Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
1
University of Cincinnati Educator Preparation Unit
Transforming Lives, Schools, and Communities
Our Unit standards for performance expectations have become: Candidates of the University
of Cincinnati are committed to transforming the lives of P-12 students, their schools, and their
communities, and
 Demonstrating foundation knowledge, including knowledge of how each individual
learns and develops within a unique developmental context.
 Articulating the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and the structures of their discipline.
 Collaborating, leading, and engaging in positive systems change.
 Demonstrating the moral imperative to teach all students and address the responsibility
to teach all students with tenacity.
 Addressing issues of diversity with equity and using skills unique to culturally and
individually responsive practice.
 Using technology to support their practice.
 Using assessment and research to inform their efforts and improve outcomes.
 Demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge, grounded in evidence- based practices,
committed to improving the academic and social outcomes of students.
In view of this conceptual framework and our urban mission, the goal for our Transformation
Initiative is to improve the performance of students in high needs schools by preparing
educators who recognize the moral imperative to meet the needs of each student. Perhaps
most significantly, we will assess the outcomes of students in partner schools as well as
candidates.
This initiative was designed to serve K-12 students in city schools, particularly those with special
needs (i.e., unmotivated, neglected, special education, second language learners), and to better
prepare our teaching candidates for urban settings and collaborative teaching. As a teacher
preparation program with an urban focus, located midtown in the city, we have a responsibility
to address issues of race and ethnicity, what Duncan (2009) refers to as teachers’ “daily fight
for social justice” (Duncan, 2009). In particular, we know that the quality of instruction and the
competence of the teacher have a significant impact on the learning and achievement for
students of color (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Darling-Hammond (2009) contends that wellprepared teachers make a greater difference for students who have struggled. Learning to
teach, she argues, is grounded in looking at what works for a wide array of students and
critically reflecting on what is effective and what is not.
This initiative is grounded in what we know about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of
successful urban teachers. Haberman’s efforts (1995) have identified fifteen characteristics of
effective teachers which include: (a) protecting children’s learning; (b) persistence; (c)
approach to at risk students; (d) theory into practice; (e) professional/personal orientation to
students; (f) fallibility; (g) emotional and physical stamina; (h) organizational ability, (i)
explanation of teacher s success; (j) explanation of children’s success; (k) real teaching; (l)
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
2
making students feel needed; (m) the material versus the student; and (n) gentle teaching in a
violent society. In their study of stakeholder perceptions, McDermott and Rothenberg (2000)
reporting findings that affirmed the need for trusting relationships, high expectations, and
integrating students’ cultural knowledge for successful work with urban students.
The dispositions to which we are committed are also aligned with this project. As Haberman
and Post (1998) suggest, there are essential elements of the belief and knowledge systems of
urban teachers that predisposes them to success in urban settings. They report that effective
urban teachers have self-knowledge, with a thorough understanding of their own cultural roots,
grounding themselves in self-examination rather than “color-blindness” (Gorski, 2010). In
terms of self-acceptance, Haberman and Post argue that self-acceptance is essential, in that (it
takes somebodies to make somebodies” (p. 100). Effective urban teachers are able to work
with children and adults different from themselves in ways viewed by others as respectful,
caring, and empathetic with others how they perceive, understand, and explain their world.
Consistent with the earlier characteristic of persistence, Haberman and Post describe the ability
to “generate sustained effort” (p. 100) both on their behalf and that of their students. These
teachers engage in systematic self-analysis and reflection, with an ongoing commitment to
learning and growing. The final characteristic Haberman and Post suggest, is the ability to
function in chaos. They argue that urban school systems are in themselves unstable and
dysfunctional organizations. In order to remain effective, teacher must be able to act on behalf
of children in spite of the irrationality and bureaucracies around them.
Essential Themes
This transformation initiative is structured by theme, allowing each program to implement their
efforts in a way that meet their standards, candidates learning, and optimize student outcomes.
These themes can, in themselves, be organized as a “who”, “what”, and “how” of our efforts.
