student teacher college supervisor trainingintraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/teacher_ed/college...

Student Teacher College Supervisor Training

For Spring 2013 Student Teaching Term

Today’s Agenda

Welcome & introduction of new college supervisors A review of the accreditation process for the TEDU

Program The college supervisor’s role during student teaching Initial findings of accreditation analysis related to

student teaching Expectations and responsibilities

TEAC Accreditation Process

Preparation of an Inquiry Brief Overview of program Claims of our program & rationale Methods of assessment Analysis of assessment data Results and discussion

Formative feedback on Inquiry Brief Visitation by accreditation council Decision made by TEAC on accreditation status

TEAC Quality Principles

1.1 Subject Matter Knowledge- The program candidates must understand the subject they teach

1.2 Pedagogical Knowledge- The program candidates must be able to convert their knowledge of subject matter into compelling lessons that meet the needs of a wide range of pupils and students.

1.3 Caring and Effective Teaching Skill- The program candidates must be able to teach effectively in a caring way and to act as knowledgeable professionals.

TEAC Quality Principles- Cross Cutting Themes

1.4.1 Learning How to Learn: Candidates must demonstrate that they have learned how to learn information on their own, that they can transfer what they have learned to new situations, and that they have acquired the dispositions and skills of critical reflection that will support life-long learning in their field.

1.4.2 Multicultural Perspectives and Accuracy- Candidates must demonstrate that they have learned accurate and so0und information on matters of ace, gender, individual differences, and ethnic and cultural perspectives.

1.4.3 Technology: Candidates must be able to use appropriate technology in carrying out their professional responsibilities

TEDU CLAIMS

1) Our novice teachers demonstrate competence in the subject matter they will teach.

2) Our novice teachers understand and apply appropriate pedagogy.

3) Our novice teachers demonstrate caring teaching practices in diverse classroom settings.

TEAC Quality Principle

Teacher Education Program Claims

Evidence

1.1 Subject Matter Knowledge

Claim 1 Our novice teachers demonstrate competence in the subject matter they will teach.

• Content field and specialization course grades

• Praxis I scores • Praxis II scores • GPA • Student Teacher Ratings -

Mid and Final Evaluations -FfT

• Exit Survey • Alumni Survey

Alignment of Claims to Evidence

TEAC Quality Principle

Teacher Education Program Claims

Evidence

1.2 Pedagogical Knowledge

Claim 2 Our novice teachers understand and apply appropriate pedagogy.

• Education/Pedagogy Course Grades • 4200, 4105, 4110, 4120, 4150,

460X, 4610, 4991 • Student Teaching Artifacts • Student Teacher Ratings- Mid and

Final Evaluations-FfT • Exit Survey • Alumni Survey

Alignment of Claims to Evidence

TEAC Quality Principle

Teacher Education

Program Claims

Evidence

1.3 Caring and Effective Teaching Practices

Claim 3 Our novice teachers demonstrate caring teaching practices in diverse classroom settings.

• Professional Program Requirement Course Grades • 3515, 3241

• Education Experiential Course Grades • 4101,4600, 4990

• Teaching Placements in Diverse Fieldwork Experiences

• Student Teaching Artifacts • Student Teacher Ratings- Mid and

Final FfT • Exit Survey • Alumni Survey

Alignment of Claims to Evidence

TEAC Quality

Principle

Teacher Education Program Claims

Evidence

1.4.1 Learning how to Learn

Claim 1- Our novice teachers demonstrate competence in the subject matter they will teach. Claim 2- Our novice teachers understand and apply appropriate pedagogy.

• GEN & GIS Courses • Education Experiential

Course Grades • 4101,4600, 4990

• Student Teacher Ratings- Mid and Final FfT

• Exit Survey • Alumni Survey

Alignment of Claims to Evidence

Alignment of Claims to Evidence TEAC

Quality Principle

Teacher Education Program Claims

Evidence

1.4.2 Multicultural Perspectives and Accuracy

Claim 3- Our novice teachers demonstrate caring teaching practices in diverse classroom settings.

• Professional Program Requirement Course Grades • 3515, 3241

• Teaching Placements in Diverse Fieldwork Experiences

• Student Teacher Ratings- Mid and Final FfT

• Exit Survey • Alumni Survey

Alignment of Claims to Evidence TEAC Quality

Principle Teacher Education

Program Claims

Evidence 1.4.3 Technology

Claim 1- Our novice teachers demonstrate competence in the subject matter they will teach. Claim 2- Our novice teachers understand and apply appropriate pedagogy.

• Professional Program Requirement Course Grade • INTC 3610

• Student Teacher Ratings- Mid and Final FfT

• Exit Survey • Alumni Survey

The Bottom Line

Your assessment of our candidates is a key ingredient in proving that our candidates are competent, caring, and qualified novice teacher when

they leave our program.

