Clinical Experiences RAC
Update for the CSU-MTEP Convening
October 10-11, 2014
RAC Partners
Paired-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 1
Teacher 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 Problem
Part 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 Diagram
Aim
Statement
Clinical Preparation
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.
Primary
Drivers
Mentorship
Increase the quantity of quality
mentor teachers and university
supervisors.
Partnerships
Create 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.
Secondary Drivers
Develop a professional
development program
related to mentoring
mathematics teachers.
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 infrastructures and
clinical experiences that
best meet the needs of the
candidates.
Primary Drivers
Mentorship
Increase the quantity of
quality mentor teachers
and university
supervisors.
Partnerships
Create 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.
Secondary Drivers
Develop a professional
development program
related to mentoring
mathematics teachers.
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 infrastructures and
clinical experiences that
best meet the needs of the
candidates.
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
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
Co-Plan/ Co-Teach Model (CPCT)
• Planning to have at least one unit per team in the subRAC 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 coplan and co-teach model.
References: Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Friend, 2008;
Cook & Friend, 1995; Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2004.
13
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
14
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
15
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.
16
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.