Our candidates’ dispositions and preparation as educators for high needs schools (who) will be
addressed to help candidates come to terms with unintentional barriers and biases and help
them reflect on their efforts. Our program curriculum and structures (what) will be revised in
view of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Field and Clinical Experiences and research based practices.
The impact of these efforts will be measured in part by the Teacher Performance Assessment
(how).
The Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) is a national assessment of pre-service teachers
that focuses on student learning and is designed around the principles that successful teachers
apply knowledge of subject matter and subject-specific pedagogy, develop and apply
knowledge of their students’ varied needs, consider research/theory about how students learn,
and reflect and act on evidence of the effects of their instruction on student learning.
“Who”: Candidates Dispositions and Preparation as Educators in Urban Schools
Theme: Helping candidates come to terms with unintentional barriers and bias. This theme is
consistent with Haberman and Post’s (1998) elements of self-knowledge and self-acceptance.
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
3
Due to the limits of their own experiences and socio-cultural backgrounds, teaching candidates
often bring unintentional barriers and bias to the study of teaching and learning. Sleeter (2008)
outlined at least three challenges that early career teacher must address. First, pre-service
teachers must wrestle with the forces of occupational socialization with the inherent and tacit
belief in the superiority of the White ways of teaching and working. Second, as pre-service
teachers enter urban classrooms they have to be able to reflect on race and class as powerful
filters of interpretation. Third, new and pre-service teachers must learn to integrate
professional knowledge with practice in order to move beyond survival practices used in early
teaching experiences. These challenges are consistent with the work of Gay (2010) whose
notion of culturally responsive teaching suggested that much intellectual ability lies untapped
and unrecognized in students of diverse ethnicities. We are committed to help candidates move
from a cultural deprivation (deficit) paradigm that emphasizes limited cultural capital in the
home and communities of low income and minority students to a cultural difference paradigm
that works to unleash the learning potential of ethnically diverse students.
Theme: Preparing teachers for city schools. Haberman’s (1995) and Haberman and Post’s
(1998) characteristics of effective teachers clearly inform this theme. We address issues of
persistent, orientation to students, and stamina. We emphasize the role of the “opportunity
gap” rather than “achievement gap” among various groups of students. In addition, we
emphasize collaborative rather than control-oriented classroom management, trust, and
respect.
All of our licensure programs require city experiences for their candidates. Like many teacher
preparation programs, our candidates sometimes express an interest in teaching “urban, but
not too urban” (Watson, 2011, p. 31) students. Watson suggested that these new teachers
wanted to teach “students of color who exhibited their perceptions of middle-class-ness” (p.
31). Increasingly, our University of Cincinnati candidates are experiencing “urban” rather than
“not too urban” schools. They are attending classes within high needs schools, in high poverty
areas. They are working with students living in poverty, and confronting the complexities of
families with many stressors and few resources. Through these placements, we are aligned
with Watson’s recommendation that educator preparation programs must incorporate issues
of race, inequity, classroom management, and poverty with repeated, personal experiences,
rather than in a multicultural education course. In addition, we are finding that earlier, more
frequent and better integrated field experiences are helping candidates not suited or not
interested in teaching in high needs schools choose a different career path.
Theme: Reflection and analysis of teaching effectiveness. Diez (2010) suggests that teacher
candidate work samples or portfolios are frequently filled with artifacts but do not provide
evidence of in depth analysis. She contends that good work samples provide evidence that the
candidate has captured thinking about how the artifact supports growth towards the standards
of practice and shows that the candidate has determined next steps in increasing student
learning.
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
4
Reflection is key to effective urban teachers. Yet, as Haberman and Post (1998) contend, just
reflecting isn’t helpful unless it is grounded in a belief of the relationship between teacher
“success” and student “success” and the commitment to continuous growth and learning.
Through the use of the Collaborative Assessment Log and with the implementation of the
Teacher Performance Assessment, University of Cincinnati School of Education faculty are
increasingly addressing candidates’ ability to reflect and analyze their own teacher, reviewing
evidence, on their teaching, what they have learned about their teaching and students’
learning, and what they would do differently if they could teach a learning segment again. The
“Analyzing Teaching Commentaries” commentaries in the TPA require candidates to show how
specific research/theory guided their selection of specific strategies and materials to help their
P-12 students develop the strategies and skills that are needed to meet the learning objectives.
