teaching for the future: evaluating intern teachers’ career education projects annelise welde,...
TRANSCRIPT
Teaching for the Future: Evaluating Intern Teachers’ Career Education Projects
Annelise Welde, B.A., M.Ed. Counselling Psychology Student
Kerry Bernes, B.Ed., M.Sc., Ph.D., R.Psych., ABPPProfessor and Assistant Dean, Graduate Studies and
Research in Education, University of Lethbridge
Cannexus15 PresentationJanuary 27, 2015
Background
• Aims of career education:• Self-exploration; career planning skills; explore career
options• Connect academic learning with future life and career
goals • Harkins, 2000; Orthner, Jones-Sanpei, Arkos, & Rose, 2013; Super, 1975
• Established needs:• Integrated career education curriculum
• Bernes & Magnusson, 2004; Harkins, 2000; Heibert, 1993; Orthner et al.
• Career development training for pre-service teachers• Bernes & Magnusson; Millar, 1995; Schultheiss, 2008; Super
Background
• University of Lethbridge: Two career education courses implemented for K-12 teachers
• Course 1: Introduced to career and life planning; prepared to integrate career education into teaching
• Course 2: Implemented career education projects in final practicum placements; submitted final reports and standardized student evaluation surveys for credit
• 54 intern teachers, 56 projects, 1389 students from 2009-2014
Purpose & Research Questions
• Purpose: Analyze student evaluations and teachers’ final reports to identify…• What interventions are rated as most effective at
each grade level?• What do students like most?• What are students’ common recommendations?• Project strengths, challenges, and recommendations
Goal: Enable educators to “teach for the future.”
Sample
Archival data from 2009-2014*Pool of 56 projects,
1389 students
Purposive sample of projects:*Attached student
evaluation data*Detail regarding implementation*Standardized
student evaluations
After exclusion criteria:
*46 projects*1106
students (1034) surveys
*1-6: 25 projects, 598 (555) students*7-9: 11 projects, 325 (309) students
*10-12: 10 projects, 183 (170) students
Methods
Content analysis – method for analyzing archival data
Berg, 2008; Elo & Kyngas, 2008; Forman & Damschroder, 2008; Prasad, 2008; Schreier, 2012
• Three overlapping phases: • Immersion, Reduction, and Interpretation (Forman & Damschroder)
• Advantages: • Analyze large quantities of quantitative and qualitative data• Targeted towards research questions
• Challenges:• Non-linear format• Time-consuming
Instruments
• Two primary mixed-methods coding frames• Developed deductively based on existing data –
structure of original assignments and student evaluation surveys
• Five additional coding frames• Derived inductively from emerging themes in data
• Pilot-testing on 5 projects and surveys from category
• Reliability testing on 30% of coded data - >88% agreement
Project Coding Frame
• Summative Evaluation Results• Most popular intervention• Least popular intervention• Overall participation• Overall helpfulness of activities
• Strengths
• Challenges
• Recommendations
• Context of the Teaching Environment• Grade Level• Grade Level Category• Number of Students in
Class• Targeted Curriculum
• Detailed Description of Lesson Plan• Number of Lessons• Duration
Student Evaluation Coding Frame
• Overall Participation Score: ___
• Perceived Helpfulness of Each Intervention: (Not Good at All, Good, or Great)
• Perceived Effectiveness of Unit (I don’t agree, I don’t know, or I agree)• Outcome 1: This [project] helped me to learn a lot about myself• Outcome 2: This [project] helped me to learn a lot about careers• Outcome 3: This [project] made me excited about what I could do with my life• Outcome 4: This [project] made me want to learn more about different careers
• Open-Ended Responses
• What I liked about this project:
____________________________________________ • How this project could be made better:
____________________________________________
Analysis
• Quantitative analysis• SPSS: Descriptive statistics• Frequency counts of categorical data; mean, mode,
and median results in each coding category• Produce frequency tables to summarize results
Qualitative analysis• NVivo 10: Qualitative content analysis• Reduce data, convert to codes• Use codes in new coding frames• Determine frequencies of codes/responses
Highest Rated Interventions: Elementary
• Highest % rated Great by students
Intervention Number of Students
% Rated Great
Research Subject-Specific Careers
10 100
Guest Speaker 63 94
Career Dress-Up 15 94
Guess the Job Game 28 93
Career/Job Cut-Out 49 89
Highest Rated Interventions: Junior High
• Highest % rated Great by students
Intervention Number of Students
% Rated Great
Career Presentation 78 68
Research Careers 131 65
Vision Board 15 63
Research Subject-Specific Careers
43 61
Values Inventory 13 59
Highest Rated Interventions: Senior High
• Highest % rated Great by students
Intervention Number of Students
% Rated Great
Simulated Day in Career 21 81
Self-Portrait 12 80
Career Budget 8 73
Subject-Specific Lesson 19 73
Poster 5 71
Standardized Learning Outcomes
Helped learn about self
Helped learn about careers
Made excited about life
Want to learn about different careers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of Agreement with Learning Outcomes
Elementary Junior High Senior High
Learning Outcomes
Perc
enta
ge o
f A
gre
em
ent
Student Responses: Likes
What did students like most about the projects?
