in terms of their understanding of mathematics, we anticipated that the new requirement for elementary education students to achieve a 2.0 in MTH 201 and MTH 202 before progressing to TE 406 would be a struggle for some students. As a program, we wanted to respond in a way that maintained the expectation for increased rigor reflected in the new requirement, while also supporting those students who might struggle in the mathematics courses for a variety of reasons. After extensive discussions within TPC, as well as with Susan Dalebout and the TE administration, we piloted an Elementary Math Support program for those who are struggling in MTH 201 and 202. The program was first implemented in Summer 2012 and then in Spring 2013. We are planning to implement it again in Spring 2014. To date, the program has been voluntary and the numbers of participants have been low (fewer than 10 students per session), but those who have participated have evaluated the experience positively. We are trying a number of new strategies this semester, including closer coordination with the Mathematics Department, to increase participation in Spring 2014.

Secondary Clinical Experiences. The secondary SALs have been working to expand the “microteaching” model from the TE 407 (fall) lab portion of the class. Microteaching (teaching lessons to peers who role-play K-12 students) has certain advantages for teacher candidates at the pre-internship stage, and as part of a methods class. Microteaching can provide a safe context for teacher candidates to try out instructional strategies that challenge or expand their notions of good teaching, without also encumbering them with the burden of managing student behavior. Peers who role play the K-12 students can be asked to portray a perfectly behaved set of students, or, later, a set that present with particular management challenges that can be planned for and addressed. Peers can also role play students with particular ideas (correct or incorrect) or particular learning challenges.

However, the authenticity of the experience for the “teacher” in such settings relies considerably

on the skill with which his/her peers can play the role of students. Over the past few years, faculty and other instructors in the TE 407/8 course sequence have sought out other “simplified” teaching contexts in which seniors can practice teaching, prior to and sometimes during the early stages of the field component of that course in local K-12 schools. Some examples include:

Math teacher candidates teaching (with supervision from TE) in MTH 100E, a support class for MSU students taking MTH 103 (College Algebra).

English teacher candidates assisting in Pre-College Writing, a remedial class for MSU students

62

who are struggling writers, including English language learners.

Science teacher candidates teaching lessons to K-12 students enrolled in MSU’s Upward Bound program.

Social studies candidates teaching components of lessons to students at a local middle school, under joint supervision from TE and a teacher at that school.

A common thread in these experiences is that faculty and course instructors have pursued

contexts for teacher candidates to teach in that provide a more authentic set of learners than can be provided by their role-playing peers, but in contexts that likely contain fewer management difficulties, curricular/pacing constraints and other logistical obstacles than K-12 classrooms.

Field Instructor Support. Building instructor capacity is a central commitment of our program. This ranges from helping all instructors develop knowledge and skill to productively integrate aspects of special education, cultural responsiveness, teaching English language learners, technology, assessment, and globalization into their courses. For the last several years, we have also worked on developing a considerable collection of resources for FIs: about the program itself, about field instruction, and about supporting mentoring. Locating those resources as needed and in a timely fashion has presented a recurring problem for FIs, especially given their varied roles (as doctoral students, tenure stream faculty, and fixed term faculty) and geographic locations (Chicago, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing), the local differences in the program’s implementation (elementary vs. secondary, for example, or between secondary subject areas) and the rate of turnover from year to year.

Three recent initiatives have attempted to address this concern:

The development of wikispaces for field instruction (two were developed, one for elementary and one for secondary). Wikispaces seemed promising as tools to address the geographic spread of field instructors and the diffuse-ness of resources, while marshaling the wisdom and time of a large set of contributors. However, by adding yet another resource, we found that we may have only further contributed to the complexity for a new field instructor. Further, problems with web-management practices (such as keeping up to date with the latest version of a policy, form or other resource) have quickly curtailed the usefulness of these wikispaces.

The introduction of a small set of team-wide orientations to field instruction. These grew from a set of program-specific meetings (usually ½ day) for orienting field instructors in various parts of the program. They were initially attempts to add some efficiency in the training of field instructors around some logistical practices, such as submitting travel reports, with a secondary goal of pointing them toward some resources and providing an opportunity for new field instructors across the program to network with the returning corps. Over the past three years, these have expanded to 1.5 days of required “orientation” for all field instructors, plus another optional 2-hour session for new field instructors. They have provided an opportunity to (1) review some policies for relevance and appropriate application in the field; (2) introduce the notion of reliability to field instructors as a thing to be pursued, and begin to seek some reliability in the implementation of such policies as well as in the substantive work of observing and evaluating interns and most recently; (3) introduce some uniform practices in the collection and handling of data about interns’ work that increase efficiency and accuracy of the data management system (for now, mostly human clerical support managing a shared server-based drive).

Coming this fall, a reconceptualization of the web sites for the teams under the umbrella of a web site for the TP program. Web sites, along with some new D2L (Desire2Learn) communities, create a set of tools for organizing and maintaining the collective wisdom of the program that can be made accessible to a variety of stakeholders (interns, field instructors, mentors, other MSU faculty and staff), as suits their roles and needs. New standards for maintaining accurate records of policies, forms and other resources, along with dedicated human-power for maintaining and sharing the content of such resources, may provide field instructors, particularly new ones, better access to information they can use to do their jobs more efficiently and more effectively.

63

Lessons Learned from this IB

As we have engaged in ongoing self-study and improvement, we continue to have confidence in the strengths of our program in many areas, including our claims related to subject matter, equitable and inclusive teaching practices, and critical reflection. In general, we have confidence that the evidence used to support our programmatic claims is sound and that – drawing across different traditions of evidence and evidence from different perspectives – the claims are triangulated.

However, a key lesson learned through this process is that, while there are many things that we

do well as a program, our systems and processes for documenting this success – and identifying areas for improvement – continue to be, in and of themselves, an area for improvement. In the remainder of this section, we detail three ways in which our systems of claims and evidence might continue to be improved.

Training and Reliability for Assessments and Evaluations. Our system of claims and evidence is built on assessments and evaluations that are used throughout the program, often in the context of coursework and/or field experiences. In a large program such as ours, with multiple sections of many courses and small instructor-student ratios, an ongoing challenge is the consistent and reliable enactment and reporting of these assessments and evaluations. For coursework, subject area leaders convene instructor groups on a regular basis to examine and assess samples of student work and develop greater consistency and reliability across the instructors. For field-based assessments, we have put in place a number of structures to address these issues, including tracking sheets that are used by the secretaries to have real-time information about which evaluations have been completed, as well as a move to on-line evaluation forms that lead to greater consistency in the kinds of information that are reported on the evaluations. We have also put in place much more extensive and structured supports for people who are using the evaluations (primarily field instructors), including further structuring and field testing observation protocols for use by field instructors. We are going to continue that work by developing videos of intern instruction that can be used specifically for field instructor training, and provide iPads for all field instructors.

Claims, Goals, and Aspirations. Through this process, we have also learned that some of our program claims might more accurately be termed aspirations in that, while they are important to us programmatically, they are not necessarily claims for which we might provide evidence for 100% of our graduates. This applies to the claim about our students having “the capacity to become leaders in their field.” This is a claim that cannot be reliably measured or documented until our graduates have been teaching for several years. At the same time, while we are committed to providing opportunities for our students to become leaders, we also recognize that leadership takes many forms and that many of our graduates who will be excellent teachers might only be leaders within their own classrooms. In a similar way, the claim related to the range of contexts in which students are placed for field experiences, needs to be nuanced by a recognition that some students, particularly those in our cohort programs, elect to become specialists in specific contexts and therefore may not experience a range of contexts along certain dimensions, such as the urban character of those classrooms in the case of our UCP students.

Systems for Continuous Improvement and Accreditation. Continuing with the level of self-study documented in this report on a more or less continuous basis (and, given the new reporting requirements of the Michigan Department of Education, as well as CAEP, this seems to be a reality) requires us to develop an infrastructure and systems that allow us to do this work without creating ever-increasing demands on faculty who are often stretched beyond capacity. We need to be able to document and understand the effects of program and course improvement in which we are continuously engaged. As a program, we feel we can be smarter and more efficient about collecting evidence, making sense of it, and using it to improve our programs, and we need to be smarter and more efficient about documenting all of those processes. We are making several efforts in this area, including the development of databases for tracking and managing various kinds of information and collections of queries for these databases that will allow us to better understand the relationships among the experiences in which our students engage and the outcomes of those experiences. This information will provide the content for ongoing meetings of different slices of the program – including subject area leaders, coordinators, instructors, and program

64

leaders. On-going Work on Improving Methods Courses. In addition to these more program-wide lessons,

the SALs also all took away lessons for their work on specific courses. These are detailed in each separate report (see Appendix E). For example, the secondary mathematics team concluded that:

Secondary mathematics prospective teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) in geometry is relatively weak compared to their MKT in algebra. TCs need more opportunities to develop MKT for geometry in TE 407 and 408.

Interns improve throughout the internship year on two components of lesson planning: Mathematical Goals and Building on Prior Knowledge as well as Task Selection, Materials, and Launch. However, growth in lesson planning overall does not remain steady throughout the internship year. Particularly after the spring mid-semester evaluation, ratings of interns' lesson planning drop relative to the growth seen from the fall mid-semester and final evaluations.

93% of interns showed consistent growth in their performance across Area 2 (Working With Students) and Area 3 (Creating a Classroom Learning Community) during the internship year. Interns were strongest in Area 2 Indicator 3 (The intern treats all students as capable of learning) and Indicator 4 (The intern respects and cares for all students in his/her charge). However, interns were weakest at discovering and making use of students' prior knowledge, strengths and cultural backgrounds when enacting lessons.

Based on these observations, the instructors have concluded that they need to:

Integrate geometry and algebra content into both senior methods courses, instead of focusing on one topic area each semester. In addition, more opportunities to incorporate data analysis and statistics content would strengthen their preparation to teach for quantitative literacy and address shortcomings in their Bachelor's degree program in those areas.

TE 802 and 804 coursework, as well as field instruction, should incorporate more opportunities to review lesson planning practices in the second half of the internship year. Interns need continued guidance in lesson planning to help them manage the challenges of taking on nearly a full load of classes (such as during the spring lead teach period) while continuing the lesson planning practices they have learned since their senior year methods coursework.

More content related to building from students' prior knowledge, strengths, and cultural backgrounds should be infused throughout the senior and intern year methods coursework. Their current and next steps to address these needs will include:

The microteaching lab for secondary mathematics TE 407 now involves teaching a section of MTH 100E (a face-to-face course to support students in successfully passing MTH 1825, a non-credit remedial mathematics course). Over 90% of students in the MTH 100E course taught by senior year TCs (with guidance from teacher education program faculty and graduate students) identify as African American. This lab experience provides important opportunities to learn, early in the methods sequence, how to build on students' prior knowledge and enact strategies for understanding cultural backgrounds of students different from one's own.

Field instruction and TE 802 and 804 coursework are incorporating more opportunities to strengthen lesson planning practices. In particular TE 802 focuses work on developing conceptually-oriented lesson goals. In addition, the senior year methods courses prepares students for lesson planning using a new research-based lesson planning template, the Thinking through a Lesson Protocol (Smith, Bill & Hughes, 2008). Coupled with authentic experiences in using the template to plan and enact lessons in the microteaching lab of TE 407, our hope is to

65

improve TCs' lesson planning practice prior to the internship year. The elementary literacy group, in a similar vein, learned that TCs come to us relatively well-

prepared in their major and that they make great strides over the course of 4 semesters in learning to translate content knowledge into content knowledge for teaching (e.g., writing coherent and connected objectives, eliciting and interpreting students' ideas). However, there is still room for improvement in helping them interpret and respond to students' ideas as well as how to incorporate technology into their classrooms.

The implications of this for the program are that instructors will make students' ideas (eliciting,

interpreting and responding to these ideas) even more of a focus for the methods courses, while also helping TCs be more aware of the technology available and working with them to use it in meaningful ways. In particular, the group has already started developing/modifying tools to help scaffold TCs in the gathering and interpreting of student ideas in the internship year, which they hope to make a focus in the senior year next year.

The elementary social studies group has also started to act on what they learned. They are

working on providing opportunities for students to evaluate, and make suggestions for supplementing, existing curricula. They are also committed to devoting more time /readings/peer activities to teaching explicitly about all of the dimensions by which to evaluate existing curricula:

quality, rigor, and appropriateness of big ideas and key concepts in the lesson

alignment of objective, big ideas, and key concepts with the lesson sequence

lesson sequence

consideration of the needs of diverse learners

integration of technology

integration with other subjects

assessment

In general, plans going forward include both program-wide efforts and specific improvements with particular parts of the program. The contexts of teacher education at MSU – and across the country – are rapidly changing. These changes range from new practices in K-12 schools (e.g., implementation of Common Core State Standards, Response to Intervention, adoption of new curricula) to changes in funding levels to new reporting requirements. As we consider how to respond programmatically to these changes, we remain committed to the four program claims discussed throughout this brief, aligned with the TEAC Quality Principles for Teacher Education. This Inquiry Brief – essentially a snapshot of our ongoing learning process in the midst of change – documents the ways in which we are meeting our commitment to designing, revising, and enacting a teacher preparation program that supports the development of new teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and practices necessary to effectively teach all students. Using the quality control and feedback structures and systems that we have developed and continue to build, we look forward to being both responsive to the constantly changing contexts in teacher education and innovative in our curricular and pedagogical approaches to the preparation of new teachers.

66

References

ACT. (2010). QualityCore: Technical manual. Iowa City, IA: Author. American Federation of Teachers. (2012). Raising the bar: Aligning and elevating teacher preparation

and the teaching profession. Washington, D.C.: Author. Ball, D. L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special.

Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407. Ballinger, C (2006) Demonstrating rigour and quality? In L Finlay and C Ballinger (eds) Qualitative

research for allied health professionals: challenging choices. Chichester, East Sussex: John Wiley.

Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. SUNY Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (Eds.) (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the American

Educational Research Association panel on research and teacher education. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise: Transforming educator

preparation and entry into the profession. Washington, D. C.: Author. Darling Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will

determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (with LePage, P., Hammerness, K., Gotw&Duffy, H.). (2005).

Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. Delpit, L. (2013). "Multiplication is for white people": Raising expectations for other people's children.

New York: New Press. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Free Press. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0

update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gotwals, A., & Sharma, M. (2013, Summer). Report presented to the department chairperson. Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the

effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 53-62. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development

schools. East Lansing, MI: Author. Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education. East Lansing, MI: Author. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, D.C.: The Education Schools Project.

67

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Ludwig, M., Kirshstein, R., Sidana, A., Ardila-Rey, A., & Bae, Y. (2010). An emerging picture of the

teacher preparation pipeline. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. D., & Senk, S. L. (2012). Knowledge of algebra

for teaching: a framework of knowledge and practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584-615.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers. Michigan Department of Education (2012). Teacher preparation institution performance scores, 2012.

Lansing, MI: Author. Michigan State Board of Education. (2008). Professional standards for Michigan Teachers. Lansing, MI:

Michigan Department of Education. National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Committee

on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting

concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education

through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a

new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180–187. Pearson Education, 2013 Robinson, J. J., Paccione, A., & Rodrigue, F. (2003). A place where people care: A case study of

recruitment and retention of minority-group teachers special issue: partnering for equity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(3), 202–212.

Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Smith, M.S., Bill, V. & Hughes, E. (2008). Thinking through a lesson: Successfully implementing high-level

tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14, 132-138. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. F., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001, March). Teacher preparation research: Current

knowledge, recommendations, and priorities for the future. Center for the Study of Teaching Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

68

Appendix A. Internal Audit

Introduction and Description of Quality Control System Audit The internal audit was conducted by Dr. Suzanne Wilson, chair of the Department of Teacher Education, with the assistance of Kristi Lowrie, the administrator in charge of staff and Susan Dalebout, the Assistant Dean in charge of the Student Affairs Office. According to the University by-laws, the Department Chair’s role is to oversee quality of program activities. Based on our experiences with the 2008 IB, we instituted an annual review of the quality control system by the Chair, as the program is overseen by faculty leaders and committees. For the purposes of this IB, we used the same TEAC audit process that was used in 2008 to structure that oversight. The plans for the internal audit included both a close examination of the files of 50 randomly selected students and a broad examination of relevant components for all interns in the academic year 2012-13 (see Figures A.2. and A.3.), using the same process that was used in the audit for the 2008 IB (see Table A.1.). We note that, as part of our 2008 IB review, we found that the Department’s by-laws had not been reviewed and revised in the timeframe stipulated by the University. Immediately upon completing the review, we created a by-laws committee that deliberated, held faculty meetings, and considered alternative governance structures given faculty feedback and information gathered across the University. New by-laws were adopted on October 6, 2008, and extended on September 23, 2013 , for one year to permit the new incoming Chairperson of Teacher Education to participate in revisions with the faculty. Three major changes were involved. First, we aligned our by-laws with requirements stipulated in the University by-laws. For example, our by-laws did not include student representation on relevant committees. By the University by-laws, there must be a student representative on program committees (an undergraduate on the program committee concerning undergraduate programs and courses, an MA student on the MA program committee, etc.). We rectified those problems. Second, overwhelmingly faculty wanted a governance system that was more efficient and consisted of fewer committees that had an infrastructure that increased regular communication. This led to a reorganization into three program committees (the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC), the Induction and Continuing Education Committee (ICEC), and the Doctoral Education Committee (DEC). The chair of each of these committees also belongs to the Faculty Advisory Committee, which works closely with the Department chair. This change allowed for the FACC members to report on program committee work to each other and to the Department chair regularly and has greatly improved communication and coherence. Third, we crafted the by-laws to be more inclusive of our fixed term faculty who play central roles in our Departmental work (especially in the teacher preparation program). This mainly involved explicitly noting that fixed term faculty who had worked in the Department for three years could be elected to any committee in the Department except for the Review, Promotion and Tenure committee, which only reviews tenure stream faculty materials. Effective Spring 2014, we have designed and are piloting an annual review procedure for Fixed Term Faculty and Academic Staff to be in compliance with a University-wide mandate (http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/PerfReviewFAS.htm). In sum, the by-laws led to a slightly different governance system for the Department (see Figure A.1.).

69

Figure A.1. Department of Teacher Education Program Committee Governance Structure

Figure A.2. MSU Quality Control System Schematic, Random Sample of Interns

Figure A.3 Quality Control System Schematic, Full Review of All Interns

Department ChairFaculty Advisory

Committee

At Large Member (liaision to COE

Curriculum Committee)

Teacher Preparation Committee

Induction and Continuing Education

Committee

Doctoral Education Committee

Ran

do

m s

amp

le o

f 5

0 2

01

2-

13

in

tern

s

Benchmark review

Admission

Adequate progress

Clinical experience

Graduation

Promotion to internship

Certification reviews

Fu

ll R

evie

w f

or

all I

nte

rns,

2

01

2-1

3

Program

University approval

State approval

Public claims

Institutional support

Syllabi review

Classrooms

Faculty

Hiring

Evaluations and Reviews

Assignments and Rewards

70

Table A.1. The MSU Audit Process Organized Around TEAC Quality Components

Quality Components Mechanisms Audit Activity Probes

2.1 Curriculum College of Education Student Affairs Office

Review targeted student databases (Admissions, Intern Clearance, and Final Certification Clearance) and advisee folders to verify all degree requirements were met

Have students completed the required program of study? If there were substitutions, were they appropriate and is there evidence of approval?

Teacher Education Program Office, Program Coordinators

Review targeted student information in database and advising folders to verify appropriate monitoring of student progress

Did student database and folders include all degree and program benchmark data and documents?

Academic Governance: Department, College, University Committees

Review forms for new courses and programs

Are teacher education issues related to curricula addressed? Is there peer review of new courses and curricula, or of significant modifications?

Department of Teacher Education Review all professional course syllabi Do the course syllabi conform to curricular goals, objectives, and substance?

Michigan Department of Education Check documents approving new teacher education program

Have the teacher education curricula received MDE approval?

2.2 Faculty College of Education: Dean's Office: Faculty Search Procedures

Examine faculty search and recruitment report for Teacher Education faculty identified in the audit process

Were search procedures followed? What criteria were used to select faculty? Were they qualified to perform their responsibilities in the teacher education program?

Department of Teacher Education: Annual Faculty Evaluation

Review annual faculty evaluation policies (department faculty evaluation plans); compare assignment with qualifications

Were faculty evaluation procedures followed? Were targeted courses evaluated properly?

Department, College, and University: Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure Review

Review policies for promotion and tenure Are University processes being followed? How have Teacher Education faculty members fared in the recruitment, retention, and promotion processes?

College of Education: Workload Policies Review signed load sheets for all personnel actions over last five years.

Are school policies being followed? How are policies monitored?

College of Education: Dean's Office Compare Education and Teacher Education faculty salaries with those of university and comparable units

Are education faculty salaries comparable to other MSU salaries, and sufficient to recruit and retain appropriately qualified faculty members?

2.3 Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies

College of Education: Offices of the Dean, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, and Department Chairs

Interview Assistant Dean about meeting issues and outcomes

Is there an annual review of facilities, equipment, and supplies?

College of Education: Assistant Dean's Office

Visit in person or electronically classrooms, computer labs, faculty offices to ensure adequate space and technology

Are facilities conducive to the learning process and faculty scholarship as needed?

2.4 Fiscal and Administrative Department, College, and University Administrative Infrastructure

Review organizational charts Are administrative roles and responsibilities clearly defined?

71

Annual Department Budget Review Check processes for annual requests from Departments

Are there sufficient resources to support teacher education? Have budget requests received appropriate/timely response?

2.5 Student Support Services College of Education: Student Affairs Office

Are student issues sufficiently addressed?

Review recent evaluations of student services

2.6 Recruiting and Admissions Practices, Academic Calendars, Catalogs, Publications

College of Education: Student Affairs Office, Office of Assistant Dean for Student Support Services and Recruitment

Review admissions data to determine if admissions criteria are met

Are admissions criteria being met?

College of Education: Student Affairs Office

Review published and electronic marketing materials

Do public statements contradict claims?

2.7 Student Feedback

Department Procedures Review departmental procedures

Are there publicly stated departmental procedures? Is there evidence that procedures are being followed?

Course evaluations Review summary data and follow-up actions

Is there evidence that course evaluation data is used to improve curricula and evaluate faculty?

University Ombudsman, College of Education: Student Affairs Office, Department of Teacher Education, Chair's Office

Review all recent complaints Are complaints handled satisfactorily?

Review summary of results Is feedback used to improve the educational experience for students?

72

Quality Components: Findings 2.1 Curriculum

Advisors and program leaders in the Department of Teacher Education, the College of Education's Student Affairs Office, and in secondary subject academic departments outside of the College of Education monitor student performance and progress.

The College-level monitoring process audits degree and certification requirements at three points:

at the time of application to the program during the sophomore year;

on three occasions during the senior year student records are extensively audited and the results of each audit are communicated to students; each audit includes verification that all coursework requirements for the degree (elementary and special education students), teaching major (elementary, secondary and special education students), elementary planned program (elementary students), teaching minor (secondary students) and professional education courses (all students) are complete; overall GPA, as well as GPAs for the planned program, teaching major, teaching minor and professional education courses are calculated (students must have a GPA of at least 2.5 in each to progress) and MTTC results are checked.

at the point of graduation from the undergraduate component, and passage of the relevant State examination(s) (Michigan Test of Teacher Certification) at the point of admission to the Internship Year component of the program (students who have not passed the relevant subject matter examination(s) are not allowed to proceed into the teaching internship); and; students who do not meet minimum GPA requirements or who do not have a degree conferred are not allowed to progress .

at the time of program completion, when the Certification Officer clears candidates for recommendations to the Michigan Department of Education for certificates and endorsements.

The Student Affairs Office (SAO) reviewed three databases pertinent to student progress for 50 randomly selected interns (25 elementary, 25 secondary): the Admissions Database, the Internship Year Clearance Database, and the Final Certification Clearance Database, and each student's folder for supplemental hard copy evidence of benchmark completion. At the time of admission, all Teacher Education students receive detailed letters that include specific statements about the criteria and benchmarks that will need to be passed or completed for graduation and a favorable recommendation for certification. This information is available in all program materials and on the SAO website. During their senior year, students are updated about their progress on every criterion and benchmark, and students cannot receive "final clearance for certification" until all criteria are met. In a review of the material, all relevant information was available. No data errors were discovered.

The teacher preparation program conducts similar reviews every semester. Course instructors and subject area leaders meet with Dr. Drake and Ms. Hodges to discuss and register successes and concerns about every student each semester; the Department incorporates the concerns to a continually updated database that not only tracks course performance but also includes professional concerns. The student advisee folders hold a series of progress reports all of which are now digitally scanned or electronically entered and filed so that all relevant faculty and staff have access to them.

Preparing Evaluation Forms

Junior/Senior Year. During the junior and senior year field experiences, the classroom mentor teachers use brief forms to evaluate the Teacher Education Program student's professional attitudes and behaviors as well as ability to interact with children and participate in classroom activities. The Department asks the classroom mentor teacher to complete an evaluation form of each student's work in the classroom. The mentor teachers complete this form through an online system towards the end of the semester, although

73

the secondary team also uses a form to obtain a brief evaluation at mid-term spring of the senior year practicum experience. The junior year uses one evaluation because it has one course with a field experience. The senior year has two evaluations because it is a two-semester sequence of courses and field experiences.

Intern Year. Intern evaluations are completed for fall-mid term, fall end-of-semester, and spring mid-term. The evaluation form itself lists the standards, with each component of each standard listed so that it can be rated. There is space on the form to provide evidence and to record practices to work on. The form also allows the evaluator to mark each standard as to whether the intern does not meet expectations, meets expectations, or exceeds expectations. All elementary TCs are evaluated using the same form; each secondary subject area, art, music, agriscience, and special education have their own forms although there is considerable similarity across many of them.

At the end of the year, all TCs are evaluated using the Exit Performance Description (EPD). This process is meant to help TCs and their field instructors and mentor teachers summarize and describe the intern's practice at the end of the program experience. In most cases, the EPD is a prose account of the student’s achievement relative the standards that is based on the observations and evaluations throughout the year. In secondary social studies and English, the EPD is based on the intern’s presentation of a portfolio of items compiled by the intern to demonstrate progress toward meeting the standards for the internship year.

The FI, MT, and TC complete the intern evaluation forms. These three people meet to confer and discuss the evaluation at fall mid-term, fall end-of-semester, and spring mid-term reviews. The field instructor and the mentor teacher, either separately or in collaboration, write the EPDs. Typically the Secondary Team has both the field instructor and mentor teacher write separate EPDs for an intern.

Department Audit Findings

During our 2008 audit, we were concerned about the fact that many of these forms were never filed or – if they were filed – they were not accessible for program leadership. Considerable energy has been poured into developing awareness of the importance of the evaluations, and finding ways to file them digitally so that they are accessible to FIs, MTs, TCs, and program leadership. Building such an electronic system must meet University and FERPA regulations about the privacy of records and server security. It also requires a cultural shift in the program so that FIs and MTs do not see central filing of forms as antagonistic to their desire to support TCs (one faculty member did call our planning of the central data system “Big Brother”-ish). Such a system also requires financial resources for technology.

The arrival of “educator evaluation systems” through Race to the Top has helped this cultural shift, as the schools expect us to prepare interns for the reality of walk throughs, principal observations, and annual evaluations, which involve – in many schools – principals using iPads to keep records. Through funding from the Dean’s Office and the Department of Teacher Education, we were able to purchase an iPad for every FI, and provided all of them a year to get used to the technology and work collaboratively with us to move toward using iPads for keeping records of all intern evaluations.

In the meantime, our record keeping with regard to the evaluations is still problematic and uneven. The records for the elementary TCs are much more predictably filed and uploaded to Department records. The audit revealed that one staff member, who was responsible for filing all of the secondary records, did not see this as part of her responsibility. This contributed significantly to the unevenness of the files. This problem is being resolved through much closer supervision of the staff member.

Curriculum Review

74

All course and program proposals are initiated at the program and department level and proceed through a thorough review and approval at all subsequent levels in the academic faculty governance system: the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC), Departmental Curriculum Committee, College Curriculum Committee, University Curriculum Committee, the University-wide Teacher Education Council (for new initiatives or changes in the teacher certification program), and Academic Council. The Office of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs retains hard copies of all program actions.

Faculty members (both tenure and fixed term) collaboratively develop course syllabi. Subject area leaders are responsible for assuring that syllabi variations among instructors meet MDE, university, and program standards and expectations for service to the program's objectives and the knowledge and skill development appropriate to the expected teaching candidates in each class. Through a review of all professional syllabi, we verified that the professional courses reflected academic governance expectations and met state and program requirements for content.

Our own internal review of the program led to a number of changes in course titles, numbers, and descriptions in the last five years. All of these have been through the appropriate channels.

All teacher education programs at higher education institutions in Michigan receive approval through the Michigan Department of Education's Periodic Review process. MSU's teacher education program, along with all of its specialty areas (teaching and endorsement fields), has received approval, and is posted on the MDE website: https://mdoe.state.mi.us/proprep/CollegeInfo.asp?College_ID=19. The Office of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs retains hard copies of all MDE approvals.

Since 2008, the elementary teacher education program had to be re-reviewed given changes in regulations concerning the preparation of elementary teachers. In response to these changes in regulations, MSU now requires for elementary certification a subject matter teaching major chosen from the four primary academic subjects – language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies – in addition to the planned program of courses that provides breadth across the range of subjects elementary teachers are expected to teach. Elementary education students may also choose a minor (or multiple minors) from a range of subjects, along with their major. We also expanded requirements in the arts as mandated by the new regulations. The materials for the review of the elementary teacher education program were completed by program faculty in Fall 2010 and approved by the Michigan Department of Education in February, 2011.

2.2 Faculty

The faculty, through the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC), designs and modifies the program. Appropriate academic governance committees at every level (department, college, university-wide), comprised of regular tenure stream faculty (and at the department level, fixed term faculty who have served for at least three years), review and approve new initiatives and modifications. Full-time, regular and full time fixed term faculty members are responsible for every facet of the teacher education program. They coordinate the program's components, teach some courses directly, and supervise temporary faculty, doctoral students, and field-based mentor teachers, who oversee field placements and handle some instruction in the professional education courses. Appendix C presents the qualifications and responsibilities of the faculty associated with the teacher preparation program during 2012-13, as well as the qualifications of all doctoral students and fixed term faculty who taught courses in the program.

Regular faculty members are hired, evaluated, and promoted according to university, college, and department policies. In conjunction with the Department Chairs, the Dean appoints search committees for all positions approved by the University Office of the Provost. All searches conform to University policies designed to ensure rigorous, impartial, and thorough evaluations of diverse applicant pools. Department Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees (RPTCs) are responsible for annual and/or biannual merit evaluations; their recommendations are submitted to the Department Chairpersons, who make raise

75

recommendations to the Dean of the College. The Dean's Office submits a raise request to the Provost. Since our 2008 IB, the University has developed clearer and more explicit expectations for searches, annual review, and faculty support. This work has gone on through an initiative of the National Science Foundation’s ADVANCE (Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices) Program. All faculty serving on search and evaluation committees are responsible for reading and following guidelines provided in these materials, including information on writing detailed job descriptions, conducting impartial and aligned reviews of applicants’ materials, conducting inclusive and consistent candidate visits, and the like.

Newly hired faculty members undergo a mandatory reappointment review during their third year. The candidate initiates the process by submitting a portfolio to the appropriate Departmental RPTC(s). The Department RPTC makes a recommendation to the Department Chairperson, who either makes a favorable recommendation to the Dean, or stops the action at the departmental level, without a favorable recommendation. If the departmental recommendation is favorable, the file is forwarded to the Dean for college review. The Dean solicits the advice of the College RPTC (the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs is a non-voting Dean's representative on this committee) and makes the college-level decision. The Dean discusses each action with the Office of the Provost, with final decisions delegated to the Board of Trustees. Promotion and tenure actions proceed in similar fashion.