Candidates are directed to use notes they collected through learning segments and use this
evidence to evaluate and change their teaching to meet the various needs of students. Finally,
through both the TPA and the Collaborative Assessment Logs, candidates examine how this
process of reflection informs what they plan to do in the next teaching episode, unit or lesson.
“What”: Revising Curriculum and Program Components
Theme: Embedding courses in schools and better integrating courses with field experiences.
An increasing number of teacher preparation classes are being taught in nearby high-needs
schools and are better integrated with the field experiences in those schools. These
experiences function as “laboratories” for our candidates, settings to apply the knowledge and
skills they are learning in their classes. Campus-based faculty members are available to support
candidates, and provide feedback on knowledge, skills, and dispositions. These efforts are
consistent with the recommendations of the report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical
Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. Each of the licensure programs
currently has at least one example of an embedded course or parts of a course and those will
increase as we move to semesters in the autumn of 2012. Through these embedded courses
and accompanying field experiences, we are moving away from lesson plans as mere academic
exercises (Conderman, Morin, & Stephens, 2005). In this context, candidates’ lesson plans are
explicitly tied to a specific target population in their field experience classrooms. Candidates
must consider the unique array of special needs (i.e., unmotivated, neglected, special
education, second language learners) as they plan and implement classroom activities.
Theme: Adding more and earlier field experiences. Field experiences – being there – is an
important aspect of our candidates ability to develop a professional/personal orientation to
students, caring, and empathy for students’ whose experiences have been far different than
their own (Haberman & Post, 1998).
The Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning
argued that the “education of teachers in the United States needs to be turned upside down.
To prepare effective teachers for 21st century classrooms, teacher education must shift away
from a norm which emphasizes academic preparation and course work loosely linked to schoolbased experiences. Rather, it must move to programs that are fully grounded in clinical practice
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
5
and interwoven with academic content and professional courses” National Council l for
Accreditation of Teacher Education p. ii). As the School of Education moves to semesters in the
autumn of 2012, each of the licensure programs is increasing the number of field experiences
and will provide earlier field experiences for their candidates. These experiences will be more
frequent, earlier and better integrated. They promise to be more demanding, varied and
clinically based. Opportunities for candidates to connect what they learn with the challenge of
using it will increase. University-based supervisors and faculty members, along with schoolbased cooperating teachers will provide closer guidance and support. Candidates will blend
practitioner knowledge with academic knowledge as they learn by doing. They will refine their
practice in the light of new knowledge acquired and data gathered about whether their
students are learning. Earlier and more frequent experiences will also help address the concern
that short-term experiences in urban schools may not extend candidate preparation, even in
professional development schools (McKinney, Haberman, Stafford-Johnson, & Robinson, 2008).
We are not only turning the preparation of educators “upside down”, but “moving it out..
Theme: Implementation of research-based strategies. Effective urban teachers are able to
connect theory to practice (Haberman, 1995). If university based faculty are going to talk the
talk of evidence-based practices, then they must walk the walk in their own classes. Syllabi are
being developed to explicitly indicate the research-based strategies used by the instructor.
Instructors are modeling the three phases of explicit instruction (explicit training and teacher
modeling, guided practice, and independent practice). Candidates’ work samples must include
documentation that the strategies and interventions are research-based and demonstrated to
be successful. This commitment has moved us to begin to break down the existing silos. Special
education faculty and general education faculty are co-teaching, demonstrating to our
candidates the types of collaboration that can increase student engagement and achievement.
Protocols, such as student work samples, analysis of student work (New Teacher Center, 2002)
and teacher performance assessment have been to help candidates systematically and
collaboratively examine the work of P-12 students in their practicum classrooms to discover
student learning needs and determine how best to address them. Cooperating teachers and
university faculty members use their experience and expertise to help our teacher candidates
select appropriate student work, establish criteria for assessment, and sort and analyze the
work to identify learning needs. Together, they identify patterns that become apparent from
this analysis and reflect on implications for differentiating instruction.
