Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Inventory
03.03.14 v
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
Provide formative and summative
information about student
learning
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
Answer key questions to
Improve/make decisions about a
program or policy (formative and
summative)
TARGET AUDIENCE /
STAKEHOLDERS
Students, faculty/staff, unit,
college, institutions
DATA COLLECTION AND
ANALYSIS
Direct Measures including course
embedded assignments, quizzes;
comprehensive exams, portfolio
evaluation, reflective journals,
observations of field
work/internship/clinical
experiences, pass rates on
licensure exams, etc.
Program implementers,
participants, funding agencies,
policy makers
Quantitative data including
numerical analysis of observation
data, surveys, etc.
PURPOSE
DISSEMINATION Methods
Indirect Measures including
retention/graduation data,
placement/career development,
student evaluations, alumni
surveys, employer surveys, other
surveys
Reports to Stakeholders
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Pose questions to generate new
knowledge (applied research),
develop practical applications
(action research), and inform
policymakers
Professional discipline,
practitioners, policymakers
Quantitative data including
numerical analysis of observation
data, surveys, etc.
Qualitative data including
observations, descriptions,
interviews, artifacts, historical
documents, etc.
Qualitative data including
observations, descriptions,
interviews, artifacts, historical
documents, etc.
Reports to Stakeholders
Peer-reviewed presentations,
journal articles, book chapters,
books
Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Inventory
1
ECU TQP
Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and
Research
Inventory
Reform Innovation/Element: Co-Teaching
Inventory Report compiled by: Dr. Liz Fogarty
Spring 2014
Other Description: The Co-Teaching model is a spin-off project of the TQP initiatives and
Participants: Elementary Education, Birth/Kindergarten Education, Foreign Language Education, History
Education, English Education, Math Education, Special Education, Middle Grades Education
Inventory Report Date: April 15, 2014
PURPOSE
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
The following questions have
guided this research and results
will provide formative and
summative information about
student learning:
1. Does co-teaching improve
pre-service teachers’ ability
to collaborate?
2. Does co-teaching affect preservice teachers’
professional dispositions?
3. What differences exist in the
teaching ability of interns
participating in co-teaching
and those not participating
in co-teaching?
The following key questions have guided this research and
answers will be used to Improve/make decisions about
College of Education programs or policies:
1. What is the nature of co-teaching that is occurring?
2. Does co-teaching occur more often in certain subjects?
3. What are teacher candidates’ opinions of the co-teaching
experience?
The purpose of this educational
research (IRB# 12-002074) is to
investigate the following research
questions that influence new
knowledge and may inform
policymakers:
1. What differences exist in the
teaching ability of interns
participating in co-teaching and
those not participating in coteaching?
Possible Future Questions
2. What differences exist in the
classroom management of first
year teachers who co-taught during
their internship and those who did
not?
3. What differences exist in student
achievement scores of first year
teachers who co-taught during
their internship and those who did
not?
Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Inventory
2
TARGET
AUDIENCE /
STAKEHOLDERS
ECU Interns, ECU University
Supervisors, ECU Faculty, ECU
College of Education
ECU College of Education, ECU Pitt County Schools, Greene
County Schools and select classrooms in Wilson, Martin, and
Beaufort Counties
DATA
COLLECTION AND
ANALYSIS
Direct Measures
The following are collected from
Senior II Interns:
A. edTPA scores
B. Progress Report scores
C. Final Evaluation scores
D. Ratings from Disposition
Form B and C
E. Collaboration Self
Assessment Tool
F. Intern Collaboration
Tool
G. Co-Teaching Survey
H. TQP Classroom
Walkthrough form
Quantitative data
Participants:
Cohort 1 included 2 interns, 1 supervisor, 1 faculty member,
and 1 clinical teacher. It was conducted with elementary
education interns only.
Indirect Measures
N/A
Cohort 2 included 24 interns, 6 supervisors, 8 faculty
members, and X clinical teachers. It was conducted in the
elementary education, middle grades education, and special
education program areas.
Cohort 3 included 106 interns, 32 supervisors, 30 faculty
members, and 91 clinical teachers. It included the following
program areas: elementary education, birth to kindergarten
education, middle grades education, English education, history
education, math education, special education, and foreign
language education.
A. edTPA scores have been compared to determine
differences in between co-teaching (CoT) and non coteaching (nCoT) interns in Cohort 2.