Although the Department of Teacher Education does not hire adjunct faculty, there are a significant number of fixed term faculty and academic staff members who are associated with the Teacher Preparation Program. University hiring policies for FTF/AS can be found at http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/FixedTermAppt.htm . FTF/AS eligible for Union affiliation are also governed by policies found at http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/contracts/UNTFContract.pdf

University-wide evaluation policies and procedures for FTF/AS are available at http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/FASPerfReviewModel.htm .

While there are no University-wide workload policies, MSU College of Education faculty load policies can be found at http://education.msu.edu/resources/faculty-staff/policy/faculty-load.asp

The College of Education's Office of the Dean retains copies of all personnel actions, including the initial reports of the search committees, complete files of annual merit evaluations, all reappointment, promotion, and tenure action reviews. The Chairs' offices retain copies of the annual evaluation materials, and the Chairs' and Dean's offices retains spreadsheets with final ratings that form the bases for merit raises. Annual evaluations are done by calendar, not academic years; the evaluations for one year (e.g., 2012) are submitted in January of the following year (e.g., 2013) and completed in spring. Raises take effect in October of that year.

Between August 2009 and 2013, the College of Education hired 38 faculty members into the tenure stream, 19 of whom were appointed in the Department of Teacher Education, and 11 of whom were affiliated with the professional certification program in 2012-13. We reviewed all search reports for the Teacher Education faculty and verified that they were with non-TE faculty searches, in the departments as well as in the Dean's Office, where all personnel action files are retained (A table depicting relevant data for this time period is available for the audit visit).

Similarly, we compared the annual merit review files of TE and non-TE faculty, and both reappointment and promotion case files for all TE and comparable non-TE faculty to verify comparability in treatment. During the past five years (2008-09 through 2012-13), there were a total of 55 personnel actions: 22 reappointment cases (with the following results: TE had 10 successful, 3 non-successful; non-TE had 9 successful, and 0 non-successful) and 33 promotion cases (with the following results: TE had 13 successful and 2 unsuccessful; non-TE had 18 successful). All of the files are complete. While TE is

76

the only department to have any unsuccessful reappointment cases, it also had considerably more untenured faculty than any other department (TE had 13, KIN had 3, EAD had 2, and CEPSE had 4) (see Table A.3). We also had two full promotion cases that were denied. Comparable data from other departments is problematic here; in the case of promotion to full professor, since the promotion is not mandatory, cases are sometimes withdrawn and not recorded.

Faculty salary adjustments are governed by University policy distributed by the Provost to all units annually. We verified that College of Education and Teacher Education faculty salaries were comparable to other campus units. See http://www.hr.msu.edu/recognition/facacadstaff/payfaculty/acadsalaryadjust.htm for more information.

2.3 Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies

A complete description of the facilities, equipment, and supplies necessary for instruction and scholarship appears in the supplement for Appendix B. Space assignment policy for faculty office and research space can be found at http://opb.msu.edu/msuinfo/pdf/space_assignment_policy_october_2007.pdf. We verified that all faculty members have appropriate and adequate office and technology resources, fully detailed in the supplement for Appendix B.

College policies and procedures relevant to the use of technology enhanced classroom resources by teacher education students will be available for the audit visit. We have verified that these policies and procedures are working as intended. 2.4 Fiscal and Administrative

The College of Education at MSU receives at least comparable financial treatment within the university system. The central administration funds the college at a level that ensures that its programs are on a sound financial footing. Unlike the traditional image of education schools serving as profit centers or "cash cows" within their host universities -- charged with generating a tuition "surplus" that is redirected to other perceived more deserving fields -- MSU does not expect its COE to be a profit cow, as it understands the high costs of building professional programs. Other colleges – including Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Natural Science – are expected to generate higher returns than the COE (see Table A.8).

Internal to the COE, chairs meet with the Dean every May and submit requests for funding. In reviewing budget requests for each of the past 5 years, each request made by the chair was honored by the Dean, including increases in support for doctoral student support (which enhances instruction in the teacher preparation program) and increased funding to support faculty during the summers as compensation for teacher preparation program leadership. In terms of administrative oversight, the organization of academic governance at MSU ensures faculty members review and approve all course and program initiatives and changes. Here is a schematic of the academic governance system for Teacher Education at MSU.

77

Figure A.4. MSU Governance System for Teacher Preparation Program

2.5 Student Support Services

Teacher Education Program Guidance and Advising. We verified that the College of Education's Student Affairs Office, supplemented by academic advisors in the appropriate disciplinary departments and Teacher Education Program/Team leadership, provide relevant guidance and advisory services.

Housing. We verified that Teacher Education students have equal access to the elaborate array of on-campus housing options, and are able to use the university's off-campus housing services. Resource details are listed in the supplement to Appendix B.

Health. We verified that Teacher Education students have equal access to the university's Olin Health Services on campus. Resource details are listed in the supplement to Appendix B.

Counseling and career placement. We verified that Teacher Education students have full access to the university's student services, including counseling and career placement offices;

Academic Council

Teacher Education Council University Curriculum Committee

Office of Curriculum and Catalog

College of Education Curriculum Committee

Major/Minor College Curriculum

Committee

Department of Teacher Education Curriculum Committee

Major/Minor Department Curriculum Committee

Teacher Preparation Academic Program Committee

Professional Studies and TE Program and Course Proposals

Majors/Minors Program and Course Proposals

Course sign offs

78

prospective teachers also participate in organized job fairs. Resource details are listed in the supplement to Appendix B.

Academic Support. We verified that Teacher Education students have equal access to the university's array of academic support services on campus. Resource details are listed in the supplement to Appendix B.

Technology. We verified that Teacher Education students have equal access to the technology resources available to all MSU undergraduates, including email, internet connections, computer laboratories, and computer consulting services. University-wide policies and guidelines for technology requirements and resource for students are available at http://www.tech.msu.edu/new-students/index.php

Libraries. We verified that teacher education candidates have full access to all library bound, serial, and electronic collections, a full description of which appears in the supplement to Appendix B.

4.6 Recruiting and Admissions Practices, Academic Calendars, Catalogs, Publications

Appendix D and the supplement to Appendix B present the Teacher Education program's recruiting and admissions policies and practices in detail. Our efforts over the past several years have contributed to the institution's overall ranking of "Exemplary" by the State Department of Education, whose evaluation incorporates data on diversity and high-demand teacher production. We reviewed as many current public statements about the Teacher Education program as we could identify and locate. We found that the current Academic Programs catalogue, associated publications (including Teacher Education Program Handbooks), and websites accurately present all requirements and expectations, and are consistent with the claims presented in this Inquiry Brief.

The University's Calendar corresponds to the students' experiences, and is publicly available online more than a year before each academic year begins.

2.7 Student Feedback

All students are required to complete course evaluations by University policy (https://sirsonline.msu.edu/FAQ.asp . Since our previous 2008 IB, the Department of Teacher Education has instituted a new process by which the subject area leaders, the program leaders, and the Department chair read all of the student evaluations for every course taught every term. We also instituted a new process by which we keep digital records of all student evaluation forms and summaries. A staff member in the Department office oversees the receipt of all evaluations each term, and the Department chair follows up with all instructors whose evaluations are not turned in at the end of the semester.

Student Complaints or Concerns

University-wide policies governing the handling of student complaints or concerns can be found at http://splife.studentlife.msu.edu/information-and-services/academic-affairs/complaints-and-grievances and https://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/grades-appeals.html. The Department of Teacher Education receives feedback and concerns at the most local level, and if left unresolved, they migrate to the college and occasionally the university levels. The Assistant Dean for Student Affairs and the University Ombudsperson verified that policies and procedures were followed in all instances and worked as intended.

79

Appendix B. Dimensions of Institutional Capacity (all data reported from 2012-2013; salaries

reported as averages by MSU rather than by means)

Capacity dimension Program statistics Institution statistics (Norm)

Difference analysis Analysis of the

differences between the program & the

institutional statistics

3.1.1 Curriculum (number of credits)

120 credits for the B.A. Varies by major across various colleges; Most require 120 credits, but Engineering requires 128, Music Performance requires up to 132, and Landscape Architecture. requires 130.

Our curriculum is tailored to teacher preparation but is comparable to other majors’ curriculum requirements

3.1.2 Faculty (percentages at ranks; workload)

Asst. 28.6% Average: $70,139 Assoc. 44.9% Average: $85,852 Full 26.5% Average: $125,290 Workload determined by College policy; teaching typically 4 courses per year unless faculty have buyouts for funded research Faculty/Student ratio for Michigan State University is 19.26 And College of Education is 17.92

Asst. 19.8% Average: $78,649 Assoc. 30.3% Average: $93,442 Full 49.8% Average: $132,879 Workload determined by College policy; University norm is 4 courses per year unless faculty have buyouts for funded research or other negotiated responsibilities

Program salaries were significantly lower: Asst. @ 89.2% Assoc. @ 91.9% Full @ 94.3% Generally the same with variations in some colleges

3.1.3 Facilities (space & equipment provided)

In compliance with University and College policies.

Varies by colleges and differs by disciplinary requirements (e.g. lab);; norm unknown

Assumed to be fairly determined

3.1.4 Fiscal amd administrative (support dollars/faculty member)

$4,000 for travel. Non-salary budget for Michigan State University is $362,599,399 and College of Education is $2,481,260

Varies by colleges as University budget reflects; Norm unknown

Unknown as colleges differ in their allocations.

3.1.5 Student support services (equal access to services)

All students have equal access to services

All students have equal access to services

No difference

3.1.6 Student feedback (course evaluation means, number of complaints)

Course evaluation means: 1.80 Number of complaints reported by Ombudsperson 7

Course evaluation means: 2.03 Number of complaints unknown

Difference: .23 The Ombudsperson reports College level-data to all other units at the university; we requested department and program level data. Ombudsperson report available in Supplement to Appendix B

80

TEAC requirements for quality control of capacity (3.2) Program’s reference to documentation

for each requirement

3.2.1 Curriculum

Document showing credit hours required in the subject

matter are tantamount to an academic major.

Document showing credit hours required in pedagogical

subjects are tantamount to an academic minor.

http://www.reg.msu.edu/academicprograms/ProgramDetail.asp?Program=2237

3.2.2 Faculty

Documents showing appropriate and adequate resources. See Appendix C

3.2.4 Fiscal and Administrative

Documents attesting to the financial health of the institution.

Documents showing program administrators are qualified for

their positions.

Documents showing resources are adequate to administer

the program.

http://www.ctlr.msu.edu/download/fa/financialstatements/FinRpt20122013.pdf http://www.hr.msu.edu/hiring/index.htm

http://www.ctlr.msu.edu/download/fa/financialstatements/FinRpt20122013.pdf

3.2.5 Student support

Documents showing adequate student support services.

Documents showing the drop-out and program completion

rates.

http://splife.studentlife.msu.edu/

Supplements to Appendix B

3.2.6 Policies

Documents showing an academic calendar is published.

Documents showing a grading policy is published and is

accurate.

Documents showing there is a procedure for students’

complaints to be evaluated.

Documents showing that the transfer of credit policy is

published and is accurate.

If appropriate, documents showing that the program has the

capacity to ensure the timely delivery of distance education

and support services and to accommodate current student

numbers and expected near-term growth in enrollment and

documents showing that a process to verify the identity of

students taking distance education courses is used by

faculty teaching the distance education courses.

http://www.reg.msu.edu/ROInfo/Calendar/academic.aspx https://www.msu.edu/~ombud/grades-appeals.html See Supplements to Appendix B

http://admissions.msu.edu/toolbox/transferringCredit.asp N/A

81

Appendix C: Faculty Qualifications

Name Academic Rank Degree Institution

Degree year

Field of Degree

Journal Articles

Years at

Inst.

Number of Courses regularily assigned Awards

Public School teaching Boards

FACULTY

Bale, Jeff Assistant Professor PhD

Arizona State University 2008

Language Policy 10 5 3 3 9.5 6

Bartell, Tonya Assistant Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 2005

Curriculum & Instruction 9 1 2 0 6 0

Bieda, Kristen Assistant Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 2008

Curriculum & Instruction 7 5 3 5 0.5 2

Caughlan, Samantha

Assistant Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 2004

Curriculum & Instruction 14 6 4 0 10 0

Dominguez, Higinio

Assistant Professor PhD

University of Texas at Austin 2008

Curriculum & Instruction

11

2 3 2 3 0

Ferkany, Matt Assistant Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 2007 Philosophy

2 3 1 2 0

Flennaugh, Terry

Assistant Professor PhD

University of California-Los Angeles 2011

Education & Information Studies

8

2 3 1 1 1

Gotwals, Amelia Assistant Professor PhD

University of Michigan 2006

Science Education

5 7 3 0 3 3

Halvorsen, Anne-Lise

Assistant Professor PhD

University of Michigan 2006

Educational Foundations & Policy

9

7 4 1 0 4

Paris, Django Assistant Professor PhD

Stanford University 2008

Doctor of Philosophy

9 2 3 7 2 3

Purdy, Michelle Assistant Professor PhD

Emory University 2011

Division of Educational Studies

2 3

Steele, Michael Assistant Professor EdD

University of Pittsburgh 2006

Education, Mathematics Education

10

7 2 5 3 3

Weiss, Michael Assistant Professor PhD

University of Michigan 2009

Mathematics & Education

1 3 0 0 0

Wright, Tanya Assistant Professor PhD

University of Michigan 2011

Language, Literacy & Culture

2 3 1 0 1

Alonzo, Alicia Associate Professor PhD

California Instittue of Technology 1999

Applied Physics 18 4 4 3 0 8

Anagnostopoulos, Dorothea

Associate Professor PhD

University of Chicago 2000 Education 6 3

Apol, Laura Associate Professor PhD

University of Iowa 1994

English Education 15 11 3 8 0 5

Campbell, Doug Associate Professor PhD

Stanford University 1981

Educational Anthropology 1 30 0 1 0 5

Carter Andrews, Dorinda

Associate Professor EdD

Harvard Graduate School of Ed 2005 Education 1 8 3

Certo, Janine Associate Professor PhD

Virginia Commonwealth University 2002

Education, Instructional Leadership

24

7 3

Crespo, Sandra Associate Professor PhD

University of British Columbia 1998

Curriculum Studies

20

14 2 3 3 0

Drake, Corey Associate Professor PhD

Northwestern University 2000

Human Development & Social Policy

17

2 1 1 2 2

82

Greenwalt, Kyle Associate Professor PhD

University of Minnesota 2007

Social Studies Education

19

6 4 0 6 1

Heilman-Powers, Elizabeth

Associate Professor PhD

Indiana University 1998

Curriculum Studies & Social Foundation

19

10 4

Herbel-Eisenmann, Beth

Associate Professor PhD

Michigan State University 2000

Curriculum, Teaching & Ed Policy

23

5 2 3 5 4

Jacobsen, Rebecca

Associate Professor PhD

Columbia University 2007

Politics & Education

19 6 4 3 8 0

Juzwik, Mary Associate Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 2003

Rhetoric & Composition Program

9 3

Li, Guofang Associate Professor PhD

University of Saskatchewan 2000

Curriculum Studies

30

7 4

McCrory, Raven Associate Professor PhD

University of Michigan 2000 Education

21 6 2

Richmond, Gail Associate Professor PhD

University of Connecticut 1982

Experimental Psychology-Neuroscience

33

20 3 8 2 14

Schwarz, Christina

Associate Professor PhD

University of California-Berkeley 1998

Math, Science & Technology

13

11 3 1 0 1

Segall, Avner Associate Professor PhD

University of British Columbia 1999

Curriculum & Instruction

22

14 4 0 5 5

Stanulis, Randi Associate Professor PhD

Michigan State University 1993

Curriculum, Teaching & Ed Policy

3

12 3

Tatto, Teresa Associate Professor EdD

Harvard University 1987

Policy Analysis & Evaluation Research

26

26 3 7 26 10

Williams, Michelle

Associate Professor PhD

University of California-Berkeley 2004

Mathematics & Science

8 3

Youngs, Peter Associate Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 2003

Educational Policy

25

9 4 6 0 4

Anderson, Andy Professor PhD

University of Texas at Austin 1979

Science Education 31 34 2 2 4 5

Calabrese Barton, Angela Professor PhD

Michigan State University 1995

Curriculum, Teaching & Ed Policy 71 7 2

Edwards, Patricia Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 1979

Reading Education, Ed Administration

53

24 4 49 5 44

Fendler, Lynn Professor PhD

University of Wisconsin-Madison 1999

Curriculum & Instruction

14

12 3

Floden, Robert Professor PhD Stanford University 1979

Philosophy of Education

44

36 1 5 1 19

Florio-Ruane, Susan Professor EdD

Harvard Graduate School of Ed 1978 Education

12

36 3 6 3 5

Hartman, Doug Professor PhD

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 1991

Literacy & Language

49

5 3 18 3 10

Kennedy, Mary Professor PhD

Michigan State University 1973

Educational Psychology

12

20 4

Krajcik, Joseph Professor PhD University of Iowa 1986

Science Education

84 2 0 7 0 4

Paine, Lynn Professor PhD Stanford University 1986

International Development Education

32

28 3 3 4 0

83

Rosaen, Cheryl Professor PhD

Michigan State University 1987

Curriculum, Teaching & Ed Policy

30

26 2 2 7 3

Sedlak, Michael Professor PhD Northwestern University 1977

History & Education

31 0 2 0 2

Wilson, Suzanne Professor PhD Stanford University 1988

Educational Psychology

21 1 6 9 15

FIXED TERM FACULTY

Acevedo, Denise Fixed Term Ed.D

Nova Southeastern University 2008

Higher Education Leadership 3 1 2

Beitner-Miller, Martha

Fixed Term MA

Eastern Michigan University 1994

Middle School Education 1 2 0 22 4

Bennett, Tim Fixed Term MA

Michigan State University 1986

Classroom Teaching 4 8

Bonofiglio, Zoa Fixed Term MA

Michigan State University 2008

Curriculum and Teaching 5 5

Castle, Ann Fixed Term MA

Michigan State University 1996

Child Development 1 3

Damrow, Amy Fixed Term Ph.D

Michigan State University 2011

Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy

3 4

Everett, Mike Fixed Term Ph.D.

Michigan State University 2013

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resources Studies

5 2

Ezzo, Dawnmarie Fixed Term ME

University of South Florida 2006

Reading Education

4 4 3 12 0

Glew, Margo Fixed Term Ph.D.

Michigan State University 1998

Second Language Acquisition

6 2

Hodges, Kelly Fixed Term MA

Western Michigan University 1997

Mathematics Education

1 1 7 0

Huhn, Craig Fixed Term MA

Michigan State University 2004

Curriculum and Teaching

1 3

Keazer, Lindsay Fixed Term Ph.D.

Purdue University 2012

Mathematics Education

1 1

Merritt, Joi Fixed Term Ph.D.

University of Michigan 2010

Science Education

1 3 1

Niewiada, Debra Fixed Term MA

Marygrove College 1999 Teaching

1 0 21 1

Okwako, Betty Fixed Term Ph.D.

Michigan State University 2011

Curriculum, Teacher Education and Policy

7 4

Oslund, Joy Fixed Term Ph.D.

Michigan State University 2009

Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy

4

1 1

Parker, Joyce Fixed Term Ph.D.

Princeton University 1983

Biochemistry

22 23 4

Raven, Matt Fixed Term Ph.D.

Ohio State University 1990

Agricultural Education

4 4

Rubin, Rochelle Fixed Term Ph.D.

Wayne State University 1989

Curriculum and Instruction

4 1

Shahidullah, Ashley Fixed Term MS

Baylor University 2010

Education, Curriculum and Instruction

2.5 2

Starr, Joni Fixed Term MFA

University of Texas at Austin 1991

Applied Theatre

5 4 2 12 2

VanHorn, Susannah

Fixed Term Ph.D.

Ohio State University 2002

Art Education

7 4

84

Varrichhione, Andrea

Fixed Term MS

University of Southern Maine 2005

Teaching and Learning

1.5 4

Whitcomb, Judith Fixed Term MS

Spertus College 1986

Human Services Administration

2 1

GRADUATE ASSISTANT

Aponte, Gerardo Graduate Assistant ME

University of Florida 2011

Social Studies Education 2 4 0 2 3

Aydarova, Olena Graduate Assistant MA

University of South Carolina 2005 Linguistics 3 4

Ayieko, Rachel Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Egerton University 2005

Education Science Mathematics 5 4 2 8 0

Baumann, Amanda Graduate Assistant MA

University of New Mexico 1999

Elementary Education 3 4

Bell, Julie Graduate Assistant MA

Concordia University Chicago 2009

Curriculum and Instruction 1 4 0 8 0

Berchini, Christina Graduate Assistant MA

Kean University 2008

English Language Arts 5 4 9 3 1

Broda, Michael Graudate Assistant BA

College of Wooster 2006 History 4 4 2 4 0

Bruner, Justin Graduate Assistant BA

Michigan State University 2004 Marketing 4 4

Carlson, Robyn Graduate Assistant MA

Michigan State University 1993

Educational Administration 15 4 2 26 2

Ceballos, Abraham Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Calvin College 2011

Curriculum and Instruction

2 4 2 0 0

Chang, Fida Graduate Assistant M.Ed

The Aga Khan University 2006

Teacher Education

2 4

Cook, Katie Graduate Assistant MA

Michigan State University 2012

Curriculum and INstruction

1 4 2 9 0

Crandall, Kristina Graduate Assistant BA

Michigan State University 2008

Political Theory/Constitutional Democracy

2 4

Croel-Perrien, Amy Graduate Assistant MA

Grand Valley State University 2002 Reading

0.5 4 1 12 1

Davenport, David Graduate Assistant BA

University of Georgia 1992

Romance Languages

4 4

De los Santos, Xeng

Graduate Assistant MS

California State University 2011

Science Education

1 4 2 11 0

Detmers, Justin Graduate Assistant BA

Michigan State University 2006 Philosophy

2 4

Everett, Sakeena Graduate Assistant BS

Cornell University 2008

Urban & Regional Studies

3 4

Gibbs, Theda Graduate Assistant MPH

University of Michigan 2007

Health Behavior & Health Education

3 4

Hamilton, Erica Graduate Assistant MA

Michigan State University 2003

Curriculum and Teaching

1

4 4 4 12 0

Harper, Frances Graduate Assistant MA

Stanford University 2012

Curriculum Studies and Teacher Education (Math Ed.)

2 4

Harris, Joseph Graduate Assistant BA

Bowie State University 2002 History

3 4 1 0 0

Hawkins, Lisa Graduate Assistant MA

University of Michigan 2006

Education with

6 4 0 5 0

85

concentration in Literacy

Heck, Tamara Graduate Assistant ME

Citadel Military College 2011

Secondary Educational Admin

2 4 1 4 2

Holden, Laura Graduate Assistant MA

California State University Fresno 2006

English Literature

4

Hopkins, Laura Graduate Assistant MA

Regent University 2007 Education

1 4 0 6 0

Hung,Yuhan Graduate Assistant M.Ed

National Taiwan Normal University 2007 Education

1 4

Id-Deen, Latifah Graduate Assistant MS

Iowa State University 2005

Curriculum & Instruction

3 4

Jang, Soo Bin Graduate Assistant MA

Ewha Womans University 2010

Elementary Education Curriculum & Instruction

1 4

Jenkins, Christina Graduate Assistant BA

University of Missouri 2008

Journalism - Strategic Communication

2 4

Ji, Xueying Graduate Assistant M.Ed

East China Normal University 2010

Mathematics Education

3 4 2 1.5 0

Jin, Eunjung Graduate Assistant MA

Kookmin University 2008

English Education

3 4

Johnson, Wendy Graduate Assistant MS

Michigan State University 2012

Biological Sciences

0.5 4 0 6 0

Kang, Jihea Graduate Assistant MA

Korea University 2010

English Education

2 4

Ke, Li Graduate Assistant BS

Fudan University 2010 Chemistry

1 4 0 1 0

Kean, Megan Graduate Assistant MA

University of Missouri-Kansas City 2010

Higher Education Administration & Foundations of Ed.

1 4 0 0 0

Kenyon, Elizabeth Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Keene State College 2006

Secondary Social Studies

3 4 1 3 0

Kerr, Jackie Graduate Assistant BA

Michigan State University 1985 English

3 4 0 24 2

Knight, Jennifer Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Utah State University 2008

Elementary Education

5 4

Krohn, Cheryl Graduate Assistant MA

Michigan State University 2003

Curriculum and Teaching Curriculum Integration

7 4

Leo, Sara Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Calvin College 2011

Curriculum and Instruction

2 4

Macaluso, Kati Graduate Assistant M.Ed

University of Notre Dame 2007

Alliance for Catholic Education

2 4 2 0 1

Macaluso, Mike Graduate Assistant M.Ed

University of Notre Dame 2006 Education

2 4

Mayer, Kristin Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Pace University 2007 Education

2 4 0 6 0

McIlhagga, Kristin Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Grand Valley State University 2000

Elementary Education & Certification

5 4 0 5 0

Meeks, Jawuan Graduate Assistant M.Ed

University of Massachusetts 2009 Education

2 4 0 3 1

Meier, Jessica Graduate Assistant MA

University of San Diego 2008

Curriculum and Teaching

1 4 0 7 0

86

Miller, Hannah Graduate Assistant Ed.S.

University of Florida 2011

Curriculum and Instruction

2 4 2 4 0

Moses, Valencia Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Vanderbilt University 2006

Curriculum and Instructional Leadership

6 4

Muirhead, Faith Graduate Assistant MA

New York University 2003

Mathematics Education

3 4 6 5 2

Peltier, Marliese Graduate Assistant MA

Eastern Michigan University 2008

Special Education

1 4 1 5 0

Perez, Natasha Graduate Assistant M.S.Ed

University of Miami 2007

Reading, Specialization in Reading

3 4

Ponnan, Kaliamma Graduate Assistant MA

Michigan State University 2001

Literacy Instruction

5 4

Potter, Hugh Graduate Assistant MA

Michigan State University 2007

Curriculum and Teaching

2 4

Pylman, Stacey Graduate Assistant MA

Western Michigan University 2009

Literacy Studies

1 4 0 0 0

Qin, Kongji Graduate Assistant MA

Huazhong (Central China) Normal University 2003

English, Language and Literature

1

3 4

Read, Sally Graduate Assistant BA

Kalamazoo College 2008 Psychology

4 4

Restrepo, Christina Graduate Assistant M Ed

University of Central Florida 2013

Science Education

0.5 4 2 1 0

Roberts, Tuesda Graduate Assistant MA

New York University 2003

Foreign Language Education and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

3 4

Roue, Bevin Graduate Assistant MA

University of South Carolina 2004 Linguistics

3 4 3 0 0

Sharma, Meenakshi

Graduate Assistant MA

Tufts University 2009

Teaching Science

1 4

Skogsberg, Eric Graduate Assistant M.A.T.

Brown University 2008

Secondary English Education

2 4 3 3 5

Smith, Amanda Graduate Assistant BA

Grace College 1997 English

1 3 4 3 4.5 1

Stapleton, Sarah Graduate Assistant EdM

Harvard Graduate School of Education 2005

International Education Policy

1 4 5 6 1

Strachan, Stephanie

Graduate Assistant MA

San Diego State University 2009

Reading Education

4 4 5 3 0

Suh, Heejoo Graduate Assistant MA

University of Michigan 2010

Educational Studies - Math Ed

8

2 4 0 0 0

Sweeny, Shannon Graduate Assistant MA

Seattle University 1999 Teaching

6 4 6 8 1

Syahril, Iwan Graduate Assistant Ed.M

Columbia University 2009

Curriculum and Teaching

2 4

Talley, Ashley Graduate Assistant MA

Michigan State University 2011

African American and African Studies

3 4

Thelamour, Barbara

Graduate Assistant BA

Emory University 2007 Psychology

5 4

Tirtowalujo, Isabella Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Calvin College 2010

Curriculum and

3 4 0 0 0

87

Appendix D: Program Requirements

1. Admission requirements

Admission to the Teacher Certification Program Individuals seeking teacher certification must be formally admitted to the Teacher Preparation Program. A limited number of places are available in each year's cohorts for Elementary, Secondary, Special Education, and Child Development certification candidates. Undergraduates who wish to be considered must apply to the program during the fall semester. To be eligible for consideration for admission, students must:

a. have completed at least 28 credits with a cumulative grade point average of at least a 2.75; b. have completed all remedial/developmental coursework; c. have passed all three subparts of the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC)

Professional Readiness Exam, formerly the MTTC Basic Skills Test; d. reach junior status (56 credits) by the end of the subsequent summer semester; and e. provide information about their conviction history and supply court documents as necessary.

Students applying for admission to the special education degree major must complete and document at least 42 hours of experience with children or youth who have special needs.

The Teacher Preparation program adopted a holistic scoring system for use beginning with the fall 2007 applicant cohort. The revised admission criteria currently include:

Academic Accomplishments and Promise; Commitment to Teaching and Dispositions that Support Learning to Teach; Disposition to teach/work across racial or ethnic difference, with students in poverty, in urban settings, or with special needs; Contribution to Diversity of Program Participants

Instruction

Waldron, Chad Graduate Assistant M.Ed

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania 2008 Reading

3 4 6 3.5 4

Wargo, Jon Graduate Assistant BA

Indiana University 2008

English Literature and Gender Studies

7 4 1 3 0

Webster, Allison Graduate Assistant BS

Central Michigan University 2007

Secondary Education

4 4

Wernet, Jamie Graduate Assistant MA

Spring Arbor University 2009

Curriculum and Instruction

4 4

West, Erin Graduate Assistant MA

Fayetteville State University 2009

School Administration

1 4

Whitlock, Annie Graduate Assistant Ph.D

Michigan State University 2013

Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher Education

5 4

Williams, Sean Graduate Assistant MA

Western Michigan University 2005

K-12 Administration

5 4

Yates, Claire Graduate Assistant MA

University of Massachusetts 2003 History

4 4 0 8 1

Zimmerman, Aaron Graduate Assistant MA

National Louis-University 2010 Psychology

2 4

88

Admission to the Internship Year Studies Program With the exception of Music and CSD students, all teacher certification students must satisfy the following criteria in order to move onto the Teaching Internship, a fifth year experience consisting of 12 credits of directed teaching practice (TE501 and TE/CEP502) supplemented by four graduate professional courses (TE/CEP801-TE/CEP804):

a. met all baccalaureate requirements and had the bachelor's degree conferred with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.50;

b. completed all coursework for the teaching major, and, for secondary candidates, the teaching minor, with a minimum GPA of 2.50 in each;

c. earned a minimum GPA of 2.50 in all required professional education courses, with no individual grade below a 2.0.

d. passed the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) Elementary Education, in the case of elementary candidates, or the MTTC subject matter major test for secondary candidates;

e. met the State of Michigan Technology requirement; f. submitted a complete conviction disclosure form; and g. met all other professional standards of the program.

See Criteria for Progression to the Internship for more complete information.

The Music Education teacher certification route is structured differently from the other fields. The Bachelor of Music in Music Education degree requires 128-146 credits, whereas the other certification fields typically require about 120 credits to graduate with the bachelor's degree. Students in Music Education, consequently, do not graduate after four years, as is customary in all other teaching majors. The Music Education program requires a single semester of student teaching (MUS495, for nine credits), taken after the end of the fourth year, instead of a full year teaching internship (TE501 and TE502, for a total of 12 credits) completed after the receipt of the bachelor's degree.

Students with majors in Communicative Sciences and Disorders (CSD) satisfy internship requirements as part of a master’s degree program which is required in that field.

2. Course requirements and standards

Table D.1. Teacher Education Program Requirements Elementary Secondary Special

Education Art Education Music

Education Early Childhood Education

University Integrative Studies

Selective courses in Integrative Studies in Arts and Humanities (8 credits), Biological and Physical Sciences (8 credits), and Social Sciences (8 credits).