Theme: Academic language development. Academic language has been described as the
specialized set of words, grammar, and organizational strategies used to express complex ideas,
higher-order thinking processes and abstract concepts (Zwiers, 2008). In May of 2004, the
National Council of Teachers English (NCTE) issued a Call to Action citing the unique aspects of
adolescent literacy that are encountered by students within the academic discourses of their
content area classes. Because the demands of academic expository discourses differ from more
familiar forms such as literary or personal narrative (Kucer, 2005), NCTE charged teachers with
the responsibility of “make(ing) visible to students how literacy operates within the academic
disciplines” (National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2004).With the implementation of
the Teacher Performance Assessment, University of Cincinnati School of Education faculty and
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
6
candidates are increasingly addressing P-12 students’ abilities to understand and produce the
oral or written language that are a critical part of each academic discipline. While many P-12
students manage to appropriate the features of academic genres, many do not. Across our
licensure programs, candidates are engaged in building units of instruction that give P-12
students opportunities to move from their social languages into the unique languages required
in the academic disciplines.
“How”: Using the Teacher Performance Assessment to Track Change
Theme: Implementing a reliable and valid Teacher Performance Assessment to improve the
consistency and quality of teacher effectiveness. The Teacher Performance Assessment
Consortium (TPAC) is an initiative to develop an assessment of the competence of pre-service
teachers, a prototype for a national teaching performance assessment. Through participation in
the development and implementation of the Teacher Performance Assessment, the School of
Education is moving toward a robust, complex, multifaceted assessment of our candidates in
action.
Pre-service teachers design a series of 3–5 lessons called a learning segment. To complete the
assessment, they submit artifacts and commentaries as evidence of how they planned and
implemented instruction to deepen student learning in their specific content area. Artifacts
represent the authentic work of the pre-service teachers and their students. These include
lesson plans, copies of instructional and assessment materials, one or two video clips of their
teaching, and student work samples.
The commentaries provide an opportunity for candidates to describe the artifacts, explain the
rationale behind their use, and analyze and reflect on what they learned about their teaching
practice and their students’ learning. In each commentary, the pre-service teachers respond to
prompts to provide evidence of what they know and understand about their students and their
learning.
As an accelerated teacher preparation program within an accelerated state, the University of
Cincinnati’s School of Education, has been at the forefront of early pilots of the national
assessment. Programs currently engaged in these efforts include early childhood education,
middle childhood education, world languages, special education-other settings, and secondary
education. This autumn, we will engage in a full pilot in all licensure programs where TPAC
Handbooks are available (special education, early childhood education, art, music, world
languages, elementary mathematics, elementary literacy, secondary English language arts,
secondary science, secondary mathematics, secondary social studies and history). The four
tasks cover critical areas 1. Planning, instruction, and assessment; 2. Instructing and Engaging
Students in Learning; 3. Assessing Student Learning; and 4. Analyzing Teaching; and support
the development of formative assessment tools that will provide more explicit feedback for our
candidates. Signature assignments are being designed to mirror these assessments and will be
integrated into course work and field experiences throughout the licensure programs,
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
7
beginning with initial course work in human development, educational foundations and special
education, through the final courses and field experiences.
Considering the data from the Teacher Performance Assessments as a way to improve
programs has forced us to consider the outcomes of our courses and field experiences. Diez
(2010) describe “embedded signature assessments” (p. 44) as assignments or course activities
that provide candidates with formative feedback on program outcomes. As we begin the reexamination of what we what our students to be able to know, do, and be, we recognized that
consistency in the ways in which we address and assess candidate outcomes are central to our
program improvement efforts. As we work with candidates in planning, program must agree
on how lesson plans will be presented, assessed, and used to provide information to candidates
to improve their practice. On our most recent program reports several programs continued to
use grades as an assessment; as we move to these signature assignments we anticipate
assessments that more clearly align with our program outcomes rather than inputs.
Anticipated Outcomes and Research Questions
We anticipate that this transformation effort will result in:
 Candidates with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be effective teachers for all
students in challenging schools.
 Program structures that support the development of candidate knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
 An effective Teacher Performance Assessment to serve as a summative assessment for
the program.
