ERIC ED467438: Our Students Speak: An Analysis of Survey Data Provided by ECSU Certification Candidates Concerning Their Professional Preparation and Connecticut's Common Core of Teaching. Research Brief, Winter 2002.

39 Pages·0.47 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
TM 034 320
ED 467 438
Sakofs, Mitchell
AUTHOR
Our Students Speak: An Analysis of Survey Data Provided by
TITLE
ECSU Certification Candidates Concerning Their Professional
Preparation and Connecticut's Common Core of Teaching.
Research Brief, Winter 2002.
Eastern Connecticut State Univ., Willimantic.
INSTITUTION
2002-00-01
PUB DATE
NOTE
37p.
Numerical/Quantitative Data (110)
Reports
Research (143)
PUB TYPE
EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Faculty Development; Higher Education; *Preservice Teacher
DESCRIPTORS
Education; Program Effectiveness; Student Evaluation;
*Student Teachers; Student Teaching
IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut
ABSTRACT
To better understand how teacher candidates (student teachers)
from Eastern Connecticut State University (ECSU) grow and develop from the
start to the end of their student teaching semester, data provided through the
Student Teacher Growth Record were analyzed. Student Teacher Growth Records,
along with narrative reports provided by student teacher coordinators, serves
as the primary means of assessing the candidate's knowledge, skills, and
dispositions. The growth records are completed by the teacher candidate,
cooperating teacher, and university coordinator midway through and at the end
of the student teaching experience. Analysis of the growth records reveals
that growth recorded between midyear and the end of the year was statistically
significant. There were no significant differences among evaluations provided
by the candidate, the cooperating teacher, and the university coordinator,
suggesting that they all see the candidate's performance in the same light.
(Contains 6 figures and 38 tables.)
(SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
Our Students Speak
An analysis of survey data provided by ECSU Certification Candidates
concerning their professional preparation and Connecticut's
Common Core of Teaching
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
CENTER (ERIC)
his document has been reproduced as
BEEN GRANTED BY
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
document do not necessarily represent
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
official OERI position or policy.
1
An
Eastern Connecticut State University
Research Brief
O
O
2
Prepared by
I-
Mitchell Sakofs
Director of Educational Experience
Winter 2002
2
ST COPY AVAILABLE
Introduction
teacher candidates (student teachers) grow and
To better understand how our
provided
their student teaching semester, data
develop from the start to the end of
Record were analyzed.
through the Student Teacher Growth
with narrative reports provided by the
Student Teacher Growth Records, along
candidate's
the primary means by which the
student teacher coordinators, serve as
by
assessed. The narrative reports are completed
knowledge, skills and dispositions are
done
and classroom/lesson observation. These are
the coordinator after each school visit
records, which are based on Connecticut's
approximately once every two weeks. Growth
teacher
by the teacher candidate, cooperating
Common Core of Teaching, are completed
through and at the end of student teaching
and university coordinator mid way
experience.
data are incorporated into a database
Student Teacher Growth Record (STGR)
data.
along with other relevant student
preliminary analyses of STGR data for
The materials to follow constitute some
for certification from the 2000/2001
teacher candidates who were recommended
academic year.
Results
includes ethnicity, gender as well as
Demographic data are found on page 1, this
degree and program.
data.
Page 2 shows Praxis performance
the
illustrations of selected questions concerning
Pages 3, 4 and 5 present graphic
of year
bar graphs present mid year and end
CT Common Core of Teaching. Note
university
the candidate, cooperating teacher and
scores as reported by
student growth.
coordinator. Graphs effectively illustrate
for selected questions concerning the CT
Pages 6 through 13 present T-tests
that growth recorded between mid year
Common Core of teaching. T-tests reveal
significant.
and end of year scores were statistically
concerning the CT Common Core of Teaching
Page 14 shows how questions
respective categories.
Rank Order by means within their
Common Core question and illustrates
Pages 15 through 33 show data for each
the
between the evaluations provided to by
that there was no significant difference
coordinator. In essence this means
candidate, cooperating teacher and university
performance in the same light.
that they all are seeing the candidates
3
Recommendations
It is recommended that these data be reviewed by each unit for insights on
restructuring content for improved knowledge acquisition vis-à-vis CT Common Core of
Teaching.
Here are some additional descriptive data on students:
Ethnicity
94 % Caucasian
2%
African American
2 %
Hispanic
Native American
1%
Other
1 %
Gender
68%
Female
Male
32%
Degree Sought
Masters
13%
Post Bach
10%
Undergrad
77%
Praxis Waiver
75% No
Yes
25%
Program
32% ECE
El Ed
28%
5%
Middle
22% PE
Secondary
13%
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
5
State Undergraduate minimum GPA required for admission to program is B- (2.75); at Eastern, the mean
undergraduate GPA for our certification program completers is 3.3, i.e., well above the state minimum.
RE Praxis I
ECSU Mean for Program Completers
State minimums for
CBT Praxis I scores
CBT Praxis I scores
325 ECSU mean passing score
CBT Praxis I Math-319 min passing score
329 ECSU mean passing score
CBT Praxis I Reading-324 min passing score
324 ECSU mean passing score
CBT Praxis I Writing-318 min passing score
As far as exit exams are concerned:
ECSU Mean for Program Completers
State minimums for Praxis II scores
ECSU mean 182
Test 10011 min pass 163
ECSU mean 180
Test 10041 min pass 172
ECSU mean 174
Test 10081 min pass 162
ECSU mean 163
Test 10091 min pass 154
ECSU mean 158
Test 20012 min pass 148
ECSU mean 165
Test 20042 min pass 160
ECSU mean 162
Test 20092 min pass 154
Graph
5.0
4.0
3.0
11.1How students learn &
2.0
Develop Q1 Mid
How students learn &
ca
a)
2 1.0
Develop Q1 Final
Coordinator
Student
Cooperating Teacher
Evaluator
Graph
5.0
4.0
3.0
III How students differ/
2.0
learning Q2 Mid
MI How students differ/
learning Q2 Mid Q2 F
Coordinator
Student
Cooperating Teacher
Evaluator
Graph
7
5.0
4.0
3.0
Reading writing math
2.0
Q3 Mid
III Reading writing math
cv
a)
1.0
Q3 Final
Student
Coordinator
Cooperating Teacher
Color of Form
Graph
1111The discipline they
teach Q4 Mid
The discipline they
teach Q4 Final
Student
Coordinator
Cooperating Teacher
Evaluator
Graph
8
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Design & deliver ins
2.0
truction Q5 Mid
c
1.5
Design & deliver ins
a)
2 1.0
truction Q5 Final
Student
Coordinator
Cooperating Teacher
Evaluator
Graph
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
IIII Vary method Q6 mid
El Vary method Q6 final
Student
Coordinator
Cooperating Teacher
Evaluator
9
T-Test
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Error
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
How students learn
4.779E-02
.629
3.721
173
& Develop Q1 Mid
How students learn
5.967E-02
4.337
.785
173
& Develop Q1 Final
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Mean
t
Upper
Lower
Difference
Sig. (2-tailed)
df
How students learn
3.815
3.627
77.863
.000
3.721
172
& Develop Q1 Mid
How students learn
4.455
4.219
4.337
.000
72.688
172
& Develop Q1 Final
T-Test
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Error
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
How students
4.932E-02
.649
3.781
173
differ /learning Q2 Mid
How students
differ/leaming Q2 Mid
5.996E-02
.7887
4.3169
173
Q2 Final
.
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Mean
t
Upper
Lower
df
Difference
Sig. (2-tailed)
How students
3.879
3.684
.000
172
3.781
76.671
differ/leaming Q2 Mid
How students
4.4352
4.1985
differ/leaming Q2 Mid
4.3169
.000
71.995
172
Q2 Final
T-Test
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Error
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Heading venting
4.926E-02
3.9219
.6480
173
math Q3 Mid
Reading writing
5.819E-02
4.3576
173
.7654
math 03 Final