IB/M Student Evaluations for 2006-2007
A central activity in the Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s (IB/M), a
component of the Teacher Preparation Program, is gaining clinical
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.
Background
Students complete six semesters, the equivalent of an average of 1,200
hours, in the PreK-12 schools over the course of the IB/M Teacher
Preparation Program. Starting right when they enter the program in the
junior year, students begin the first of three semesters in a clinic
experience. In the spring of their senior year they complete a semester of
student teaching. Then, in their Master’s year they have a full year of
internship. These experiences become increasingly complex and
demanding as students make their way through the program. Placements
help students gain practical experiences to assist them in their analysis
and reflection on their teaching and learning. 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. These evaluations are completed by the student’s cooperating
teacher. There is a different evaluation questionnaire for the clinic
experience, senior year student teaching experience, and master’s year
internship experience.
The junior-year clinic evaluation is a 21-item Likert scale that used a “15” scale with “5” indicating the highest rating. The Master’s-year
internship evaluation is similar. This evaluation consisted 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 was somewhat different than the junior’s
clinic and master’s internship assessments. This evaluation consisted of
nine categories. Within each category, there were several Likert scale
items using a “1-4” scale with “4” indicating the highest rating. The first
eight categories were identical across all students. However, the ninth
category differed depending on the placement and subject area of the
student. This category contained 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 were also given a grade by their cooperating teacher.
The grade ranged from “A” to “F.”
All evaluations allowed the
cooperating teacher to add comments about the IB/M student’s
performance.
Data was entered in the winter 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
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.
Due to the delay, qualitative data was examined but was not reported.
Results
A total of 92.5% of the students received a grade of “A” by the
cooperating teacher in clinic, student teaching and the internship. 1 Few
students received a grade of “B” or “C.” (See Table 1) For the Master’s
internship, only two students receive a grade of “B+”. Forty-nine percent
actually received a grade of “A+.”
Tables 3-5 display results by the semester/year. From the junior year
clinic, students are scoring high with all averages 4.4 or higher in a “1” to
“5” scale. The most positive statement was observation skills (4.87); and
the lowest was teacher confidence (4.66). There was little variability with
these results.
1
The cooperating teacher does not formally assign a grade.
Table 1
Overall Grade Awarded to Students in Clinic, Student Teaching and
Internship in 2006-2007 *
Grade
ranges
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
* Missing data has been omitted.
Table 2a
Juniors’ Clinic Results by Statement *
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Item Stem
Teacher candidate is making transition from student to
professional as demonstrated by appropriate dress,
manner, and rapport.
Teacher candidate is applying the concepts of the
University’s Core and Seminar course work.
M
4.87
4.77
0.42
Teacher candidate is meeting and/or exceeding
attendance commitments.
Teacher candidates volunteers to perform extra tasks and
assignments.
4.82
0.46
4.70
0.56
Teacher candidate is gaining insight into school policies.
Teacher candidate is appreciating and accepting school
environments other than grade level of preference or
specialization.
4.70
0.52
4.80
0.47
Teacher candidate is recognizing the value of different
teaching styles by asking questions and making
observations in other classrooms or educational settings.
Teacher candidate is familiar with the whole school
process (e.g., dress code, PPT, homework policy).
4.79
0.47
4.71
0.47
Teacher candidate has participated in one to one tutoring
and/or leading small group.
4.78
0.54
4.52
0.70
4.83
0.45
10. Teacher candidate has participated in and/or implemented
instruction based on diagnostic procedures.
11. Teacher candidate has demonstrated sensitivity to the
needs of individuals.
SD
0.37
* A scale of “1-5” was used, where 5 was the most positive rating. Missing data has been
omitted.
Table 2b
Juniors’ Clinic Results for Deposition
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Item Stem
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
Note: A scale of “1-5” was used, where 5 was was the most positive rating. Missing data
has been omitted.
Table 3
Senior Student 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
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
All
3.87
0.34
3.77
0.43
3.85
0.36
3.88
0.33
3.79
0.44
3.87
0.37
3.78
0.46
3.74
0.56
3.78
0.46
Elem
3.80
0.41
3.73
0.45
3.78
0.42
3.90
0.30
3.83
0.38
3.85
0.36
3.82
0.39
3.68
0.47
3.87
0.41
Eng
4.00
0.00
3.67
0.49
3.92
0.29
3.58
0.51
3.75
0.45
3.83
0.39
3.67
0.49
3.92
0.29
3.25
0.45
Histor
y/SS
3.80
0.42
3.80
0.42
3.60
0.52
3.80
0.42
3.90
0.32
3.90
0.32
3.90
0.32
3.70
0.48
3.80
0.42
Math Music Sci
4.00 3.86 4.00
0.00 0.35 0.01
4.00 3.77 3.50
0.00 0.43 0.71
4.00 3.95 4.00
0.00 0.21 0.00
4.00 3.95 4.00
0.00 0.21 0.00
3.92 3.64 3.50
0.29 0.58 0.71
4.00 3.82 4.00
0.00 0.50 0.00
3.75 3.67 4.00
0.45 0.66 0.00
3.92 3.91 1.50
0.29 0.29 2.12
4.00 3.77 4.00
0.00 0.53 0.00
* A scale of “1-4” was used with “4” indicating the highest rating. Missing data has been
omitted.
In examining the results of senior’s during 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- Math). Little variation existed.
The Master’s internship showed minimal variability, too. Though using a
different scale than the clinic 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.
Table 4a
Master’s Internship Summary Results
*
1. Demonstrated responsibility and professionalism in
educational settings
2. Demonstrated the importance of communication and an
ability to communicate effectively
3. Demonstrated the role and importance of inquiry in
educational settings
4. Demonstrated the commitment to promoting change in
educational settings
M
SD
4.83
0.35
4.83
0.40
4.72
0.45
4.71
0.48
* A scale of “1-7” was used with “7” indicating the highest rating. Missing data has been
omitted.
Table 4b
Master’s Internship Leadership Results
Intern has demonstrated
competent performance on the
components of leadership
n
%
91
96.7
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% were
given 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% got 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.