Mathematics College algebra plus one additional mathematics or statistics course beyond college algebra.

Writing Tier I requirement satisfied by one course in Writing, Rhetoric, and American Culture and Tier II requirement satisfied within student’s major field of study.

Major/Minor Planned Program for Elementary Education; and Teaching Major (Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, or Integrated Science)

Disciplinary Teaching Major, consisting of a single subject area of 30 credits, a group major of 36 credits or a comprehensive major of 50 credits; and a Disciplinary Teaching Minor,

Planned Program for Special Education; and Teaching Major (Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, or Integrated Science) plus 19 credits of coursework in

Art Education Major consisting of 70-76 credits.

Music Education Major, consisting of 128-146 credits.

Planned Program for Elementary Education; and Teaching Major (Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, or Integrated Science) plus 26 credits of coursework in

89

consisting of a single subject minor of 20 credits, or a group minor of 24 credits.

Special Education-Learning Disabilities

Early Childhood-General and Special Education

Professional Ed Courses

Learning TE 150 TE 150 TE 150 TE 150 TE 150 TE 150

Diversity TE 250 TE 250 CEP 240 TE 250 TE 250 CEP 240

Context TE 301 TE 302 TE 301 TE 302 TE 302 TE 301

Mathematics MTH 201 & MTH 202

MTH 201 & MTH 202

MTH 201 & MTH 202

Science Ed SME 301 SME 301 SME 301

Subject Matter Teaching I –

TE 401* TE 407 TE 401* STA 481 See below. TE 401*

Subject Matter Teaching II

TE 402* TE 408 TE 402* STA 482 See below. TE 402*

Internship I TE 501 TE 501 TE 501 TE 501 MUS 495 TE 501

Internship II TE 502 TE 502 CEP 502A TE 502 TE 502

Professional Roles I

TE 801 TE 801 CEP 801A TE 801 TE 801*** TE 801

Professional Roles II

TE 803 TE 803 CEP 803A TE 803 TE 803*** TE 803

Reflection I TE 802 TE 802 CEP 802A TE 802 TE 802

Reflection II TE 804 TE 804 CEP 804A TE 804 TE 804

* TE401 has been replaced by TE 403 and TE 404, effective for students completing these courses in Fall 2013 ** TE 402 has been replaced by TE 405 and TE 406, effective for students completing these courses in Spring 2014. ***In Music Education, TE 801 and TE 803 have been replaced by TE496, effective for students completing the internship in Spring 2014.

Throughout their programs, Music Education majors complete numerous courses that include both content and pedagogy objectives. Students select their courses from a broad set of offerings based their performance background(s). The course offerings are organized into sets of related or complementary offerings. This structure is designed to equip them with breadth and depth of knowledge in various performance areas. At the foundation of this preparation are two courses: MUS 177 – Introduction to Music Education MUS 277 – Principles of Music Education Additional details of the Music Education course offerings and program planning constraints which supplement this central core of music pedagogy preparation can be found at http://reg.msu.edu/AcademicPrograms/Text.asp?Section=125#s2216

All professional course numbers, titles, and descriptions are presented in 3 below.

MSU Teaching Majors for Elementary Teacher Certification:

Language Arts Mathematics Integrated Science Social Studies (History or Geography) MSU Disciplinary Minors for Elementary Teacher Certification (the addition of minors is optional for elementary certification students): Arabic

90

Chinese Computer Science English French Geography German History Japanese Mathematics-Elementary Russian Spanish-Elementary Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) MSU Disciplinary Majors for Secondary Teacher Certification:

Agriscience Art Education Arabic Biological Science Chemistry Chinese Communicative Sciences and Disorders Earth Science Economics English French German History Japanese Journalism Kinesiology Mathematics Music Education Physical Science Physics Social Science - Interdisciplinary Social Science - James Madison Spanish MSU Disciplinary Minors for Secondary Teacher Certification

Agriscience Arabic Biological Science Chemistry Chinese Computer Science Earth Science Economics English French Geography German History Integrated Science Endorsement* Italian

91

Japanese Journalism Latin Mathematics-Secondary Physics Political Science Psychology Russian Sociology Spanish-Secondary Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) * Must be done in combination with a teaching major or teaching minor in one of the following science areas: biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, or physical science. If the Integrated Science endorsement is completed, the requirement for a separate teaching minor is waived.

3. Course titles and descriptions

TE 150 Reflections on Learning Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 3(3-0) Description: Students' experiences as learners in comparison to psychological, sociological, and anthropological theories and assumptions about learning and teaching in and out of school.

TE 250 Human Diversity, Power, and Opportunity in Social Institutions Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 3(3-0) Description: Comparative study of schools and other social institutions. Social construction and maintenance of diversity and inequality. Political, social and economic consequences for individuals and groups.

TE 291A Special Topics in Urban Education II Total Credits: Variable from 1 to 6 Description: Issues in teaching and learning for prospective teachers. Strategies for professional development during and after one’s teacher preparation program. TE 301 Learners and Learning in Context - Elementary (W) Total Credits: 4 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 Lab Hours: 4 4(3-4) Description: Language and literacy development in sociocultural context at the elementary level (K-8). Natural and socially constructed differences among learners. How to learn about a child. Ten components of literacy. Assessment. Reading or writing related disability.

TE 302 Learners and Learning in Contexts – Secondary (W) Total Credits: 4 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 Lab Hours: 4 4(3-4) Description: Role of social context and sociocultural background in learning at the secondary level (7-12). Natural and socially constructed differences among learners. Relationship among subject-specific knowledge, teaching and learning that subject, and the institutional and communal context. Multiple literacies.

TE 348 Reading and Responding to Children's Literature Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 3(3-0) Description: Literary understanding and genres in reading and teaching children's literature. Critical and theoretical perspectives in evaluating children's literature. Children's responses to literature. Literary, social, and pedagogical issues in the study of children's literature.

TE 352 Immigrant Language and Culture

92

Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 Description: Minority language communities and cultures. Family literacy issues and values. Emergent and adolescent literacy development. Parenting and parental involvement. Home-school connection. Family literacy programs. TE 401 Teaching of Subject Matter to Diverse Learners-Elementary Total Credits: 5 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 Lab Hours: 8 5(3-8) Description: Examining teaching as enabling diverse learners at the elementary level (K-8) to inquire into and construct subject-specific meanings.

TE 402 Crafting Teaching Practice - Elementary (W) Total Credits: 6 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 4 Lab Hours: 8 6(4-8) Description: Gathering data on learners to inform content and instructional decisions at the elementary level (K-8). Deciding what should be taught for specific disciplines. Teachers' multiple roles and their professional, intellectual, sociopolitical, and communal responsibilities.

TE 407 Teaching Subject Matter to Diverse Learners – Secondary (W) Total Credits: 5 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 Lab Hours: 8 5(3-8) Description: Examining teaching as enabling diverse learners to inquire into and construct subject-specific meanings at the secondary level (7-12). Adapting subject matter to learner diversity. Exploring multiple ways diverse learners make sense of the curriculum.

TE 408 Crafting Teaching Practices – Secondary (W) Total Credits: 6 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 4 Lab Hours: 8 6(4-8) Description: Gathering data on learners to inform content and instructional decisions. Deciding what should be taught for specific disciplines at the secondary level (7-12). Teachers' multiple roles and their professional, intellectual, sociopolitical, and communal responsibilities.

TE 501 Internship in Teaching Diverse Learners I Total Credits: 6 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 24 6(2-24) Description: Directed and evaluated internship in heterogeneous classrooms. Teaching worthwhile content to students with varied learning needs. Theoretical and field-based explorations of common teaching dilemmas.

TE 502 Internship in Teaching Diverse Learners II Total Credits: 6 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 24 6(2-24) Description: Continuing internship in heterogeneous classrooms at selected schools. Increased emphasis on independent teaching. Maintaining classroom communities that ensure equitable access to important knowledge and skills. Assessing academic and social outcomes.

TE 801 Professional Roles and Teaching Practice I Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: Teachers' professional and ethical responsibilities. Connections of schools to other social agencies. Relations of teachers to colleagues, families, other social service providers, and community leaders. Roles in school governance.

TE 802 Reflection and Inquiry in Teaching Practice I Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: Qualitative and quantitative research methods on teaching and learning. Criteria for judging the validity and applicability of research-based knowledge. Framing educational problems worthy of inquiry. Designing and assessing studies of teaching practice.

93

TE 803 Professional Roles and Teaching Practice II Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: School-agency alliances for fostering student learning. Strategies for working with families and community groups to improve responsiveness of the school curriculum to student needs. Child advocacy in the school and community.

TE 804 Reflection and Inquiry in Teaching Practice II Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data on teaching, learning, and educational policy. Dilemmas surrounding research on practice. Appraising and reporting results of inquiry.

CEP 240 Diverse Learners in Multicultural Perspective Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 3(3-0) Description: Communicative, linguistic, physical, sensory, behavioral, affective, and cognitive differences in learning in multicultural classrooms. Factors that mediate access to knowledge.

CEP 502A Internship in Teaching Diverse Learners II: Learning Disabilities Total Credits: 6 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 24 6(2-24) Description: Internship in heterogeneous classrooms. Increased emphasis on independent teaching. Teaching students with learning disabilities in classroom communities that ensure equitable access to important knowledge and skills. Assessing academic and social outcomes.

CEP 801A Collaboration and Consultation in Special Education Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: Professional and ethical responsibilities. Models and methods of collaboration with teachers, parents, and community agencies to foster learning for students with disabilities. Advocacy for students with disabilities in school and community settings.

CEP 802A Reflection and Inquiry in Teaching Special Education I: Mild Impairment Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: Qualitative and quantitative research methods on teaching and learning of students with emotional or learning impairments. Framing educational problems in special education. Designing and assessing studies of mathematics and problem-solving.

CEP 803A Assessment of Students with Mild Disabilities Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: Informal and formal assessment methods for planning and evaluating instruction and for classifying and placing students with mild disabilities. Engaging with families to improve responsiveness to the assessment.

CEP 804A Literacy Instruction for Students with Mild Disabilities Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 3 3(2-3) Description: Methods for teaching literacy to students with mild disabilities. Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data related to the teaching and programming of literacy instruction.

MTH 201 Elementary Mathematics for Teachers I Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 3(3-0) Description: Mathematics needed for K-8 teaching. Place value and models for arithmetic, mental math, word problems, and algorithms. Factors, primes, proofs, and prealgebra. Fractions, ratios, rates, and percentages. Negative, rational, and real numbers. Special emphasis on the appropriate sequential order for teaching.

94

MTH 202 Elementary Mathematics for Teachers II Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 3(3-0) Description: A continuation of MTH 201. Geometry, measurement, and elementary data analysis.

SME 301 Science for Elementary Schools Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 2 3(2-2) Description: Topics in earth science, life science, and physical science explored through discussion, demonstrations, readings, presentations, and field trips.

STA 371 Art, Education and Society Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 3 3(3-0) Description: Visual theory, learning theory, and social theory in historical and cultural contexts. Fieldwork and research-based written assignments.

STA 481 Art Experiences with Children and Youth I (W) Total Credits: 5 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 1 Lab Hours: 8 5(1-8) Description: Art teaching in the Saturday Art Program. Emphasis on elementary experiences. Planning and writing art curriculum.

STA 482 Art Experiences with Children and Youth II (W) Total Credits: 5 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 1 Lab Hours: 8 5(1-8) Description: Art teaching in the Saturday Art Program. Emphasis on secondary experiences. Planning and writing art curriculum.

MUS 177 Introduction to Music Education Total Credits: 2 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 1 2(2-1) Description: Historical foundations, current trends, and teaching responsibilities in music education at all curricular levels.

MUS 277 Principles of Music Education Total Credits: 3 Lecture/Recitation/Discussion Hours: 2 Lab Hours: 2 3(2-2) Description: Techniques for developing instructional and management skills for teaching music. On- and off-campus clinical experiences required.

MUS 495 Student Teaching in Music Total Credits: 9 Description: Supervised music teaching experience in schools. On-campus seminar required. 4. Requirements and standards for continuing in the program

The most thorough statement of program continuation expectations, requirements, and standards is presented to students in great detail on the Criteria for Progression to the Internship program website. The site provides guidance about academic requirements, state Teacher Certification licensing requirements, completing the Conviction Disclosure form, and specific program professional standards for working in schools, with other teachers, and with K-12 students. Academic advisors complete a thorough degree and internship clearance review for each student three times during the senior year, and results are communicated to the student. Students may not progress to the internship without having been “cleared” to do so by the advisors. Here are the requirements and standards:

Requirements for Progression to the Internship

To progress to the internship a teacher candidate must: A) meet the Academic Requirements listed below, B) pass the required State of Michigan certification tests for elementary teaching or the appropriate major

95

and minor subject area tests for secondary teaching, C) submit a complete Conviction Disclosure Form, and D) meet the Professional Criteria set forth below.

A. Academic Requirements

Before beginning the internship, teacher candidates must have:

1. completed all teaching major and teaching minor requirements as well as all teacher certification coursework and other courses required for teacher certification;

2. been awarded the bachelor's degree (Note: Music Education Students complete MUS495, "Student Teaching in Music", as part of their baccalaureate degree.);

3. earned a Grade Point Average of 2.5 or above in each of the following: University overall cumulative Grade Point Average, teaching major (elementary and secondary), and teaching minor (secondary);

4. earned a Grade Point Average of 2.5 or above for pre-internship, professional education courses required for teacher certification, with no individual grade below 2.0;

5. effective 2013-2014, earned a minimum grade of 2.0 in all courses in the Planned Program for Elementary Certification;

6. passed all three components of the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) Professional Readiness Examination, formerly the MTTC Basic Skills test (reading, writing, and math); and

7. completed the Michigan State Department of Education technology requirement.

B. Pass the Required State of Michigan Certification Test (MTTC) for Elementary Teaching or the Appropriate Major Subject Area Tests for Secondary Teaching

For those seeking elementary certification, including special education and early childhood education, students must take and pass the MTTC in elementary education as a condition for progression to the internship (TE501).

For elementary certification students, passing the elementary education test is a requirement for completion of the teacher certification program and is the minimal requirement of the State of Michigan in order to receive certification to teach in grades K-5. Students who additionally wish to teach in grades 6-8, must pass tests in subject matter areas in which they wish to receive endorsements. (All students must have completed majors or minors in these areas.) Students in special education and early childhood education must pass tests in their respective areas in order to be endorsed and eligible to teach in those areas. Passing these subject matter tests, however, is not required for program completion and progression to the internship; however, it is required if the student wishes to be recommended for certification in those areas.

For those seeking secondary certification (including the K-12 majors of Music Education, Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Kinesiology, and Art Education), students must take and pass the MTTC in their major as a condition for progression to the internship (TE 501, CSD 883, MUS 495). For secondary education students, passing the separate MTTC content area test in their minor is a requirement for being certified to teach the minor and is a requirement for placement in the minor subject area during the internship. All secondary education students--except those in Music, Art, and Physical Science(comprehensive group majors)-- are required to complete coursework requirements for an approved teaching minor. While it is in the best interest of secondary education teacher candidates to be certified in both their major and minor areas, the Michigan State Department of Education now permits secondary education students to obtain provisional certification in the major only without recommendation in the minor.

C. Conviction Disclosure Form

96

It is important that prospective interns be appropriate candidates for teacher education. In Michigan, the State Board of Education may refuse to grant, or may impose conditions upon, a teaching certificate for an individual who is convicted as an adult of a felony involving moral turpitude or who is convicted of an act of immoral conduct contributing to the delinquency of a child. Conviction of these crimes may, therefore, preclude the teacher candidate from being admitted to the teacher preparation program or participating in the internship. To be eligible for an internship, the teacher candidate must complete, sign, and submit the Conviction Disclosure Form to the Certification Officer. Concealment or misrepresentation of information required to be disclosed in the Conviction Disclosure Form may result in denial of admission to the internship year or in denial of recommendation for teacher certification.

