Clinical Experiences RAC

Update for the CSU-MTEP ConveningOctober 10-11, 2014

RAC PartnersPaired-Placement Internship• Marilyn Strutchens, Auburn University• David Erickson, University Of Montana• Jennifer Whitfield, Texas A&M University• Lida Uribe-Florez and Jamie Baker,

New Mexico State University

Co-Plan and Co-Teach• Johannah Maynor, North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction• Karen Hollebrands, North Carolina State

University• Ruthmae Sears, University of South

Florida• Pat Brosnan, Ohio State University• Jennifer Oloff-Lewis, California State

University, Chico & Stephanie Biagetti, California State University, Sacremento

Co-Plan and Co-Teach• Maureen Grady, East Carolina University• Janet Andreasen, University of Central

Florida• Jami Stone, Black Hills State University Methods• Greg Chamblee, Georgia Southern

University• Michele Iiams, University of North Dakota• Jan Yow, University of South Carolina• Rebekah Elliot, Oregon State University• Mark Ellis, California State University,

Fullerton• Jeremy Zelkowski, University of Alabama• Valerie Henry, UC Irvine

Statement of the Problem

Part 1Teacher preparation programs face significant challenges in providing secondary mathematics teacher candidates with quality clinical experiences. • Inadequate supply of quality mentor teachers to

oversee the experiences:– This is related to the quantity of teachers who are well

versed in implementing the CCSS, especially embedding the standards of mathematical practice into their teaching of content standards on a daily basis.

Statement of the ProblemPart 2

There needs to exist a bidirectional relationship between the teacher preparation programs and school partners in which clinical experiences take place.

• This relationship should reflect a common vision and shared commitment to the vision of CCSSM and other issues related to mathematics teaching and learning.

Relation to Overall Drivers

BCC

Aim Statement (RAC)

Operationalize models of clinical experiences that are aligned with the goals of the CCSS and implement them successfully for at least 80% of secondary mathematics teacher candidates enrolled in institutions participating in the clinical experiences RAC by December 2016.

Driver DiagramAim

StatementPrimaryDrivers

Secondary Drivers

Develop a professional development program related to mentoring mathematics teachers.

Develop infrastructures and clinical experiences that best meet the needs of the candidates.

Clinical PreparationOperationalize models of clinical experiences that are aligned with the goals of the CCSS and implement them successfully for at least 80% of secondary mathematics teacher candidates enrolled in institutions participating in the clinical experiences RAC by December 2016.

MentorshipIncrease the quantity of quality mentor teachers and university supervisors.

PartnershipsCreate partnerships between university faculty, mentor teachers, and administrators around field experiences o Establish collaborative

meetings to negotiate conflicting beliefs and constraints

Evaluation: Ensure growth of all stakeholders and the effectiveness of the program as whole.

Provide professional development related to the CCSSM (content objectives and Standards of Mathematical Practice)

Identify, create and adapt tools for mentoring activities and evaluation.

Develop a professional development program related to mentoring mathematics teachers.

Develop infrastructures and clinical experiences that best meet the needs of the candidates.

Provide professional development related to the CCSSM (content objectives and Standards of Mathematical Practice)

Identify, create and adapt tools for mentoring activities and evaluation.

Secondary Drivers Tertiary Drivers• Define and clarify roles of University

Supervisor/ mentor • Develop and provide ongoing support

for the participants in the mentoring process.

• Develop a Lesson Study Module

Create and implement PD modules related to CCSS for all stakeholders via different delivery systems.• SMP• Emphasis on Specific Content• Emphasis on learning progressions• Emphasis on shifts in teaching

• Identify and provide a set of common resources

• Create or identify tools aligned with CCSS for observations and evaluation of candidates.

• Create or identify dispositions checklist• Create or identify resources for

developing lesson plans aligned to the CCSS

• Create protocols and rubrics for the craft of teaching.

• Create or identify instruments to assess mentoring skills

• Create or identify tools to support and assess the different levels of collaboration within team.

• Triad Model• Co-teaching • Methods

MentorshipIncrease the quantity of quality mentor teachers and university supervisors.

PartnershipsCreate partnerships between university faculty, mentor teachers, and administrators around field experiences o Establish collaborative

meetings to negotiate conflicting beliefs and constraints

Evaluation: Ensure growth of all stakeholders and the effectiveness of the program as whole.

