TQP Update

Columbus Airport MarriottColumbus, Ohio

April 21, 2006

Today’s Agenda• Brief overview of TQP• Sample findings from Cohorts I and II• Benefits to IHEs• Dissemination of data to IHEs and public• Time for discussion

TASK FORCE COMMITMENT TO QUALITY OHIO TEACHER EDUCATION

• “Charged with the responsibility for preparing individuals to become teachers for Ohio’s children, we express our long standing and enduring commitment to ensure that every teacher licensed in Ohio is prepared to be competent, caring and committed to student learning. Recognizing and valuing our differing missions, sizes, locations, and students, we who are educators in both public and independent colleges and universities alike have used and will continue to use data, Ohio teacher licensure standards, systemic reviews, guidelines of learned societies, wisdom of practice, and other evidence to evaluate and strive to maintain high quality teacher education programs in this state.”

Signed by Public and Private Chairs for All 50 Institutions

TQP Research Questions

1. Do variables of teacher background, initial preparation, and on-going professional learning relate to teacher practices, student learning and achievement?

2. How do specific elements of teacher preparation and aspects of school contexts impact novice teachers’ development during their first three years of teaching?

3. Do HVATs have characteristics, instructional practices, and understandings that differ from other teachers along the value-added continuum?

4. What specific school contexts are associated with HVA novice and experienced teachers?

William Loadman, Ph.D

Ohio State University

TQP Leadership Team

Sandra Stroot, Ph.DOhio State University

Patricia Hart, Ph.DUniversity of Dayton

Stephanie Cappel, Ed.D.

University of Cincinnati

Judith Wahrman, Ph.D.

University of Findlay

Kent Seidel, Ph.D.University of

Cincinnati

Ohio Teacher Education Graduates

SEM SampleAEL

Novice

Sonja Smith, Ph.DMount Vernon

Nazarene University

Robert Yinger, Ph.DUniversity of

Cincinnati

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

’03-‘04 Cohort I

Pre-service Hard copy

N=1544

In-service HC/Web N=1051

In-service Web

In-service Web

In-service Web

’04-‘05

Cohort II Pre-service

HC N=4941

In-service HC/Web

In-service Web

In-service Web

’05-‘06

Cohort III Pre-service

HC/Web N=1500+

In-service HC/Web

In-service Web

’06-‘07

Cohort IV Pre-service

HC/Web

In-service HC/Web

’07-‘08

Cohort V Pre-service

HC/Web

Ohio teacher preparation programs are attracting academically talented students

21

21.4

22.52

18

19

20

21

22

23

ACT Score

National State Teacher CompletersTotal

Cohort I and II Teacher Completers GPA Scores

3.50 3.46 3.47

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

GPA

GPA

Sco

res

Private Public Total

Most Ohio teacher preparation graduates are still white and female

0.3 0 0 1 3

17

7 70.6 1 0.2 2 0.9 2 0.4

5

93

77

93

85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

enta

ge

AmericanIndian/Alaskan

Black/AfricanAmerican

AsianAmerican

Hispanic Caucasion

Ohio TQP Completer Profile Ohio Student Profile Ohio Teacher Profile National Teacher Profile

2003-2005 Demographic Data: Frequency Count by Gender and Private/Public Status

5329

1660

2812

821

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Male Female

Gender

Frqu

ency

Public Private

Finding 1: Teacher preparation graduates feel well prepared to assess student learning

3.964.08 4.1

3.64

1

2

3

4

5

MeanScore

Preparation inAssessment

Use a variety of readingassessments

Evaluate if students arelearning

Work with parents andfamilies

Finding 2: Teacher preparation graduates feel less prepared to work with special needs and minority children

3.84 3.713.46

1

2

3

4

5

Mean Score

Foundation inmeeting the needs of

children withdisabilities

Addresses speciallearning needs

and/or difficulties

Address the needsof students fromdiverse culturalbackgrounds

Finding 3: Teacher preparation graduates feel well prepared to teach reading…less so in mathematics

4.03

3.19

1

2

3

4

5

Mean Score

Solid foundation in reading Solid foundation in mathematics

Finding 4: Teacher preparation graduates report positive clinical teaching experiences

4.29 4.13

1

2

3

4

5

Mean Score

Had opportunities to observeoutstanding veteran teachers

Had opportunities to haveoutstanding veteran teachers

explain their teaching

Finding 5: New Ohio teachers rate highly the work of teaching… but not their working conditions