STUDENT TEACHING SEMESTER & DANIELSON

Review of Assessments/Evidence

Formal observation forms- for college supervisor and mentor teacher

Student Teacher Ratings- Mid and Final Fft

A Review of the Documentation Process

From Meet and Greet To Final Evaluation

Our Evaluation Tool

Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2011 edition) Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Components 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and

Pedagogy 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction 1f: Designing Student Assessments

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment

Components 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and

Rapport 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures 2d: Managing Student Behavior 2e: Organizing Physical Space

Domain 3: Instruction Components 3a: Communicating with Students 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion

Techniques 3c: Engaging Students in Learning 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and

Responsiveness

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

Components 4a: Reflecting on Teaching 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records 4c: Communicating with Families 4d: Participating in a Professional Community 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally 4f: Showing Professionalism

Where you find our evaluation tool

Or at www.stockton.edu/educ

It includes descriptions of each element you evaluate

The Process in a Nutshell

• Meet & Greet • 6 observations by the

college supervisor – 3 observations + mid – 3 observations + final

• 4 observations by the coop teacher – 2 before mid – 2 before final

• Each has 3 steps – Pre-conference – Observation – Post-conference

Steps in an Observation • Pre-conference

– Review the lesson posted on Taskstream 2-3 days before observing

– You provide feedback on this lesson within Taskstream

– This, along with any conversation prior to observation, serves as evidence of Domain 1

The Taskstream Lesson • Should provide you with

evidence of planning and preparation in Domain 1

• Should be detailed enough that you can judge how well they know content, students, and good instructional practices

• Your feedback offers specific comments about strengths and where improvements could be made

• Avoid vague statements like… – Looks good – Nice procedure – Can’t wait to see this….

• Use detailed, direct statements like… – Level of questioning offers

opportunities for higher order thinking

– Objectives are vague not stating what skill is to be demonstrated in the lesson

Which one of these is more

helpful in judging ability

and knowledge of what they

intend to teach?

Student

Student

Student

Student

Student

• Observation – You observe the student

teacher delivering the lesson you reviewed prior to your visit

– *Recommended to script what you see focusing on elements of Danielson

– Summary statements are written in Domains 2 & 3 on the observation form

• Post-conference – Meet with the student

teacher to discuss what was observed

– Discuss all items relevant to Domain 4

– Summary statements are written on the observation form

• Use key words to help identify levels of performance

Unsatisfactory (1) Basic (2) Proficient (3) Distinguished (4)

• No • Not • Not clear • Unaware • Does not

respond • Poor • Not congruent

• Some • Attempts to • Limited • Moderate • Uneven • Inconsistent • Rudimentary

• Consistent • High quality • Timely • Accurate • Appropriate • Clear • Effective • High

expectations

• All students • Highly effective • Entirely

appropriate • Adapted for

individual students

• Fully aligned • Extensive

Think of the formal observation you write as….

• The guide for the student teacher saying – What they did well & evidence that allowed you to

come to that conclusion – Where they could improve & offers reasons why

you see a need for improvement

• The evidence (proof) you draw upon when coming to a conclusion about performance at the midterm and final evaluation points

Midterm and Final Evaluation • Serve as a judgment of the

level of performance of the student teacher

• Done after the 3rd and 6th observation – Hard copy using fillable PDF – Electronic through

Surveymonkey® • Students are given a rating

based on Danielson Framework – 1 unsatisfactory – 2 basic – 3 proficient – (4 distinguished)

How do you know what level to choose?

• Look at evidence collected: – Formal observation

documentation – Lesson plan submissions – Cooperating teacher

observation documentation

• Discussion with the cooperating teacher

• Consult your RUBRIC!

The rubric helps you distinguish between levels. Where do you think most student teachers will be at midterm? Final? It is important to choose a level that is truly where a student is performing!

Which of these best represents a student teacher?

This is where you offer specifics to help student teachers understand why they had the ratings they did and how to improve!

What we’ve learned from TEAC so far

Ratings among college supervisors trained in Summer 2011 were “reliable” with agreement of what constitutes a 1, 2 or 3 when watching instruction

Ratings of sample videos on a single component of Danielson by college supervisors in Summer 2012 Showed consistency with all recognizing 1 or “unsatisfactory”

performance Showed there was not a high level of agreement when asking to

distinguish between a 2 and 3 performance Student teaching artifacts were not predictors of

midterm and final evaluation ratings given. Collaboration between college supervisors & coop

teachers is evident in procedure but there is a lack of quantitative assessments to confirm it

Course Grades & Final Evaluation Forms

What you can do for Spring 2013

Reference your Student Teaching Handbook often Remember that written documentation serves as

“evidence” when determining a level of performance (ie. 1, 2, or 3)

Be mindful of what is “typical” of a student teacher and rate accordingly

Use your Danielson rubric often and encourage your student teacher to do the same!

Be proactive when there are issues Ask for guidance from us if you need it