D. Professional Criteria

The internship involves the intern in extensive co-planning and co-teaching with an experienced collaborating teacher and requires the intern to gradually assume responsibility for all aspects of learning and teaching in the classroom. To be eligible for an internship, the teacher candidate must have demonstrated a readiness to work in accordance with the Professional Standards below and an appropriate disposition for the profession of teaching. Therefore, a teacher candidate who meets the Academic Requirements listed above may be denied the opportunity to do an internship if, in the judgment of the Teacher Education Department, the teacher candidate has failed to meet any of the following Professional Criteria. The Professional Criteria are related to the Professional Standards used to evaluate interns' progress during the internship year.

1. Reliability and Responsibility

Teacher candidates must generally have been present and on time for professional commitments, including classes and field experiences. Teacher candidates must have regularly communicated about necessary absences or lateness according to the guidelines in the Professional Conduct Policy. Teacher candidates must have a record of meeting deadlines for course assignments and program requirements. A pattern of repeated absences, lateness, and failure to meet deadlines in courses or fieldwork is not acceptable. Any form of dishonesty (lying, plagiarism, forged signatures, etc.) about these and other requirements is not acceptable.

2. Communication Skills and Social Relationships

Teacher candidates must have demonstrated the ability to express their viewpoints and negotiate difficulties appropriately, without behaving unprofessionally with instructors, peers, or students. Teacher candidates must have shown that they are ready to accept constructive feedback in a professional manner. Teacher candidates must have demonstrated an awareness of appropriate social boundaries between students and teachers and have shown that they are ready and able to observe those boundaries. Extreme forms of behavior (such as outbursts in class, sexual or other harassment, threats of suicide or of harm to others) are not acceptable.

3. Comfort with and Concern for the Learning of all Children

Teacher candidates must be able to engage in informal conversations with children and keep their attention in such conversations. Teacher candidates must interact courteously, fairly, and professionally with people from diverse racial, cultural, and social backgrounds and of different genders or sexual orientations. Racial and other slurs are not acceptable, nor is conduct that

97

violates the University's Anti-Discrimination Policy or that would violate the Anti-Discrimination Policy if it were directed at a member of the University community.

Procedures for Decisions and Notification

A. Academic Requirements and Conviction Disclosure Form

The Student Affairs Office has primary responsibility for confirming that a teacher candidate has met all Academic Requirements and submitted the Conviction Disclosure Form. Students are responsible for insuring that they meet all criteria for progression to the internship, including fulfilling grade requirements. Students should meet with advisors to verify grade point averages if necessary.

If a teacher candidate's records are not complete or a student has failed to meet one or more Academic Requirements or to submit the Conviction Disclosure Form, the Student Affairs Office will notify the teacher candidate and the Teacher Preparation Program before May 30 prior to the beginning of the teacher candidate's internship. If the deficiencies are not remedied before the end of the summer term, the Student Affairs Office will so notify the Teacher Preparation Program, and the teacher candidate's internship will be delayed until the beginning of the next internship year assuming the deficiencies have been remedied.

B. Professional Criteria

The Department of Teacher Education and its representatives, including course instructors and collaborating teachers, have primary responsibility for evaluating whether teacher candidates have met the required Professional Criteria. The following procedures will be used to assure that teacher candidates are systematically evaluated according to the Professional Criteria and that potential problems are investigated:

All collaborating teachers working with students taking TE 301, TE 302, TE401, TE 40217, TE 407, and TE408 will be asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the students' performance in the field, including their performance with respect to the Professional Criteria. Any classroom teacher indicating concerns about a student's performance or professionalism will be contacted by the course instructor or another program representative, and the program will investigate the concerns.

The program will request that course instructors teaching TE301, TE302, TE 401/402 and TE 407/408 identify students who may not be meeting the Professional Criteria and provide information about their possible failure to comply with the Professional Criteria. The program will investigate any such concerns expressed by the course instructors.

The program will investigate concerns expressed by other course instructors, including instructors in other departments, which might involve a student's failure to meet any of the Professional Criteria.

The Team Coordinator will review situations which may involve a teacher candidate's failure to meet any of the Professional Criteria. If the Team Coordinator concludes that the situation involves a failure to comply with one or more of the Professional Criteria that is so serious that the Team recommends that the teacher candidate not be allowed to progress to the internship because of it, the Team Coordinator will inform the teacher candidate and the Director of Teacher Preparation of the recommendation and of the basis for it. The Director of Teacher Preparation will be responsible for reviewing the recommendation and determining that the teacher candidate may, upon meeting certain conditions, proceed to the internship, or that the

17 Beginning in 2013-2014, TE401 and TE 402 have been replaced by TE403, TE 404. TE 405 and TE 406.

98

teacher candidate will not be allowed to proceed to the internship. The Director of Teacher Preparation will contact, and preferably, meet with the teacher candidate prior to making this determination. Throughout this process both the Chair and the Assistant Dean of the College are kept updated.

If the Team Coordinator concludes that the teacher candidate has failed to comply with one or more of the Professional Criteria, but that the failure is not, by itself, serious enough to prevent the teacher candidate from progressing to the internship, the teacher candidate will be notified of the failure and of the teacher candidate's need to comply with the Professional Criteria in the future. If the teacher candidate again fails to comply with any of the Professional Criteria, the Team Coordinator will again review the case. If, because of the teacher candidate's repeated failure to comply with one or more of the Professional Criteria, the Team Coordinator recommends that the teacher candidate will not be allowed to progress to the internship, the Team Coordinator will inform the teacher candidate and the Director of Teacher Preparation of the recommendation and the basis for it. The Director of Teacher Preparation will be responsible for reviewing the recommendation and determining that the teacher candidate may proceed to the internship upon meeting certain conditions or that the teacher candidate will not be allowed to proceed to the internship. The Director of Teacher Preparation will contact and, preferably, meet with the teacher candidate prior to making this determination. The teacher candidate may appeal the decision to the Assistant Dean of the College of Education.

Professional Standards for the Internship

The Teacher Education Program has adopted the following Professional Standards which are used to evaluate interns' performance and make decisions about recommendations for certification.

Employ a liberal education

Communicate effectively: Communicate effectively by listening, speaking, writing, reading, and visual representations.

Value education: Model the value of education in a free and pluralistic society, particularly the role of intellectual and ethical values.

Uphold rights & responsibilities: Model respect for the role of the individual in a free society, including the importance of individual responsibility and respect for individual rights and values.

Respect difference: Model respect for individual differences (culture, race, gender, religion, and ethnicity) and for different points of view, ethics, and values.

Respect communality: Model respect for similarities within our culture and their importance to the fabric of American society, and for humankind's shared heritage and environment.

Recognize the political economy: Relate the Constitutions and histories of the United States and

Michigan, as well as the market system for allocating resources.

Model global perspectives: Model global and international perspectives.

Care for your students: Unconditionally accept students, strive to meet their educational needs, build competence to meet their needs, and show visible care about their well-being and learning.

Teach a subject matter

Promote free inquiry: Promote appreciation of free inquiry in the humanities, the social sciences, the mathematical and natural sciences, and the visual and performing arts.

Represent subject matter validly: Validly represent and model the subject matter(s) that the teacher teaches.

Teach for understanding: Create learning environments that promote critical and higher order thinking skills, foster the acquisition of deep knowledge, and allow for substantive conversation with the teacher and/or peers about subject matter.

Seek relevance & authenticity: Engage students in practical activities that demonstrate the

99

relevance, purpose, and function of subject matter to make connections to the world beyond the classroom.

Connect knowledge: Represent, model, and coach the use of knowledge from the liberal arts to analyze, synthesize, and reflect upon ideas, information, and data.

Promote independent learning: Model and coach the search for and use of current information, technology, and other resources, to help students become independent learners and problem solvers.

Work with students as individuals

Respect, care & communicate: Respect, care for, and communicate with all students. Recognizing both the challenges they face and the resources they offer, hold high expectations for all of them and work tenaciously toward their well-being, learning, and achievement.

Adapt the curriculum: Apply knowledge of human development and learning, and get information from parents and colleagues, to adapt the curriculum to students. Set measurable goals for their cognitive, affective, physical, and social learning.

Employ multiple strategies: Balancing individual, classroom, and community needs, employ a range of academic, social, and emotional strategies to enable all students to learn and succeed in and out of school.

Motivate and engage: Find ways to motivate and engage all students in the activities of the class, treating student affiliations and characteristics as resources in the classroom.

Include, accommodate & differentiate: Include, accommodate, and/or differentiate instruction for, each student, considering maturity, history, interests, achievement, and learning styles; cultural, racial, social and ethnic affiliations; and exceptional needs and abilities.

Assess and adjust: Offering special testing arrangements to students who need them, employ multiple formative and summative assessments of learning to adjust plans and instruction in response to students' interests, strengths, backgrounds, actions, and learning.

Organize a class

Promote shared values: Create a productive environment for learning, where students develop shared values and expectations regarding their interactions, academic work, and responsibilities.

Pursue equity & inclusion: Make the class an inclusive and equitable community, with diverse cultural approaches to community and interaction.

Organize democratic inquiry: Foster an ethical and democratic classroom environment that supports and respects inquiry, curiosity, and risk-taking in intellectual and social contexts.

Teach students their parts: Teach students the connections between learning community qualities and subject matter goals; sensitize students to the needs of their classmates; teach and model how to make appropriate accommodations.

Structure participation: Employ a variety of participation structures to engage students in meaningful learning, decision-making, problem solving, and conflict resolution.

Organize activity: Employing routines where desirable, organize and introduce activities and technologies so that students are prepared for them and can carry them out successfully, making good use of their time.

Assess and adjust: Assess class interaction and adjust the organization to improve the fit between classroom management strategies and instructional goals.

Use an equipped school room

Design the classroom: Design the classroom as a safe, functional, attractive, and motivating physical environment.

Use multiple modes: Use multiple literacies, materials, and media to promote inquiry, social

interaction, and learning.

Provide access to technology: Provide appropriate access to technology for all students; actively seeks ways to get all students to work with available technology and other resources to reach learning goals in and out of school.

100

Technologically enhance learning: Employ technology to enhance learning environments and curriculum, aligned with Michigan’s policy and curriculum, that maximize student learning.

Technologically enhance assessment: Apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies.

Monitor technological issues: Exercise and model alertness to equity, ethical, legal, social, physical, and psychological issues surrounding the use of technology in P-12 schools.

Teach care of the room: Teach students to take care of the classroom equipment, materials, and other resources.

Assess and adapt the room: Monitor and adapt the physical environment on a daily basis to provided the intended environment, include all students, and use the resources of the room to promote learning.

Join a faculty and school

Attend to policies: Identify and balance various policy options and demands to maximize student benefit, including communicating to students and their families.

Forge a school-based practice: Work with school colleagues to assess and improve school goals, policies, curriculum, and instruction; set expectations aligned with those; and use the resources of the school to support student learning.

Participate in accountability: Participate actively and sensitively in school assessment, evaluation, and certification processes, and uses findings to improve practice.

Foster learning communities: With colleagues, seek and use research, theory, and other professional and collegial resources to learn about students, curriculum, and pedagogy, and to design goals, curriculum, and classroom practice.

Engage guardians and community

a. Guard students’ welfare: Recognize and respond to signs of family situations that threaten student well-being.

Recognize diverse family structures: Create learning environments that recognize diversity in family structures.

Engage parents & guardians: Treat parents and guardians with respect, work with them to set expectations and support their children’s learning, and communicate assessment data to them clearly and sensitively.

Use the community in teaching: Guarding against stereotyping, flexibly and sensitively learn about the community, use local history and current issues in teaching, and use community resources to support student growth and achievement.

Communicate with the community: Communicate and interpret aggregated assessment results clearly and sensitively to community members, in ways that convey the strengths and limitations of these measures.

Advocate for children: Advocate for students and their education, and for children's welfare in the community at large.

Teacher as professional and reflective learner

Meet a teacher's responsibilities: Accept and meet a teacher’s legal and ethical responsibilities (e.g., student retention, corporal punishment, truancy, least restrictive environment, child abuse, managing conflict, first aid, health, and communicable disease).

Cultivate a teacher’s manner: Participate constructively in the school community, modeling the best of human qualities including honesty, respect, & fairness, and adapting appearance, demeanor, and communication to each situation.

Forge a teaching philosophy: Articulate, justify, act on, and adapt a personal philosophy of teaching and learning that is consistent with current theory and with the ethical and legal standards of the profession.

Negotiate working relationships: Negotiate one’s identity and commitments in interaction with important others. Especially, seek responsive, demanding, and supportive relationships with students.

101

Teach responsibly: Habitually, reflect on feedback and on the consequences of choices and decisions, use multiple sources of information to assess practice and results, and recognize and change behaviors that are inconsistent with accepted standards and good results.

Teach inquisitively: Systematically study one’s teaching, deliberately applying theories, concepts and ideas from coursework, considered teaching experience, and continuing professional development to one's practice.

Assess and respond: Tenaciously and skillfully assess and evaluate curriculum, instruction, and technology, and diligently use the results to improve both practice and results.

5. Graduation requirements

Because MSU's teacher preparation program incorporates both undergraduate and 5th-year graduate components, students formally "graduate" at the point they receive their bachelor's degrees. But, with the exception of Music Education, teacher preparation students do not complete their certification requirements until they finish the post-graduate component of the program (the Teaching Internship and related professional courses). Music Education students complete their version of the internship and related professional coursework as part of their bachelor's degree program, which requires five years to complete. So, as the section on Criteria for Progression to the Internship indicated, completing all of the bachelor's degree requirements is necessary for entering the final stage of the teacher preparation program, except in Music Education, students complete both simultaneously. The internship clearance process assures that everyone who progresses to the internship and is subsequently recommended for certification by MSU has earned the bachelor's degree.

During the 5th-year Internship, teacher preparation students spend a full year in one or two field placements (depending on projected certification level); Music Education students spend one semester in an appropriate full-time setting. In addition to the field-based practicum component of the internship, 5th-year students complete a set of associated professional courses (TE 801-804 or CEP801A – CEP804A for the most part, although Music Education students complete only TE 801 and TE 803).

6. Requirements and standards for Michigan's provisional license Students who have completed all MSU teacher certification program requirements are eligible to be recommended for a teaching certificate in the State of Michigan. They will have earned a bachelor's degree, completed all appropriate teaching major and minor requirements, completed all professional coursework, met State reading and technology requirements, passed the Teaching Internship requirement, completed training for CPR and first aid certification, provided another Conviction Disclosure Form, and passed all necessary State examinations.

102

Appendix E: Inventory of Evidence

Table E.1 Status of Evidence for TEAC Quality Principle 1 Type of Evidence Available and in the Brief Not Available & Not in the Brief

Note: Items under each category are examples. Program may have more or different evidence.

Relied on

Reasons for including in the

Brief Location in Brief

Not relied on

Reasons for not relying on this

evidence Location in Brief

For future use

Reasons for including in future

Brief

Not for future use

Reasons for not including in future Brief

GRADES

1.Student grades and grade point averages

Students’ grades and GPAs are determined by the faculty who work closely with them in classes, and reflect professional judgments about the quality of interns’ learning in courses.

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES

2.Student scores on standardized license or board Examinations

The state tests for content areas are aligned with state standards and with the required content of our program.

3. Student scores on undergraduate and/or graduate admission tests of subject matter knowledge and aptitude

We have included a comparison of the ACTs of our interns to other freshman in the 2008 entering class. Although the ACT has no predictive validity for future life/job success, we do think that it is a reasonable metric to use to compare incoming students’ general abilities.

4. Standardized scores and gains of the program graduates’ own pupils

The state is building its capacity to report on student growth by teacher. When these data are available, we will use them; but only in ways that are responsible given the conceptual and technical problems we face as a field when using VAM. We will do this because we do think that teachers ought to be held accountable for their students’ learning. However, we are aware that many factors shape

103

what students learn and the measures of student engagement and learning currently available are limited.

RATINGS

5. Ratings of e-portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments: Lesson Plan

We do not use portfolios. While portfolios are popular in teacher preparation programs, there is no existing evidence that we are aware of that portfolio systems have consistently high validity or reliability, save for face validity if the portfolio items are tied closely to the tasks of teaching.