Primary Drivers

Possible Measures

• X% of interns will master X% of tasks• Checklists for monitoring instruction related to the CCSS-M

content objectives and SMP• Observation, dispositions, candidate proficiencies, and

other protocols.• Affective surveys for prospective teachers and mentors• Number of mentors who complete the professional

development programs• Portfolios for both teacher candidates and mentors• Surveys related to effectiveness of the field experiences for

program completers

Possible Measures• Surveys related to effectiveness of the field experiences by mentors• Ed TPA, MQI for Secondary• PLC for Quality• Pre and Post videos• Interviews and Focus Groups• What are effective characteristics of mathematics education mentor teachers?

– What are qualities that we are looking for in mentor teachers prior to student teaching.• Survey to measure the effectiveness of the common mentoring PD, perceptions

about preparedness, and how they use it in practice. (Common and specific to the model)

• Ways to measure the effectiveness of the three models– How are constituents working together?– Under what conditions does the model work?– What were the outcomes of the students in the classroom?– How did the model contribute to the candidates’ developing the craft of teaching and

dispositions related to teaching?

General Approach Taken

• Split up into three Sub-RAC.• Each Sub-RAC is implementing PDSA cycles based on their

goals and objectives.• Have had a face-to-face meeting as a whole RAC with

breakout meetings for Sub-RACs.• There are overlap areas that focus the RAC as a whole,

such as PD for mentors around the CCSS and mentoring mathematics teacher candidates and outcome measures.

• There are also specific goals to be attained within each of the Sub-RACs.

Current Activities

13

Co-Plan/ Co-Teach Model (CPCT)• Planning to have at least one unit per team in the sub-RAC

to conduct the PD session/module along with three PDSA cycles per semester using the measuring instruments designed by the Sub-RAC.– Developing tools to measure the mentor/intern CPCT

relationship, the shifts in instructional practice, and the effect the CPCT session/module has on learning by mentors, interns, and students engaged in the CPCT model.

– Creating videos to help teacher candidates, mentor teachers, and university supervisors to understand the co-plan and co-teach model.

References: Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Friend, 2008; Cook & Friend, 1995; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004.

14

Methods• Improving teacher candidates’ (TCs’) and mentor

teachers’ understanding of Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMP) (rigorous standards for career and college readiness) so that the SMP are apparent in lesson planning and teaching.

• Developing the TC and mentor teacher relationship.– TCs will develop an understanding of the SMP.– Build TC and mentor teacher relationship.– Increase mentor teacher’s understanding of the SMP.References: Koestler, Felton-Koestler, Bieda, & Otten, 2013; http://www.insidemathematics.org

15

Paired Placement Model• Three teams piloted the Paired-Placement Internship Model Spring

semester 2014.– Teams read about the model. – One team piloted the model fall 2013 and reported to the other teams about its

findings.– The other two teams used this information along with information from the

literature to prepare mentor teachers and candidates for the experience.– Teams also worked with their participants to adjust the model within their

context.– Teams monitored the process throughout the semester.– Teams met via conference call to discuss the results of the pilot and what they

would do differently.– Teams are creating professional development modules and measures fall 2014. – They will try the model again spring semester 2015.

References: Leatham & Peterson, 2010; Mau, 2013; Goodnough, Osmond, Dibbon, Glassman, & Stevens, 2008

16

Lessons Learned• The model really helped the student teachers to focus on student

learning.• The student teachers stated that they became very reflective on

their teaching.• Student teachers learned the value of collaboration.• Cooperating teachers stated that it would be good for the student

teachers to do their practicum experience with their cooperating teacher for the internship so that they would already be acclimated to the students and the school prior to the internship.

• Need more flexibility of when student teachers can take over classes and the number of days that they need to teach consecutively.

Next Steps

• Sub-RACs will continue to implement PDSA cycles.• They will continue creating materials and getting

them vetted across the RAC.• We will have a Face-to-Face Meeting November

15 -16, 2014.– Work on measures– Shore up modules– Work on grant proposals – Work on IRBs

Opportunities for Involvement

• Pilot materials from the Sub-RACs.• Review materials as they are developed.