6.185.76

5.59

5.03 5.02 4.82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mean Score

Interac

tions

with st

uden

ts

Interac

tion w

ith co

lleag

ues

Level

of pers

onal/profes

sional

challe

nge

Opportu

nities

for p

rofessio

nal ad

vance

ment

General

wor

k cond

itions

Salary/

fringe b

enefits

372

515

116 117

12

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

None < 1 Hour 1 - 3 Hours 3 - 5 Hours > 5 Hours

Hours a mentor spends observing in your classroom in an average week

Finding 6: New Ohio teachers report that their mentors spend little time observing in their classrooms

113

469

311

67 63

0

100

200

300

400

500

None < 1 Hour 1 - 3 Hours 3 - 5 Hours > 5 Hours

Hours spent with a mentor in an average week

Finding 7: New Ohio teachers spend little time with their mentors

StandardIndicator from BOE

Appreviated Planning Instrument

Preservice Item IHE Score Inservice Item IHE Score

A2 My program was coherent. A2 My program was coherent.A4 I had the opportunity to develop understandings about teaching that were consistent across courses and clinical experiences.A3 The criteria by which I was evaluated as a student teacher were consistent with that I was taught in my methods courses.A29 My cooperating teacher that I spent most time with knew very little about my program's goals, requirements, or expectations.

B8 How well did these experiences prepare you to use technology in instruction

B8 How well did these experiences prepare you to use technology in instructionG16 Understanding of technology

1Content Knowledge:

Candidates know the subject matter to be taught

A5 My program required a strong disciplinary preparation that incorporated an understanding of a subject matter(s)' core concepts.

A3 My program required a strong disciplinary preparation that incorporated an understanding of a subject matter(s)' core concepts.

A7 My program gave me a solid foundation in mathematics.

A5 My program gave me a solid foundation in mathematics.

A8 My program gave me a solid foundation in reading.

A6 My program gave me a solid foundation in reading.

A9 My program was rigorous and academically challenging.

A7 My program was rigorous and academically challenging.

A11 Content in my program was supported by theoretical and empirical studies.

A9 Content in my program was supported by theoretical and empirical studies.

B12 How well did these experiences prepare you to plan instruction by using knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and student development

B12 How well did these experiences prepare you to plan instruction by using knowledge of learning, subject matter, curriculum, and student development

1

Content Knowledge: Candidates can explain

concepts in professional, state, and institutional

standards

B14 How well did these experiences prepare you to use the state's curriculum frameworks and performance standards to plan instruction.

B14 How well did these experiences prepare you to use the state's curriculum frameworks and performance standards to plan instruction.

D1 How would you rate your preparation coverage of the Ohio Academic Content Standards.

C1 How would you rate your preparation coverage of the Ohio Academic Content Standards.

D2 How would you rate your preparation coverage of the national standards in your content area

C2 How would you rate your preparation coverage of the national standards in your content area

D3 How would you rate your preparation coverage of Praxis II Standards

C3 How would you rate your preparation coverage of Praxis II Standards

D4 How would you rate your preparation coverage of Praxis III Standards

C4 How would you rate your preparation coverage of Praxis III Standards

1Pedagogical Content

Knowledge: Candidates know instructional strategies

H5 Teacher Beliefs: If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson.

E5 Teacher Beliefs: If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson.

H6 Teacher Beliefs: If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect him/her quickly.

E6 Teacher Beliefs: If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect him/her quickly.

G12 Teacher Beliefs: How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?

D12 Teacher Beliefs: How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?

B9 How well did these experiences prepare you to choose different teaching strategies to meet the needs of different levels of students.

B9 How well did these experiences prepare you to choose different teaching strategies to meet the needs of different levels of students.

1

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Candidates can

present in clear and meaningful ways

G5 Teacher Beliefs: To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?

D5 Teacher Beliefs: To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?

Alignment of Teacher Quality Partnership Survey Items and NCATE Indicators*

Conceptual Framework

Coherence

Conceptual Framework Commitment to technology

Institutional Representatives – TQP and IHE Liaisons

• Fall OCTEO – share reports on all data collected to date

• Spring OCTEO – progress reports and interaction with TQP leadership team

Dissemination of Findings• IHE reports

– NCATE/survey data– Longitudinal report/Cross sectional report

• District reports– Inform mentorship and PD programs– Correlate with other data from ODE/district

• Statewide reports– http://www.tqpohio.org– Share at state and national conferences

Comments?

Questions?

Suggestions?