B. edTPA scores will be compared in the following ways:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
C. Progress report scores will be compared in the
following ways:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 2
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
c. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
D. Final Evaluation scores will be compared in the
following ways:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 2
Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Inventory
ECU College of Education, Pitt County
Schools, Greene County Schools and
select classrooms in Wilson, Martin,
and Beaufort Counties, Teacher
Preparation Programs
Quantitative data
All data from the previous column will
be used, in addition to:
A. LEA Student Achievement Data
from partnering school districts
2012-2014 to determine
impact of co-teaching on K-12
student achievement
Qualitative data
All data from the previous column will
be used with particular attention to:
A. Transcriptions from interview
and focus groups with
University Supervisors and
Clinical Teachers will be
transcribed and open and axial
coding will be used to
determine patterns and
themes
3
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
c. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
Differences in ratings from Disposition Form B to Form
C (Score on Form C minus Score on Form B) will be
compared in the following ways:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 2
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
c. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
Collaboration Self-Assessment scores will be
compared in the following ways:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 2
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
c. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
Intern Collaboration Tool scores will be compared in
the following ways:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 2
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
c. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
Quant. scores from the Co-Teaching Survey will be
compared in the following ways:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 2
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
c. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
TQP Walkthrough scores will be compared in the
following ways for those programs in which these data
were collected:
a. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 2
b. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3
c. CoT vs. nCoT interns in Cohort 3 by program
(when the n is large enough)
Qualitative data
J. Transcriptions of Interviews/Focus Groups will be
compared and open and axial codes will be created to
Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Inventory
4
DISSEMINATION
METHODS
Co-Teaching Foundations and
Pairs Trainings (Fall 2013 and
Fall 2014)
look for patterns and themes
K. Co-Teaching Strategies Charts from Cohorts 2 and 3
will be analyzed to determine the following:
a. Frequency of types of subject
b. Frequency of strategies used
c. Implementation level
L. Co-Teaching Surveys (Qualitative questions) will be
analyzed to determine whether all interns in Cohorts 2
and 3 believed that the cohort path they had (coteaching vs non co-teaching) was best for them and to
ask co-teaching interns about the benefits and
drawbacks of their experience.
Fogarty, E. A. & Tschida, C. (2014). AACTE Research Fellowship
Grant Application, AACTE.
Co-Teaching Data Summits with Co-Teaching team and
program liaisons (May/June 2014) for sharing data and
drawing conclusions
Presentation on Co-Teaching for Council for Teacher
Education.
Peer-Reviewed Presentations
Beaman, A., Covington, V., Fogarty, E.
A., Noble, T., Peoples, P., Smith, J. A., &
Tschida, C. (2013). A New Model of
Student Teaching: Co-Teaching
2:1. American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, Indianapolis,
Indiana.
Peer-Reviewed Article Journal
Provost Council presentation on the Pirate CODE by Dr. Kristen Submission
Cuthrell
Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J., Bullock, A.,
Lys, D., Smith, J., & Fogarty, E.
Presentations from CTC on Co-Teaching (Spring 2013, Fall
(2014). Crossroads, roadblocks, and
2013, and Spring 2014)
scenic routes: Using performance
assessment to improve teacher
preparation. Under Review.
Proposal for Peer-Reviewed Research
Project
Altsteadter, L. L., Smith, J. A., &
Fogarty, E. A. (2014). Co-Teaching: A
new model for Teacher Preparation in
Foreign Language Teacher Preparation.
Proposal for ACTFL Phase III Research
Priorities Project.
Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Inventory
5
Smith, J. A., Tschida, C., Fogarty, E. A.,
& Covington, V. (2013). Best Practices
in Co-Teaching: An Institutional
Collaborative
University Webinar. East Carolina
University, NC
DISSEMINATION
PLAN
Continue research and
evaluation of Co-Teaching in the
Year 6 extension of the Teacher
Quality Partnership Grant.
Finalize 2013-2014 data collection and analysis and submit
report to ECU College of Education and partnering school
districts.
2014 Summer Research Institute with Gary Henry, Vanderbilt
University
Finalize 2013-2014 data collection and
analysis and finish manuscripts on coteaching for publication in peerreviewed journals.
Propose sessions on Co-teaching at
peer-reviewed conferences such as NCATE 2014, AACTE 2015 (due May 30)
and AERA 2015.
(reproduce template as needed)
Comprehensive Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Inventory
6