Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s Program in the PreK-12 Schools:
Student Evaluation Results in 2006-2007
Mary E. Yakimowski and Katherine Picho
January 2008
A central activity in the Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M) program, a component of
the Neag Teacher Preparation Program, is gaining experience working in school
classrooms with children in collaboration with skilled certified teachers. The purpose of
this report is to share how the IB/M students performed on student evaluations from the
2006-2007 academic year during the clinic, student teacher, and internship
opportunities.
Background
Over the course of the IB/M Teacher Preparation Program, each student is required to
complete six semesters, the equivalent of an average of 1,200 hours, in the PreK-12 schools.
As soon as they enter the program in the junior year, the student begins the first of three
semesters in a clinical setting. The student completes a semester of student teaching in the
spring of the senior year. Then, the student participates a full year of clinical internship in the
Master’s year.
The students get a variety of placements from elementary to high school. Placements help
students gain practical experiences to assist them in their analysis and reflection on their
teaching and learning. These school-based experiences become increasingly complex and
demanding as students make their way through the program. Concepts taught through
university coursework “come to life” through participation in real-life clinical experiences
with teachers and learners in schools.
Method
Every IB/M student is evaluated on their performance at the end of each semester by the
student’s cooperating teacher. There is a different evaluation questionnaire for the clinical
experience, senior year student teaching experience, and master’s year internship
experience.1
1
See IB/M Student Evaluations for 2005-2006 by Mary Yakimowski and Chris Hamelin for additional
information of the instruments used for evaluations.
The junior-year clinic evaluation uses a 21-item Likert scale that has a “1-5” scale with “5”
indicating the highest rating. The Master’s-year internship evaluation is similar. This
evaluation consists of a 4-item Likert scale using a “1-7” scale with “7” indicating the
highest rating. The master’s internship evaluation also contains “Yes/No” questions asking
whether the intern demonstrated competent performance on the component of leadership.
The student teaching evaluation is somewhat different from the clinical and internship
assessments. This evaluation consists of nine categories. Within each category, there are
several Likert scale items using a “1-4” scale with “4” indicating the highest rating. The first
eight categories are identical across all students. However, the ninth category differs
depending upon the placement and subject area of the student. This category contains items
specific to the subject area taught by the student (e.g., students teaching music were
evaluated specifically on music related points such as knowledge of composers and
conductors). All IB/M students are also given a grade by their cooperating teacher. The grade
ranges from “A” to “F.” All evaluations allow the cooperating teacher to add comments
about the IB/M student’s performance.
Data was entered in the Fall of 2007 into Microsoft Excel. The means and standard
deviations were calculated on all of the Likert scale items. However, the items within each of
nine categories on the Senior-year clinical evaluation were collapsed, and one mean and
standard deviation was calculated for each category. The frequencies were calculated for the
students’ grades as well as the leadership item on the Master’s internship.
Results
A total of 92.5% of the students received a grade of “A” by the cooperating teacher in
clinical, student teaching and the internship.2 Few students received a grade of “B” or “C.”
(See Table 1 below) For the Master’s internship, only two students received a grade of “B+”.
Forty-nine percent actually received a grade of “A+”, compared to the 2005-2006 year where
92.5% receiving “A,” 6.3% a “B” and 1.2% a “C”; results indicate a positive trend.
Table 1
Overall grade for students in 2006-2007 *
Grade
ranges
2
Overall
Junior Clinic
Student
Teaching
Master’s
Internship
N
%
N
%
n
%
n
%
A
268
95.7
86
96.8
90
92.7
90
98.9
B
12
4.3
4
3.2
7
9.3
1
2.1
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The cooperating teacher does not formally assign a grade; a faculty member does.
Juniors’ and seniors’ clinical experiences were evaluated based upon three major categories:



Evidence of acting responsibly in the clinical placement
Evidence of understanding individual needs of the students
Awareness of Pedagogical practices within the classroom
The 104 candidates rated above average on all three items as indicated by the high means
presented in Tables 2 and 3. The results are consistent with last year’s results. The only
statement that was lower by .05 but not statically significant was one statement: “Teacher
candidate’s volunteers to perform extra tasks and assignments” (4.70 vs. 4.81).
Table 2
Juniors’ clinical results by item *
2006-2007
Item Stem
M
4.87
SD
0.37
2005-2006
M
4.85
SD
0.40
1.
Teacher candidate is making transition from student
to professional as demonstrated by appropriate
dress, manner, and rapport.
2.
Teacher candidate is applying the concepts of the
University’s Core and Seminar course work.
4.77
0.42
4.74
0.53
3.
Teacher candidate is meeting and/or exceeding
attendance commitments.
4.82
0.46
4.82
0.45
4.
Teacher candidates volunteers to perform extra
tasks and assignments.
4.70
0.56
4.81
0.48
5.
Teacher candidate is gaining insight into school
policies.
4.70
0.52
4.71
0.55
6.
Teacher candidate is appreciating and accepting
school environments other than grade level of
preference or specialization.
4.80
0.47
4.83
0.40
7.
Teacher candidate is recognizing the value of
different teaching styles by asking questions and
making observations in other classrooms or
educational settings.
4.79
0.47
4.72
0.53
8.