 A series of consistent, fair, and bias-free assessments to measure the development of
candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher
Performance Assessment.
The research questions that structure our efforts are:
 What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on candidate
knowledge, skills, and dispositions and ability to teach in challenging schools?
 Does the Teacher Performance Assessment generate evidence that is useful in refining
educator preparation efforts?
 What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on the learning and
behavior of p-12 students?
 What assessments emerge to measure the development of candidate knowledge, skills,
and dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance Assessment?
Methodology
Research Question: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on
candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions and ability to teach in challenging schools?
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
8
The following program structures, consistent with the Blue Ribbon Panel on Field and Clinical
Experiences and grounded in the research base related to educator preparation for challenging
schools, are being developed, implemented, and evaluated in this question. The following table
describes each structure, the target, and the current or proposed assessment.
Structure
Impact
Embedding courses in
schools with integrated field
experiences
Pedagogical
knowledge and
skills
More and earlier field
experiences
Research based-strategies
Emphasis on academic
language
Dispositions
Embedded Signature Assessment
Status of
Assessment
Assessment Plan (Special Education)
In place
Lesson Planning (All initial programs)
Intervention Plan (Special Education)
Addendum to candidate performance in the field
related to Haberman’s characteristics of effective
Conceptual units (All initial programs)
Positive behavior support (special education) and
management plans (all initial programs)
Focused Dispositions Assessment
In place
In place
In development
Assessment of language in written work using
equity rubric
Repeated measures of diversity knowledge and
dispositions
Reflection
In development
In place
In place
Piloting
In development
In development
Research Question: Does the Teacher Performance Assessment generate evidence that is
useful in refining educator preparation efforts?
In order to address this question, we will use a content analysis of the scoring and comments of
the external, calibrated raters’ for our candidates’ Teacher Performance Assessment. We will
then review the categories and themes from this analysis in terms of program structures,
course content, and field and clinical expectations. Faculty members will then complete a
social validity questionnaire in terms of the usefulness of the TPA in information program
continuous improvement plans.
Research Question: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on the
learning and behavior of p-12 students?
Our Transformation Initiative has had a significant impact on our assessment system. Since
2002 we have had a candidate performance/program improvement plan and a unit operations
improvement plan. With the initiative, we have implemented an “impact on p-12 student
learning and behavior” improvement plan. We have implemented, through the Teacher
Performance Assessment, an evaluation of candidate’s ability to assess their students, analyze
their work, differentiate their instruction, and then reassess. We have, in some settings,
implemented a goal attainment scaling size effect study. With the need for additional,
innovative efforts, Dean Johnson has released a request for proposals and will commission
studies of additional efforts to address the impact of the new program on the learning and
behavior of p-12 students.
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
9
Research Question: What assessments emerge to measure the development of candidate
knowledge, skills, and dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance
Assessment?
One aspect of this initiative is the development of measures that are sensitive to more precisely
measure the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of our candidates consistent with our
commitment to transforming lives, schools, and communities. The assessments must be fair,
consistent, and unbiased. In response to this need, a protocol for studying these areas in each
of the assessment will be developed. To begin these efforts, we will apply our current
“assessment of assessments” guide:
Embedded signature assessment:
Course:
Indicator:
The assessment is:
Description of how indicator is met:
relevant and consistent with components of the
standards. List standards addressed:
List standards addressed:
planned, refined, and implemented by key
stakeholders (i.e., professional and local community)
one of several internal and external multiple
measures that are systematically applied across
content, course work, and field experiences
clearly delineated and communicated to candidates
and/or stakeholders.
credible and rigorous.
authentic to the work of the educator
conducted the appropriate context (classroom vs.
community vs. field)
appropriate for the cost (time)
consistent with reform
a source of information regarding decisions about the
program and the candidate
Indicator:
Description of how indicator is met:
The assessment addresses these unit standards:
foundation knowledge, including how individuals
learn and develop
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
10
content knowledge
collaboration, leadership, positive systems change
diversity
technology
assessment and research
pedagogical knowledge grounded in EBP
Transformational Initiative
Indicator:
Description of how indicator is met:
The assessment addresses these Ohio Educator Standards:
1 Teachers understand student learning and development, and respect
the diversity of the students they teach.
2 Teachers know and understand the content area for which they have
instructional responsibility.
3 Teachers understand and use varied assessments to inform instruction,
evaluate, and ensure student learning.
4 Teachers plan and deliver effective instruction that advances the
learning of each individual student.
5 Teachers create learning environments that promote high levels of
learning and achievement for all students.
6 Teachers collaborate and communicate with other educators,
administrators, students and parents and the community to support
student learning.
7 Professional Responsibility and Growth: Teachers assume responsibility
for professional growth, performance, and involvement as an individual
and as a member of a learning community.
References:
Council for Exceptional Children (2002) Standards for development of assessment systems. Retrieved 9/ 29/ 2009 from
http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Professional_Standards1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1351
Johnson, R. L., Penny, J. A., and Gordon, B. (2009) Assessing performance: Designing, scoring, and validating performance tasks. New
York: Guildford Press.
Examples of Current Program Transformation Efforts
All teacher preparation programs are committed to these transformation efforts. They vary,
however, in their implementation and the stage of their effort.
Special Education:
Rothenberg Preparatory Academy. Special Education candidates preparing to work with
students with mild to moderate educational needs participate in coursework in literacy at the
school. Following the class, an embedded field experience engages candidates in assessing,
teaching, and evaluating their impact of work with young children attending the school. Faculty
members who co-teach the course are joined by university supervisors to provide coaching and
support. Candidates prepare an assessment and intervention report which is provided to both
the teacher and parent.
Special education is also involved in co-teaching by both university faculty members and
candidates, implementation of evidence based practices, and explicit feedback.
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
11
Early Childhood Education:
Taft Elementary: The Integrating Social Studies in Early Childhood Curriculum course has a
particular focus on urban education. Candidates participate in an urban kindergarten practicum
experience while enrolled in the course. To foster understanding, awareness, and appreciation
for urban and inner-city communities the course blends on-campus instruction with instruction
at multiple locations situated within the urban/inner city community surrounding Taft
Elementary, including the school itself. Assignments are developed to reflect on instructional
practices that effectively utilize candidates’ emerging understandings of Taft Elementary
students and the local community. Candidates visit a local community garden and local nonprofit organizations to develop teacher candidates’ competence in making local curricular
connections to their teaching of social studies. Related assignments foster an understanding of
how the surrounding community supports students and families, as teacher candidates build
their knowledge base about how “social studies” can serve to develop children’s
understandings about their social world.
In fall, 2011, the program taught 25% of the ECE science classes at Taft Elementary. First, both
the UC and Taft second graders exchanged letters and pictures. Next, candidates in both
sections of science methods went to the school and taught small group activities. During this
last activity the ECE pre-service teachers will teach a science demonstration to small groups for
30 minutes each. These demonstrations will be taught a total of four times so they can better
understand how to adapt their teaching from one lesson to the next.
The kindergarten practicum has been refocused as an urban field experience. We will also be
pairing multiple candidates (2) with master mentor teachers for each placement in high needs
schools.
Middle Childhood Education
The middle childhood education program is engaged in piloting the Teacher Performance
Assessment. Middle childhood education faculty members have piloted this prototype for a
national teaching performance assessment for two years. One faculty member has been trained
as a “scorer trainer” for Ohio. In the Teacher Performance Assessment, candidates describe,
analyze, and evaluate the teaching of a 3-5 lesson unit of instruction, a “learning segment”. The
TPA is based on the proposition that successful teaching is based on knowledge of subject
matter and subject-specific pedagogy, developing knowledge of one’s students, reflecting and
acting on evidence of the effects of instruction on student learning, and considering
research/theory about how students learn. The Teacher Performance Assessment is focused on
P-12 student learning. To complete the assessment, candidates submit artifacts and
commentaries and describe their plans and what they actually did to achieve student learning
(the “what”), provide a rationale for their plans and an analysis of the effects of their teaching
on their students’ learning (the “so what”), and analyze and reflect on the resulting student
learning to plan next steps in instruction or improvements in their teaching practice (the “now
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
12
what”). Candidates’ assessment evidence is judged on five dimensions of teaching: planning,
instruction, assessment, reflection, and academic language. Full implementation begins next
year (2011-12) and will be timed to licensure, a “high stakes” Ohio assessment, in 2013-14.
Integrated Efforts
Hughes STEM High School. During autumn 2010 a pilot project of 20 coaching teams (special
education and English education pairs) worked together to meet the needs of the Hughes STEM
ninth grades, particularly those with special needs (i.e., unmotivated, neglected, special
education). The teacher candidates, UC School of Education teaching candidates, are college
juniors, seniors or graduate students seeking integrated English language arts teaching license,
valid for grades seven to twelve, or a mild to moderate Special Education teaching license, valid
for teaching kindergarten through grade twelve. These twenty teams coached Hughes STEM
freshmen at the high school during the day and/or after the school day, six hours per week for
10-11 weeks. These UC licensure candidates were supervised by faculty, field service
supervisors, and doctoral students. An accompanying university course was offered at Hughes
STEM. Instructional management coursework is also taught at Hughes, co-taught by classroom
teachers, and providing candidates with a means of observing, recording data, and debriefing.
Math/Science Post-Baccalaureate Licensure. Selected Woodrow Wilson teaching fellows
already hold a baccalaureate degree in math, science or engineering and have demonstrated
that they are high achievers, academically and professionally. The fellows will complete an
intensive, field-based master’s degree in UC’s teacher education program and licensure under
the mentorship of STEM faculty in CECH as well as UC’s McMicken College of Arts and Sciences
(A&S) and UC’s College of Engineering. Their experience will also include immersion in UC’s
STEM partnerships with Cincinnati Public Schools – namely the Hughes STEM high school that
opened last fall, the newest link in a K-16 pipeline to ensure the academic success of every
student in the Cincinnati USA region and to strengthen the future Ohio workforce. Woodrow
Wilson Fellows will complete licensure in either math or science grades 7-12 and a masters’
degree in 18 months.
Research Evaluation Plan
Timeline and Dissemination. We are planning a NCATE accreditation site visit in the autumn
2012. As a member of the PACT consortium, our efforts may serve as models for other PACT
institutions seeking NCATE accreditation through the Transformation Initiative. If approved,
results of these efforts study would be written into papers to be submitted for publication in
scholarly journals, such as Issues in Teacher Education and Teacher Education Quarterly,
Educational Researcher, Teacher Education and Special Education, Teaching and Teacher
Education. Proposals to present this research would be submitted for presentations at
conferences, such as the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the American
Educational Research Association (AERA), and the Council for Exceptional Children, National
Middle School Association, and other specialized associations. We have already presented
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
13
some of our work at AERA, CEC, and AACTE. Our work on dispositions has appears in an edited
volume for Harvard University Press, and other papers are under review.
Research Question 1: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on candidate knowledge, skills,
and dispositions?
Action Planned
Implement coursework and
embedded field experiences in
schools with p-12 teacher
partners
Adding more and earlier field
experiences
Addressing unintentional
barriers and biases
Preparing teachers for city
schools
Implementation of researchbased strategies
Academic language
development
Reflection
When?
Status?
Fall 2011
ECE pilots; SPED; Grades 7-12
English/LA
Spring 2012
Fall 2012
MDL pilots
Planned
Summer
2012 – Fall
2013
Fall 2011
Work group aligning series of
experience and assessments
Data
Comparison of performance of
candidates on dispositions and goal
setting to past groups
Program evaluations, candidate
performance
Assessments, rubric for candidate
written efforts, racial identity activities
All candidates in >1 urban, high
Tracking placements; scripts ; focused
poverty placement by policy
disposition assessment
Fall 2011
Research based strategies
Meta-analysis of ratings of use of
required on all plans/units
research-based strategies
Spring 2012- Reviewing literature; initiating
Specific strategies to work with
Fall 2013
work on strategies
candidates to be developed
Fall 2012Reviewing literature; developing
Rubric for depth of reflection to be
Fall 2013
rubric; collaborating with school
developed
partners on CAL
Research Question 2: Does the Teacher Performance Assessment generate evidence that is used in refining educator
preparation efforts?