Lear
ning
abo
ut car
eers
Fun/
enjoya
ble
Thinkin
g ab
out f
utur
e
Helpf
ul
Lear
ning
abo
ut se
lf
Condu
cting
care
er re
sear
ch
Star
ting
to p
lan
for f
utur
e0
4080
120
Most Common Student Responses: Likes
Elementary Junior High Senior High
Response Theme
Num
ber
of
Resp
onse
s
Student Responses: Recommendations
What were the most common student recommendations?
No ch
ange
s
Mor
e tim
e
Don't
know
Mor
e fu
n/ex
citing
Mor
e gr
oup
work
Less
repe
tition
Lear
n m
ore
re: c
aree
rs0
60
120
180
Most Common Student Responses: Improvements
Elementary Junior High Senior High
Response Theme
Num
ber
of
Resp
onse
s
Project Reports: Strengths
What were the most common strengths across projects?
Aware
of u
niqu
enes
s
Stud
ents h
ad fu
n
Enga
ging
less
ons
Taug
ht car
eer p
lann
ing
skills
Broad
ened
car
eer a
spira
tions
0
30
60
90
Percentages of Common Project Strengths by Grade Level
Elementary Junior High Senior High
Strength Category
Perc
enta
ge
Project Reports: Challenges
What were the most common challenges across projects?
Insu
fficie
nt ti
me
Boring/
unex
citing
Unable
to com
plet
e ac
tivities
Did n
ot h
elp
lear
n ab
out c
aree
rs0
30
60
90
Percentages of Common Challenges by Grade Level
Elementary Junior High Senior High
Challenge Category
Perc
enta
ge
Project Reports: Recommendations
What were the most common recommendations across projects?
Mor
e tim
e
Inte
grat
e into
oth
er su
bjec
ts
Mor
e ca
reer
plann
ing
activ
ities
Caree
r res
earc
h
Mor
e gr
oup
work
0
30
60
90
Percentages of Common Recommend-ations by Grade Level
Elementary Junior High Senior High
Recommendation Category
Perc
enta
ge
Recommendations for Practice
• Integrate career education into other subjects
• Expose students to multiple career options
• Use exciting, engaging interventions – tailored to class
• Provide opportunities for students to work together
• Match activities to grade level, ability, interest
Recommendations for Practice
• Use technology to integrate ICT outcomes
• Provide enough time and use adequate explanations
• Capitalize on egocentrism and self-interest
• Connect self-awareness to career options
• Use career education as a tool to enhance engagement
Future Research
• Examine longitudinal impacts of career education training on teaching practices• What aspects of course were most useful?• What strategies do teachers continue to use?
• Examine longitudinal impacts of integrated career education on student outcomes• How do students benefit from exposure to integrated
career education across multiple courses and grades?
Acknowledgements
This research was supported through funding provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Special thanks to thesis committee members, Dr. K. Bernes, Dr. T. Gunn & Dr. S. Ross, and to the intern teachers and their students who completed these projects and made this analysis possible.
Questions
Annelise WeldeM.Ed. Counselling Psychology StudentUniversity of [email protected]
Dave Redekopp, PhDDonnalee BellSerena Hopkins
For more info/questions, contact:• Canadian Career Development
Foundation• www.ccdf.ca• 613 729 6165• [email protected]; [email protected]
• Life-Role Development Group Ltd.• www.life-role.com• 780 451 1954• [email protected]
Dr. Kerry BernesProfessor and Assistant
Dean,Graduate Studies andResearch in EducationFaculty of EducationUniversity of LethbridgeEmail: