s ten ppt fc_11_15_2012

Preparing Teachers for Today’s Schools with Assessments Used in the Field

• Dr. Donna MaharAssistant Professor and Residency Coordinator Donna.Mahar@esc.edu

Dr. Heather ReynoldsAssistant Professor

• Heather.Reynolds@esc.edu

Dr. Tina Wagle, Chair, Teacher Education

• Tina.Wagle@esc.edu

Ms. Leigh Yannuzzi, Director, Teacher Education

• Leigh.Yannuzzi@esc.edu

Program History

Ms. Leigh YannuzziDirector, Teacher Education

Leigh.Yannuzzi@esc.edu

Background

ESC Master of Arts in Teaching program

- Launched in 2004 in order to place alternatively certified qualified candidates into high-need classrooms more quickly than traditional models

- Middle Childhood and Adolescent certification in ELA, Social Studies, LOTE (French & Spanish, Math and Science (Bio, Chem, ES, Physics)

Residency Program Development

ESC’s Statewide Reach

Partner schools and districts for the 2011-2012 pilot year of the Residency included:

Buffalo City School District Albany City School DistrictBallston Spa School District Schenectady City School DistrictGlens Falls School District Marte Valle High School (NYC)New Dorp High School (NYC)Syracuse City School District

Residency Program Development

Winter 2010/2011

MAT program faculty revise the curriculum of the original MAT program to reflect the needs of students, partnering school districts, and NYSEDby establishing a graduate-level, clinically-rich teacher preparation residency program.

The guiding vision for the residency comes directly from the College’s mission statement committing to “developing, implementing and assessing new approaches to learning that recognize and adapt to the diverse needs of our learners.”

The residency track supplements the Trans B track, allowing a pathway for qualified individuals to achieve an MAT degree and teaching certification without being hired as a teacher of record by a school district. This new track will allow MAT students to work as Residents in school districts where successful partnerships have been established.

Residency Program Development

The residency track draws on ESC’s success with distance instruction, individual mentoring, and adult learning and seeks to address educational reform initiatives, including:

•Turning around lowest achieving schools

•Providing effective support to teachers and principals

•Improving the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs

•Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale-up and sustain proposed plans

Residency Program Development

The Residency was designed with two student audiences in mind:

•Those volunteering their time in the Residency placement for the full school year

• Those employed as Teaching Assistants in the partner school

TAing Residents balance TA and Resident responsibilities during the Fall and take a Leave of Absence from the TA position in the Spring. The teaching assistant option addresses the College’s mission to promote success by “developing new programs that meet the needs of our students and society.”

Residency Program Structure

• 2 and 3 year course sequence options

• The Fall semester requires four days a week in the placement, while the Spring semester requires five

• Residents work with highly effective certified teachers (known as critic teachers) in their classrooms

Employs dynamic application of a gradual responsibility-building model so students will be ready to be teachers of record upon completion of the program

Residency Course Sequence

Year 1 Fall Year 1 Spring Year 1 Summer

Child & Adol. Dev. Teaching & Learning Teach. Div. Learners

Eff. Urban Schools Exceptionalities Content Area Study

Year 2 Fall Year 2 Spring Year 2 Summer

Residency Seminar 1 Res. Seminar 2 Residency Portfolio

Teaching & Curr. Educational Eval.

Literacy Literacy Across the Curr.

Common Core State StandardsObservation Rubrics

Annual Professional Performance Review

Dr. Donna MaharResidency Program CoordinatorNationally Board Certified Teacher

New Residency Courses

•6 credits

•BlendedFall

Seminar

•3 credits

•BlendedSpring

Seminar

NBPTS5 Core Principles

• Teachers are committed to students and their learning.

• Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects.

• Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.

• Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.

• Teachers are members of learning communities. (NBPTS, 2008)

5 Core PrinciplesBasis of Fall Residency Seminar

Praxis

Principle 1

Principle2

Principle 3Principle 4

Principle 5

Higher Education Opportunity ActHEOA , 2008

• Residency programs are defined as:

“One-year master’s degree programs in which the resident teachers along side the teacher of record in a K-12 classroom while completing the course work to meet the requirements of the degree.”

Alignment NBPTS INTASC, NCATE

CCSS, APPR

"When we clarify our perceptions, we lose our misconceptions. As we eliminate ambiguity, we lose illusion as well. We arrive at clarity, and clarity creates change."

-Julia Cameron

Alignment

Aligning NBPTS with CCSSSpring 2011

• Balancing texts: 1, 2, 3, 4

• Content knowledge: 1, 2, 3, 4

• Staircase of complexity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

• Text-based answers: 1, 2, 3

• Writing from sources: 1, 2, 3

• Academic vocabulary: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

ELA Shifts

• Focus: 1,2, 3, 4,

• Coherence: 1,2, 3, 4, 5

• Fluency: 1, 2, 3

• Deep understanding: 1, 2, 3

• Application: 1, 2, 3

• Dual Intensity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Math

Shifts

Aligning the 5 Course Modules with an Observation Rubric

Interview protocol for

pre-observation

Interview protocol for

post-observation

Charlotte DanielsonA Framework for Teaching, 2007

NBPTS: 1, 2,3,4

Align with NBPTS

• Pre:

• To which part of the curriculum does the lesson relate? Proposition #2

• Describe the students in this class. Proposition # 1

• What are your learning outcomes for this lesson? Proposition #4

• How will you engage students in learning? Proposition #3

• Is there anything you would like me to specifically observe during the lesson? Proposition #5

Align with NBPTS

• Post:

• Did the students learn what you intended them to learn? Propositions #1, #4

• Comment on your classroom procedures, student conduct, use of physical space. Proposition #3

• Did you depart from your plan? If so, how & why? Proposition #4

• If you had the chance to teach this lesson again to the same group of students what would you do differently? Propositions #2, #5

Observation RubricMarzano, Frontier, Livingston, 2011

• Design Questions:

1. What will I do to establish & communicate learning goals, track student progress, and celebrate student success?

• 2. What will I do to help students effectively interact with new knowledge?

Design Questions

• 3. What will I do to help students do to deepen their understanding of new knowledge?

• 4. What will I do to help students generate and test hypotheses and new knowledge?

• 5. What will I do to engage students?

Design Questions

• 6. What will I do to help students effectively interact with new knowledge?

• 7. What will I do to recognize and acknowledge or lack of acknowledge to classroom rules & procedures?

• 8. What will I do to establish and maintain effective relationships with students?

• 9. What will I do to communicate high expectations for all students?

Clinically rich residency programYear 1 Data

Dr. Heather Reynolds

MAT Residency Faculty MemberAlbany region coordinator

Pilot research study

• Matched the survey items with our rubric

• Mid and end of the semester evaluation forms (by the teacher) also match the rubric

• Teacher surveys (mid end of the year)

• Observation rubrics (10 per student)

• Pre and post survey matched for comparison

– Pre, mid year, and end of the year

Participants• 17 residents took part in the pilot program

during the 2011-2012 school year.

• Eight (or 47%) of the residents were male, nine (or 53%) were female.

• All of the residents were White (non-Hispanic)

• Ages ranged from 25-55, with a mean of 40 years of age.

The survey• SURVEY: Students were asked how confident they

felt in their ability to do a variety of teaching tasks that were tied directly to the rubric.

• 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree

• PRE-MID-POST comparisons were made for the 33 item survey based on the Marzano rubric.

• Significant outcomes were uncovered when pre and post program survey responses were compared.

Survey Results• On 30 of the 33 items residents showed a

significant gain in confidence (p<.05) when compared pre to post program.

• Demonstrating “withitness” (2.9 to 3.5, p<.004)

• Maintaining a lively pace (3.0 to 3.7-p<.002)

• Using formative assessment strategies (2.8 to 3.7, p<.01)

• Organizing students to interact with new knowledge (2.9 to 3.6, p<.002).

• Asking questions and probing incorrect answers (2.9 to 3.7, p<.000).

Survey results (continued)

• Further analyses allowed us to isolate 6 more complex variables:

• Routine events scale consists of 4 items (3.1 to 3.7 pre to post) p<.000

• New knowledge scale consists of 7 items (3.2 to 3.6 pre to post) p<.003

• Deepen understanding scale consists of five items (3.0 to 3.6 pre to post) p<.002

Survey results (continued)

• Testing hypothesis scale which consists of 2 items (3.1 to 3.6 pre to post) p<.001

• Engagement scale consists of 9 items (3.2 to 3.6) p<.000

• Classroom management scale consists of 4 items (3.1 to 3.4) p<.047

• Diversity scale consists of 5 items (3.0 to 3.5) p<.000

Discussion

• The research data we have collected over the course of this pilot year suggests that we are using successful practices

• Are our students just gaining confidence or showing this in practice? (Observation rubrics)

• Year 2 revisions/changes?

Conclusion & Next Steps

• Dr. Tina WagleChair, Education ProgramsBuffalo area residency coordinator

Video Observations

• Pilot 2012-2013

• Content Review

• Issues

Virtual Teacher Incubator (VTI)

• Ongoing professional development

• Case study based

• Open SUNY-wide

SUNY Shared Concerns

• APPR

• Ed TPA

• Critic Teachers for Clinically Rich Placements

• Finances

Questions