6. Ratings of e-portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments: Final Reflection

We do not use third party ratings of our students.

7. Ratings of e-portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments: Philosophy of Education

Our interns are evaluated four times each year (mid fall, end of fall, mid spring, end of spring). These evaluations were used throughout the IB.

8. Ratings of e-portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments: Thesis

Collaborating teachers and field instructors participate in the four evaluations (note above); these evaluations are used throughout the IB. They also participate in the state’s exit survey, which we also use in the IB.

We do not use the work sample methodology.

9. Ratings of e-portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments: IEP Project

We keep track of completion rates of the program, as well as students who are counseled out.

10. Ratings of e-portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments: Teacher Technology Project

We are developing new methods for surveying graduates through social media and other means so that the return rates are substantial enough to use the data. We believe that retention data are relevant evidence of our program success, as

104

teachers need to teach for 5-8 years in order to become successful.

11. Ratings of in-service, clinical and PDS teaching

We are developing new methods for surveying graduates through social media and other means so that the return rates are substantial enough to use the data. Since the economic recession, families have had to leave MI and many retirement-age teachers did not retire. This led to more of our students needing to look for jobs outside of the state, which complicates how well we can track their employment.

12. Ratings, by cooperating teacher and college supervisors’ (Summative Evaluations)

Given our commitment to preparing teachers who will be leaders, we are considering the best ways to measure this effect. Advanced study might be one.

13. Exit Interviews We are developing new methods for surveying graduates through social media and other means so that the return rates are substantial enough to use the data.

14. Student Reaction to Effectiveness of Instruction (SREIs) survey

We are developing new methods for surveying graduates through social media and other means so that the return rates are substantial enough to use the data.

15. Graduating Student Surveys

We are considering developing surveys like the one used in the MET study to integrate into our continuous data collection plan.

RATES

16. Rates of completion of courses and program

We currently have a COE-wide survey taken by graduating seniors (before their

We are developing new methods for surveying graduates through social media and

105

internship) and interns. We chose not to use those data as the survey is new, and faculty are still deliberating on how to adjust the instrument and understand the meaning of the responses.

other means so that the return rates are substantial enough to use the data.

17. Graduates’ career retention rates

While of interest, this does not seem like a variable that will give use much insight into the broadest swath of our students.

18. Graduates’ job placement rates

We have pilot tested a survey of principals that asks general information about our graduates. The return rate is still low and therefore, we don’t rely on this as a central source of evidence. And the principals in interns’ schools are not yet their employers.

We might consider this as a source of evidence for future inquiry briefs, although we need further information on how extensive knowledge of the teachers’ practice is among employers’.

19. Graduates’ professional advanced study

While of interest, this does not seem like a variable that will give use much insight into the broadest swath of our students.

20. Graduates’ leadership roles

We might consider this as a source of evidence for future inquiry briefs, but it is likely that we might do it in particular content domains since our program is designed around the assumption that subject matter matters.

Appendix F: Local Assessments

This Appendix includes two exemplars of local assessments. The remaining subject matter and level of all local assessments will be

available for the audit visit in the supplement to Appendix F.

MDE Teacher Exit Survey Questions ............................................................................................... 108 MDE Supervisor Exit Survey Questions ........................................................................................... 113 Elementary Assessment of Intern Progress ...................................................................................... 116 Secondary English Assessment of Intern Progress (Full Report)..................................................... 122 Secondary English Assessment of Intern Progress (Short Report) .................................................. 130

107

MDE Teacher Exit Survey Questions Question1:How much do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation to ORGANIZE STUDENT LEARNING: I am well prepared to...

organize a rich environment for literacy learning. use literacy instructional strategies with a variety of texts. help students improve their reading skills. help students improve their writing skills.

Question2: Regarding your LIBERAL ARTS BACKGROUND, how much do you agree with each of the following statements: I am well prepared to…

use knowledge from the liberal arts to enrich my teaching practice. communicate effectively in several forms of writing. make interdisciplinary connections with my content area. demonstrate understanding of multiple perspectives and individual differences. demonstrate an understanding of responsible citizenship. articulate my responsibility to prepare students to succeed in a world that is ever-changing.

Question3: How much do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation to ORGANIZE STUDENT LEARNING: I am well prepared to...

plan for students with developmental disabilities. challenge gifted and talented students. motivate discouraged students for improved academic performance. adapt instruction for students learning English as a second language.

Question4: How much do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation in MANAGEMENT OF LEARNING: I am well prepared to...

use a variety of authentic assessments (e.g. portfolios, performance tasks, anecdotal records). modify assessments for students with special needs.

Question5: For the following statements, how much do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation to ORGANIZE STUDENT LEARNING: I am well prepared to . . .

help students become independent learners.

108

Question6: For the following statements, how much do you agree with each regarding your KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT MATTER: I am well prepared to...

teach the core concepts of my content major. relate classroom learning in my content area to the real world. relate classroom learning in my content area to global issues. integrate my subject matter with other content areas. help students think critically (e.g. analyze, solve problems, make decisions). use curricular standards to plan instruction.

Question7: For the following statements, how much do you agree with each regarding your level of preparationin ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING: I am well prepared to . . .

use state and local student learning standards to assess and improve my teaching. analyze student work in order to modify my own teaching.

Question8: How much do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation in ORGANIZING THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT: I am well prepared to…

engage students in cooperative group work. lead rich discussions of content. provide alternative explanations or examples when students are confused. use direct instruction to convey information. use all levels of questions in teaching. use teaching strategies that relate content to real-world situations. choose methods that help students to value learning tasks. use instructional time effectively to promote student learning. identify students' experiences, interests and knowledge in order to establish classroom routines that promote learning. structure an inclusive classroom environment that values the learning of all students. sustain high expectations for students to maximize student learning. implement a classroom management plan that promotes positive interactions. uphold the legal responsibilities to teaching. establish a learning environment that welcomes collaborative teaching practices. differentiate between assessment and evaluation procedures to use each appropriately for student leaning. uphold the legal responsibilities to teaching.

109

Question9: For the following statements, how much do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation in ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING: I am well prepared to...

communicate information about students' progress to parents and others. Question10: How well do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation in WORKING IN THE SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT: I am well prepared to...

collaborate with parents, guardians, and students to enhance student development. behave ethically in the variety of situations I will face as a teacher. collaborate with colleagues and other school personnel. engage in reflection on my professional practice as part of a life-long learning process.

Question11: How well do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation in WORKING IN THE SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT: I am well prepared to...

use professional development opportunities to improve my teaching. seek out district resources that students need. take on service roles in the teaching profession (such as curriculem committees and school improvement teams).

Question12: How well do you agree with each regarding your level of preparation to USE TECHNOLOGY TO MAXIMIZE STUDENT LEARNING: I am well prepared to...

integrate educational technology into my classroom instruction. practice high ethical standards surrounding the use of technology. use for my professional development. develop on-line learning experiences for students in my classroom. evaluate the effectiveness of technology-enhances learning environments. support students' use of technology to enhance conceptual understanding.

Question13: In ELEMENTARY CERT, how much do you agree with the following statements:I am well prepared to… teach Mathematics. teach Social Studies. teach Integrated Science. teach Language Arts. teach Reading (including oral reading). teach Writing in a variety of genres. teach reading for comprehension across content areas.

110

Question 14: If your focus is a SECONDARY CERT, how much do you agree with the following: I am well prepared to… teach my major content area(s). teach my minor content area(s). help students with reading comprehension in my content area(s). help students write in my content area(s).

Question 15: If your PRIMARY focus is SPECIAL EDUCATION, how much do you agree with the following statements :I am well prepared to…

use teaching techniques effective for the identified disability. use instructional strategies that help students with their reading comprehension across content. use instructional strategies that help students to write. collaborate with other teachers to meet student learning needs. use adaptive technologies to accommodate student with special needs.

Question16: In MUSIC, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, ART OR LIBRARY/MEDIA, how much do you agree with the following: I am well prepared to…

teach my content area to elementary students. teach my content area to secondary students. help students with reading comprehension in my content area. make connections between my content area and other academic content

Question17: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ability to ... adapt instructions to meet students' varied cognitive needs? support student literacy across content areas?

Question18: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ability to... integrate the subject matter with other content areas?

help students think critically about the content area (e.g. analyze, solve problems, make decisions)? Question19: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ability to...

analyze student work in order to modify your own teaching use a variety of standardized assessments to guide your decisions about what to teach?

Question20: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ability to... use a variety of research-based instructional methods to meet the needs of all students? use classroom management techniques that sustain a productive learning community?

111

Question21: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ablity to... collaborate with colleagues and other school personnel?

Question22: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ablity to... engage in reflection on your professional practice as part of a life-long learning process?

Question23: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ability to... design learning activities for students that involve community groups? participate in the community in which you teach?

Question24: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ability to... practice high ethical standards surrounding the use of technology?

Question25: How much did your Teacher Preparation Institution contribute to your ability to... demonstrate understanding of multiple perspectives and individual differences? use knowledge from the liberal arts to enrich your teaching practice? adapt the classroom curriculum to meet th eneeds of a changing society?

112

MDE Supervisor Survey Questions Question 1: Teacher preparation institution responsible for the student/intern: Question 2: Student Identification: Question 3: Type of program enrolled in at present: Question 4: Teaching Certificate: Question 5: Content Specialty (Major/Minor) Question 6: School District: (If Private or Parochial skip to next question.) Question 7: Parochial or Private School: Question 8: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern ability regarding SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE: -Teaches the core concepts of the assigned subject area(s). -Relates classroom learning to the real world. -Integrates subject matter with other content areas. -Helps students think critically (eg. analyze, solve problems, make decisions). Question 8: This student teacher/intern demonstrates thorough knowledge of the subject matter. Question 8: Additional Comments: Question 9: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern ability to SUPPORT STUDENT LITERACY: -Organizes an environment for developing literacy in content area learning. -Uses literacy instructional strategies with a variety of texts. -Uses a variety of strategies to help students improve their reading skills. -Uses a variety of strategies to help students improve their writing skills. Question 9: This student teacher/intern is able to support student literacy. Question 9: Additional Comments: Question 10: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern abilities in ORGANIZING THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT: -Chooses a variety of teaching strategies to meet the different needs of students. -Ensures a safe and orderly classroom environment. -Develops curriculum that builds on students' experiences, interests and abilities. -Helps students become self-motivated and self-directed. -Chooses methods that help students to value learning. -Facilitates rich discussions of content. Question 10: This student teacher/intern is able to organize the classroom environment.

113

Question 10: Additional Comments: Question 11: Please consider the following aspects of the ability to MAXIMIZE LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE RANGE OF STUDENTS TRUSTED TO THE STUDENT TEACHER/INTERN: -Structures opportunities for all students to interact positively across cultures. -Plans for students with disabilities or developmental delays. -Challenges gifted and talented students. -Motivates discouraged students for improved academic performance. -Adapts instruction for students learning English as a second language. Question 11: Given the opportunity, this student teacher/intern is able to maximize learning opportunities for diverse students. Question 11: Additional Comments: Question 12: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern ability to ASSESS LEARNING: -Uses authentic assessment (eg. portfolios, performance tasks, anecdotal records) in the classroom. -Uses the results of a variety of assessments to guide instructional decisions. -Communicates information about students' progress to students, parents and others. -Adapts assessments for students with special needs. -Analyzes student work in order to modify teaching strategies. Question 12: This student teacher/intern is able to assess in learning. Question 12: Additional Comments: Question 13: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern ability in USING TECHNOLOGY TO MAXIMIZE STUDENT LEARNING POTENTIAL: -Integrates educational technology into classroom instruction. -Practices high ethical standards surrounding the use of technology. -Uses technological resources to bring new learning opportunities into the classroom. -Uses technology to organize and manage student records. -Supports the use of a variety of technology in student work. Question 13: Given the opportunity, this student teacher/intern is able to use technology to maximize students' learning potential. Question 13: Additional Comments: Question 14: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern ability regarding LIBERAL ARTS BACKGROUND. -Uses knowledge from the liberal arts (eg. humanities, mathematics and science) to enrich teaching practices.

114

-Communicates effectively in several forms of writing. -Uses mathematics as a tool in learning. -Models the role of an individual in a free society. -Demonstrates understanding of multiple perspectives and individual differences. -Demonstrates an understanding of responsible citizenship. Question 14: This student teacher/intern is able to incorporate liberal arts into teaching practices. Question 14: Additional Comments: Question 15: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern abilities in WORKING IN THE SCHOOL AND DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT: -Uses state and local student learning standards to plan instruction. -Communicates with parents, guardians and families. -Behaves ethically in the variety of situations faced as a teacher. -Teaches effectively in schools with limited resources. -Collaborates with colleagues on professional issues. -Access school and district resources that students need. Question 15: This student teacher/intern is able to work in the school and district environment. Question 15: Additional Comments: Question 16: Please consider the following aspects of the student teacher/intern ability in PARTICIPATING IN EXTENDED LEARNING COMMUNITIES. -Arranges for students to connect with the community. -Participates in professional growth opportunities. -Uses school and district resources to enrich instruction. Question 16: This student teacher/intern is able to participate in extended learning communities. Question 16: Additional Comments: Question 17: Please comment on observed Student Teacher/Intern strengths: Question 18: Please comment on observed Student Teacher/Intern weaknesses:

115

Elementary Assessent of Interns Progress

This Appendix includes two exemplars of local assessments. The remaining subject matter and level of all local assessments will be

available for the audit visit in the supplement to Appendix F.

LAET Assessment of Intern Progress: A tool for discussion (SUMMARY SHEET)

Intern: Date:

Completed by: Does

not meet

expectations

Meet

expectations

Exceeds

expectations

Standard 1. Acts as an educated person: Communicates effectively; shows that s/he values learning; promotes both individual

responsibility and individual rights; models respect both individual diversity and for community; models knowledge of American

government and economics; models global perspectives.

1

2

3

4

5

Standard 2. Teaches elementary subject matters: Researches and validly teaches subject matter through short-range and long-

range planning; connects subject matter to the world beyond school; promotes critical and higher order thinking; pro- motes

independent learning and problem solving; engages students in inquiry and promotes curiosity; models and coaches analysis,

synthesis, evaluation of ideas, skills and information.

1

2

3

4

5

Standard 3. Works with students as individuals: Respects, cares for, and communicates with all students, and holds high

expectations; adapts the curriculum to them, setting measurable goals; employs multiple strategies for teaching them; motivates

and engages all students; includes, accommodates, and differentiates instruction; assesses and adjusts instruction to serve

individuals.

1

2

3

4

5

Standard 4: Organizes and manages a class: Organizes and introduces rules and routines; uses a range of participation

structures; promotes shared values and expectations for learning; teaches students how to participate; responds to student

inattention and misbehavior; assesses class interaction and adjusts the organization as needed.

1

2

3

4

5

Standard 5. Uses an equipped classroom: Designs the classroom for safety and learning: uses multiple modes and media for

instruction: uses information technology for instruction and assessment: teaches students to take care of the room; assesses

activity and adapts the room to support students and promote learning.

1

2

3

4

5

Standard 6. Joins a faculty and school: Attends to school policies; works with other teachers and administrators as needed;

participates in school assessment, evaluation, and grading processes; participates in formal and informal professional learning

for and by teachers.

1

2

3

4

5

Standard 7. Engages families and community: Communicates with parents and guardians about students' activity and

learning; recognizes and responds to diverse family structures; uses community history, issues, and resources in teaching;

recognizes patterns of evidence that indicate threats to students' welfare; advocates for students’ interests.

1

2

3

4

5

Standard 8. Teaches deliberately and learns from experience: Understands and accepts a teacher's responsibilities; employs

a thoughtful and informed philosophy of teaching; exhibits a teacher's thoughtful and professional manner; exercises good

judgment in planning and teaching; habitually reflects on and makes use of feedback to improve teaching; deliberately draws upon

professional education as a resource; uses assessments, feedback, and continuing education to improve performance.