Teacher candidate is familiar with the whole school
process (e.g., dress code, PPT, homework policy).
4.71
0.47
4.64
0.53
9.
Teacher candidate has participated in one to one
tutoring and/or leading small group.
4.78
0.54
4.79
0.43
10.
Teacher candidate has participated in and/or
implemented instruction based on diagnostic
procedures.
4.52
0.70
4.49
0.66
11.
Teacher candidate has demonstrated sensitivity to
the needs of individuals.
4.83
0.45
4.87
0.41
* A scale of “1-5” was used, where “5” was the most positive rating. Missing data has been omitted.
Table 3
Juniors’ clinical results for disposition
2006-2007
Item Stem
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Confidence
Strong knowledge background
Observation skills
Analytical skills
Ability to work with individuals/ small groups
Ability to take initiative
Willingness and ability to make decisions
Rapport and communication
Attitudes of a professional
Self-analysis skills
M
4.66
4.68
4.87
4.69
4.85
4.68
4.72
4.8
4.85
4.70
SD
0.55
0.55
0.37
0.52
0.39
0.58
0.51
0.45
0.39
0.50
2005-2006
M
4.66
4.60
4.83
4.67
4.88
4.65
4.70
4.84
4.87
4.70
SD
0.59
0.59
0.44
0.32
0.32
0.63
0.53
0.43
0.41
0.51
A scale of “1-5” was used, where “5” was the most positive rating. Missing data has been omitted.
In examining the results of seniors’ student teaching overall and by major, similar results are
evident. Results on a “1” to “4” scale ranged from 3.74 (instructional planning) to 3.87
(subject matter knowledge; professional responsibilities). Disaggregated results by major
ranged from 3.64 (student-teacher interaction – music) to 4.00 (Knowledge of subject
matter, instructional planning, management of classroom environment & assessment of
students-mathematics). Also, there is little variation from 2005-2006 results.
Students in the Master’s internship showed minimal variability, too, as displayed in 4.71 to
4.83 data. (see Table 5). Despite using a different scale than the clinical or student teaching,
the “1” to “7” scale resulted in only .01 differences among the four means. As a final
question, individuals were asked whether the student displayed leadership. Also, all students
in the masters’ internship program demonstrated competent performance in leadership.
Table 4
Seniors’ teaching evaluation summary results for spring 2007
1. Subject matter
knowledge
2. Instructional planning
3. Management of the
environment
4. Instructional
competencies
5. Student/Teacher
interaction
6. Assessment of
students
7. Professional
responsibilities
8. Reflective/Analytical
9. Subject-specific
question
History/
Math Music
SS
3.80
4.00 3.86
All
Elem
Eng
Sci
M
3.87
3.80
4.00
SD
0.34
0.41
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.35
0.01
M
3.77
3.73
3.67
3.80
4.00
3.77
3.50
SD
0.43
0.45
0.49
0.42
0.00
0.43
0.71
M
3.85
3.78
3.92
3.60
4.00
3.95
4.00
SD
0.36
0.42
0.29
0.52
0.00
0.21
0.00
M
3.88
3.90
3.58
3.80
4.00
3.95
4.00
SD
0.33
0.30
0.51
0.42
0.00
0.21
0.00
M
3.79
3.83
3.75
3.90
3.92
3.64
3.50
SD
0.44
0.38
0.45
0.32
0.29
0.58
0.71
M
3.87
3.85
3.83
3.90
4.00
3.82
4.00
SD
0.37
0.36
0.39
0.32
0.00
0.50
0.00
M
3.78
3.82
3.67
3.90
3.75
3.67
4.00
SD
0.46
0.39
0.49
0.32
0.45
0.66
0.00
M
3.74
3.68
3.92
3.70
3.92
3.91
1.50
SD
0.56
0.47
0.29
0.48
0.29
0.29
2.12
M
3.78
3.87
3.25
3.80
4.00
3.77
4.00
SD
0.46
0.41
0.45
0.42
0.00
0.53
0.00
4.00
* A scale of “1-4” was used with “4” indicating the highest rating. Missing data has been omitted.
Table 5
Masters’ internship evaluation summary results for spring 2007 *
M
SD
1. Demonstrated responsibility and professionalism in educational settings
4.83
0.35
2. Demonstrated the importance of communication and an ability to
communicate effectively
4.83
0.40
3. Demonstrated the role and importance of inquiry in educational settings
4.72
0.45
4. Demonstrated the commitment to promoting change in educational
settings
4.71
0.48
* A scale of “1-7” was used with “7” indicating the highest rating. Missing data has been omitted.
Discussion
There appears to be an improvement in the 2006-2007 results in terms of overall grades. Last
year 95% of the students got “A’s” and 4.3% received “B’s.” There were no “C’s” given for
the 2006-2007 group compared to the 2005-2006 where 92.5 % scored “A,” 6.3% received B
and 1.2% received a “C.” Nonetheless these results are similar to 2005-2006 results in that
little variability is noted in the evaluation of students’ clinic, student teacher, and internship
experiences.
There are many reasons “why” the students perform so well on the evaluations. In the spring
of 2008, it is recommended that a series of focus groups be designed to determine why this is
the case and whether students get adequate feedback tied to their evaluation.