1

2

3

4

5

Overall Rating

Mid-Semester

Fall

Does not meet expectations Meets expectations Exceeds Expectations

Overall Rating

Mid-Semester

Spring

Does not meet expectations Meets expectations Exceeds Expectations

116

Assessment of intern Progress: Worksheets

Use the worksheets on the following pages to make judgments about the intern’s performance in relation to the standards. Complete ratings for the standards

that you are best able to comment on at this time of year. For example, during fall semester, you are more likely to be able to provide evidence for Standards 2,3,4 and 8. By spring semester you will be able to comment on all standards.

• Use the columns on the right to make notes of specific examples and evidence used to give an overall rating for that standard, and identify practices the intern should work on.

• Then indicate an overall rating for each standard.

• Record the overall rating on the SUMMARY SHEET (page 1).

This tool is intended to provide input for discussion among the field instructor, intern and collaborating teacher, and produce a cumulative record of the intern’s

growth over time. It is expected that interns will have specific areas that require further growth and development, since this is a year for the intern to learn to teach.

Categories for Overall Rating

Does not meet expectations. Progress in this area is limited; progress is insufficient for what would be expected at this time of year; the intern's

commitment and effort are not satis- factory.

Meets expectations. The intern is successfully achieving the high professional expectations represented in this Teacher Preparation Program

Standards. The intern demonstrates progress that one would expect to see at this time of the year; commitment and effort shown are what is

expected during the internship.

Exceeds expectations. The intern's performance in a specific area is exceptional; the intern's exemplary performance in this area is beyond what one

would expect to see at this time of year; the intern shows unusual commitment and effort.

Note:

• During Fall Semester, the focus will be on Standards 2, 3, 4, and 8.

• During Spring Semester, Standards 1 – 8 will be discussed.

117

Worksheet for Standard 1: Acts as an educated person

The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Communicates effectively: listening, speak- ing, writing,

reading, and visual.

b. Shows that s/he values education for a plura- listic society.

c. Promotes both individual responsibility and individual rights.

d. Models respect both for individual diversity and for

community.

e. Models knowledge of American government and the American

economic system.

f. Offers global and international perspectives on topics,

questions, and issues.

Overall rating for standard 1 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds expectations

Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

Worksheet for Standard 2: Teaches elementary subject matters

The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Researches and validly presents, represents, and

models the subject matter(s) to students through short-

range and long-range planning.

b. Engages students in activities that connect subject

matter to the world beyond school.

c. Promotes critical and higher order thinking during

substantive conversations with students.

d. Models, and coaches independent learning and

problem solving by students.

e. Models and promotes inquiry and curiosity in each of

the subject matters.

f. Models and coaches analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation of ideas, skills, and information.

Overall rating for standard 2 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectations Exceeds expectations Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

118

Worksheet for Standard 3: Works with students as individuals

The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Respects, cares for, & communicates with all

students, holding high expectations for them.

b. Adapts the curriculum to students, setting

measurable goals for their learning.

c. Employs a range of academic, social, and emotional

strategies to help all students learn.

d. Motivates and engages all students, treating their

characteristics as resources.

e. Includes, accommodates, & differentiates

instruction for, each student.

f. Uses formative and summative assessments of

learning to adjust plans and instruction.

Overall rating for standard 3 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds expectations

Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

Worksheet for Standard 4: Organizes and manages a class as an environment for learning The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Introduces and teaches rules and routines so that

students are prepared for them.

b. Uses a variety of participation structures to engage

students in meaningful learning.

c. Promotes shared values and expectations for learning

d.Teaches students how to play active and helpful

parts in class activities.

e. Responds thoughtfully and consistently to student

inattention and misbehavior.

f. Assesses class interaction and adjusts the

organization to promote learning.

Overall rating for standard 4 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds expectations

Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

119

Worksheet for Standard 5: Uses an equipped classroom.

The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Helps to make the classroom a safe, func-

tional, and motivating physical environment.

b. Uses multiple literacies, materials, and media

to promote inquiry, interaction, and learning.

c. Uses information technology to enhance

standards-based instruction and assessment.

d. Teaches students to use information technol-

ogy wisely and ethically.

e. Teaches students to take care of the class-

room, equipment, and materials.

f. Assesses activity and adapts the room and its

resources to promote learning.

Overall rating for standard 5 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds expectations

Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

Worksheet for Standard 6: Joins a faculty and a school

The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Attends to school policies for the safety, pro-

tection, well-being, and learning of students.

b. Works with other teachers and school admin-

istrators as needed to perform as an intern.

c. Participates in school assessment, evalua-

tion, and grading processes.

d. Participates in formal and informal profes-

sional learning for and by teachers.

Overall rating for standard 6 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds expectations

Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

120

Worksheet for Standard 7: Engages in families and community.

Worksheet for Standard 8: Teaches deliberately and learns from experience The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Understands, accepts, and meets a teacher’s legal and ethical

responsibilities.

b. Works toward a philosophy of teaching con- sistent with

professional knowledge.

c. Exhibits a teacher's manner of honesty, re- spect, fairness, and

civility. d. Exercises good judgment in using time and other resources to

attain educational goals.

e. Habitually reflects on and makes use of feedback to

improve teaching. f. Deliberately draws upon professional educa- tion as a resource.

g. Deliberately uses assessments and feedback to improve her/his

performance.

Overall rating for standard 8 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectation

s

Exceeds expectations

Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

The intern: Strengths & evidence Practices to work on

a. Communicates with families about students' activity and

behavior.

b. Communicates with families about students' learning and

progress.

c. Recognizes and responds thoughtfully to di- versity in

students' family arrangements.

d. Uses local history, current issues, and com- munity

resources in teaching.

e. Recognizes patterns of evidence that indicate threats to

students.

f. Advocates for students' interests in the class- room and

school.

Overall rating for standard 7 Does not meet expectations

Meets expectation

s

Exceeds expectations

Choose one rating for the program evaluation database 1 2 3 4 5

121

Secondary English Assessment of Intern Progress (Full Report)

Fall Semester Assessment of intern progress (Full Report): Secondary English

Intern:

Date(s): This rubric will provide input for discussion and a cumulative record of the intern’s growth over time. This assessment should be collaboratively completed in the Final Conference of the Fall Semester and returned to the English subject area leader in English Education. Since each standard should be addressed in the final Exit Performance Description (EPD), this rubric is designed to guide conversations about intern progress throughout the year in a manner that aligns with this final assessment. For each of the eight standards, please indicate evidence, strengths, practices to work on, and quality (how well?) for specific performances. It is expected that interns will have specific areas that require further growth and development, since this is a year for the intern to learn to teach.

Fall Semester Conference Persons present at conference:

Evaluator:

__CT

__intern

__field instructor

Evidence How well?

What sources of data document the performance of this standard? These may include situations, documents, interactions, etc. Some possible evidence includes: observation of teaching, conversations (with field instructor, with mentor, with students, with course instructor, etc.), artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, focus class binder, curricular materials developed by intern, and so on).

This scale is designed to allow the Teacher Education Program at MSU to track intern development over time and to compare our success as a program over the years. Teacher candidates should be targeting “Connecting” performances of teaching throughout their intern year. Beginning. The performance included some of the major elements. The intern’s enactment of those elements vaguely resembled descriptions in the literature and lore. Some students participated in their part of the performance. Expanding. The performance included a majority of the major elements. The intern connected some of those elements. The intern’s enactment of those elements generally resembled descriptions in the literature and lore. Some or many students responded as intended, and the intern noticed how they responded. [Compared to “beginning,” “expanding” is distinct progress.] Connecting. The performance included most major elements. The intern connected many of these elements in a coherent performance. The intern’s enactment of those elements largely resembled descriptions in the literature and lore. Many students responded in the intended way, and the intern often noticed and adapted to their responses. Refining/extending (and rare). The performance included all major elements, which were well integrated and sharply executed. Students and teacher interacted responsively, working together. This is the performance that probationary teachers would aim to achieve consistently by the end of their third year of teaching. For this reason, we do not include this quality on the rubric, but for exemplary teaching performances, this can be added. NOTE differences between fall and spring: “Beginning” is good enough in the first lead teaching period, but not good enough in the spring. “Expanding” should become visible in the first lead teaching period and increase through the middle of the year. “Connecting” should become visible in the spring lead teaching, and the intern should aim to achieve this performance consistently by the end of the year.

Your grade is ___ Pass ___ Pass with concern (please attach detailed improvement plan) ___ No Pass

Signatures: Field Instructor

_____________________

Mentor Teacher

_____________________

Intern

_____________________

122

Standard 1: Knows and teaches English/Journalism as a subject matter

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Content knowledge: Demonstrates depth and breadth of content knowledge in English/Journalism.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

b. Purpose and coherence: Long-term and short-term objectives are aligned in a purposeful, coherent English language arts curriculum.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

c. Promotes independent learning: models and coaches the search for and use of current information, technology, and other resources to help students become independent inquirers in the English language arts.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Teaches for understanding: Creates learning environments that promote critical and higher order thinking skills, foster the acquisition of deep knowledge, and allow for substantive conversation with the teacher and/or peers about the English language arts.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Standard 2: Works with students as individuals

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Clearly communicates with all students. Communicates high expectations to all students and also communicates what students need to do to achieve those expectations.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

123

b. Adapts the curriculum: Applies knowledge of human development and learning. Gets information from parents and colleagues to adapt the curriculum to students.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

c. Employs multiple strategies: Employs a range of strategies to enable all students to learn and succeed in and out of school.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Seeks relevance & authenticity: Shows students why what they are doing today matters beyond today. Demonstrates the relevance, purpose, and function of English language arts, making connections to the world beyond the classroom.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

e. Includes, accommodates & differentiates instruction for each student, considering maturity, history, interests, achievement, and learning styles; cultural, racial, social and ethnic affiliations; exceptional needs and abilities; and home/native language.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Standard 3: Assesses student learning

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Sets measurable goals: Articulates clear objectives across different time scales (year, semester, unit, lesson).

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

124

b. Assesses students as individuals. Offers special testing arrangements to students who need them, employs multiple formative and summative assessments of learning to adjust plans and instruction in response to students’ interests, strengths, backgrounds, actions, and learning.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

c. Adjusts based on ongoing assessment: Based on class interaction and other formative measures, adjusts organization and instruction to improve fit between instructional strategies and learning goals

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Technologically enhances assessment: Applies available technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Standard 4: Organizes a class

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Structures participation to engage students in substantive interaction with English language arts (ELA) and with each other

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

b. Promotes safe and inclusive environment; promotes respect for differences; articulates shared values and expectations. Uses diverse cultural approaches to foster interaction and community.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

125

c. Promotes intellectually engaging environment that supports and respects inquiry, curiosity, and risk-taking.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Teaches students to productively participate in classroom community; articulates connections between quality of classroom organization/participation and ELA learning goals; sensitizes students to needs of classmates; teaches and models how to make appropriate responses to others.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

e. Organizes activity: Employs routines where desirable, organizes and introduces activities and technologies so that students are prepared for them and can carry them out successfully. Makes good use of time.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Standard 5: Uses space and technologies in a classroom

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Designs the classroom as a safe, functional, attractive, and motivating physical environment to promote learning; Capitalizes on classroom space and design to promote learning

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

b. Uses multiple modes to technologically enhance learning: Employs multiple literacies, materials and available media technology to enhance learning environment and curriculum. Uses technologies to maximize student learning.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

126

c. Provides access to available technology for all students; actively seeks ways to get all students to work with available technology and other resources to reach learning goals.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Monitors technological issues: Exercises and models alertness to equity, ethical, legal, social, physical, and psychological issues surrounding the use of technology in P-12 schools. Attends to issues of plagiarism, censorship, equal access, etc.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

e. Teaches care of the room: Teaches, and models, care of the classroom equipment, materials, and other resources

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Standard 6: Joins a faculty and school

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Attends to policies: identifies and balances various policy options (e.g., school disciplinary, curricular, and/or assessment policy) and demands to maximize student benefit, including communicating to students and their families.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

b. Forges a school-based practice: works with school, department, and / or team colleagues to assess and improve school goals, policies, curriculum, and instruction; set expectations aligned with those; and use the resources of the school to support student learning.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

127

c. Participates in accountability: participates actively and sensitively in school assessment, evaluation, and accreditation processes, and uses findings to improve practice.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Fosters learning communities: with colleagues, seeks and uses research, theory, and other professional and collegial resources to learn about students, curriculum, and pedagogy, and to design goals, curriculum, and classroom practice.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Standard 7: Engages guardians and community

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Guards students’ welfare: Recognizes and responds to signs of family situations that threaten students’ well-being.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

b. Respectfully engages parents and guardians: Respects diverse family structures, treats parents and guardians with respect, works with them to set expectations and support student learning, communicates assessment data clearly and sensitively.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

c. Uses community resources in teaching and/or curriculum: Uses knowledge of these resources to support student growth and achievement.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Practices language awareness: Uses knowledge of community/ies language practices in planning, teaching, and assessment.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

128

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Standard 8: Engages with profession of teaching as a reflective learner

The intern: Evidence Strengths Practices to work on How well?

a. Meets a teacher's responsibilities: accepts and meets a teacher’s legal and ethical responsibilities (e.g., student retention, corporal punishment, truancy, least restrictive environment, child abuse, managing conflict, first aid, health, and communicable disease).

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

b. Cultivates a teacher’s manner: participates constructively in the school community, modeling the best of human qualities including honesty, respect, & fairness, and adapting appearance, demeanor, and communication to each situation.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

c. Negotiates working relationships: negotiates one’s identity and commitments in interaction with important others. Especially, seeks responsive, demanding, and supportive relationships with students.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

d. Teaches responsibly: Habitually and systematically reflects on one’s teaching; applies relevant theory and multiple sources of information (including professional organizations) to assess curriculum practice and results to improve student learning.

Beginning

Expanding

Connecting

STANDARD 1: OVERALL (circle one): Beginning Expanding Connecting ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

129

Secondary English Assessment of Intern Progress (Short Report)

Fall Semester Assessment of intern progress (Short Report): Secondary English The intern, mentor, and field instructor fill this out before the final fall conference. The field instructor then gathers the assessments into a single document synthesizing the discussion and submits to English subject area leader.

Intern: Date(s):

Field Instructor: Persons present at conference:

Mentor:

Standard Elements of Standard How Well? (please circle one for each standard)

1. Knows and teaches English as a subject matter

a. Knows content b. Purpose and coherence c. Promotes independent learning d. Teaches for understanding

Beginning Expanding Connecting

2. Works with students as individuals

a. Clearly communicates b. Adapts curriculum c. Employs multiple strategies d. Seeks relevance and authenticity e. Includes, accommodates, differentiates

Beginning Expanding Connecting

3. Assesses student learning a. Sets measurable goals b. Assesses students as individuals c. Adjusts based on ongoing assessment d. Technologically enhances assessment

Beginning Expanding Connecting

4. Organizes a class a. Structures participation to engage students b. Promotes safe and inclusive environment c. Promotes intellectually engaging environment d. Teaches students to productively participate in classroom community e. Organizes activity

Beginning Expanding Connecting

5. Uses space and technologies in a classroom

a. Designs classroom to promote learning b. Uses multiple modes to technologically enhance learning c. Provides access to available technology d. Monitors technological issues e. Teaches care of room

Beginning Expanding Connecting

6. Joins a faculty and a school a. Attends to policies b. Forges a school-based practice c. Participates in accountability d. Fosters learning communities

Beginning Expanding Connecting

7. Engages guardians and community

a. Guards students’ welfare b. Respectfully engages parents and guardians c. Uses community resources in teaching and/or curriculum d. Practices language awareness

Beginning Expanding Connecting

8.Engages with profession of teaching as reflective learner

a. Meets a teacher’s responsibilities b. Cultivates a teacher’s manner c. Negotiates working relationships d. Teaches responsibly

Beginning Expanding Connecting

Please identify and discuss 1 to 3 standards to work on for Spring Semester (please be as specific as possible in writing down and discussing concrete practices).

Your grade is ___ Pass ___ Pass with concern (please attach detailed improvement plan) ___ No Pass

Signatures: Field Instructor

_____________________

Mentor Teacher

_____________________

Intern

_____________________