Action Planned
Implementation of TPA for all
programs
Summarization and analysis of
quantitative data
Coding of written comments
When?
Status?
Data
Spring 2012
MDL, ECE, and SPED uploading
Available October 2012
Winter 2013
Planned
Summarized March 2013
Spring 2013
Planned
Summarized May 2013
Summarization / analysis to
Fall 2013
Planned
Presented August 2013
programs for review to improve
candidate performance and
program
Social Validity Questionnaire –
Winter 2014 Planned
Surveys and interviews conducted by
including p-12 partners
March 2014
Generating publications
Sum2014
Planned
Submitted by September 2014
Research Questions 3: What is the impact of changes in program structures and emphases on the learning and behavior of
p-12 students?
Action Planned
Implement funded Evaluation
Mosaic Studies
Reissue rfps for Mosaic
Evaluation project;
commissioning other studies
Identification of assessments
Review of data generated
When?
Status?
Data
Fall 2012
Planned
Spring 2013
Spring 2012
Planned
Summer 2013
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Planned
Planned
Piloted Fall 2012
Summarized Spring 2013
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
Revising assessments
Reliability, bias, and consistency
studies
Spring 2013
2013-2014
AY
Planned
Planned
14
Completed by June 2013
Completed by June 2014
Institutionalize assessments to
Fall 2014
Planned
Fall 2014-Fall 2018
collect adequate data to identify
trends
Research Question 4: What assessments emerge to measure the development of candidate knowledge, skills, and
dispositions prior to student teaching and the Teacher Performance Assessment?
Action Planned
Identify signature embedded
assessments
Post signature assessments and
rubrics on program web-pages
Implement Assessments
Review data and redesign
Reliability, bias, and consistency
studies
Institutionalize assessments to
collect adequate data to identify
trends
When?
Status?
Data
Fall 2012
Planned
End of December 2012
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
2013-2014
AY
Fall 2014
Planned
Planned
Planned
Planned
Completed?
End of spring 2013
End of December 2013
Completed by June 2014
Planned
Fall 2014-Fall 2018
Budget. The only budget available at this time is that provided to the collaborating programs.
Grant proposals have been submitted for additional funding. Dean Johnson has made a
commitment to continue to fund proposals that generate assessments related to p-12 student
outcomes.
Description of the unit’s capacity to conduct the Transformation Initiative. Faculty members
are well prepared to implement this project. Prior to the 2010-2011 academic year, several
faculty members participated in a one week institute to reform teacher preparation efforts. In
this institute, strategies were designed to increase university program integration in course
work and field experiences (e.g., faculty co-teach and sharing in instructional delivery and
curriculum design). In addition, plans were made to integrate pedagogical content knowledge
that indirectly benefits instruction in 4-12 classrooms (e.g., integrated courses, and professional
development targets). Through the use of formative assessment, innovation grounded in
research will be developed for presentation to the university teacher preparation faculty.
The partner schools are also a key resource. Hughes STEM High School is located directly across
the street from the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services. After two years
of renovation, the one hundred year old building now has all new plumbing, wiring, gym,
automatic lighting, and roof. There is a state of the art observation classroom where observers
can watch master teachers through two-way mirrors during instruction. Wireless and wired
computer labs are available, and there is significant technology in the classrooms. A large
“innovation lab” is available for teaching our courses. Rooms have also been made available to
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
15
us at Taft Elementary and Rothenberg Schools for teaching our courses and working with small
groups of students.
References
Conderman, G., Morin, J. & Stephens, J. T. (2005). Special education student teaching
practices. Preventing School Failure, 49 (3), 5-10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third Annual Brown Lecture in Education Research- The flat earth
and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future.
Educational Researcher, 36 (6), 318-334.)
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Thoughts on teacher preparation. Retrieved November 24, 2009
from http://www.edutopia.org/linda-darling-hammond-teacher-preparation
Diez, M. (2010). It is complicated: Unpacking the flow of teacher education’s impact on
student learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 441-450. DOI:
10.1177/0022487110382927.
Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain profession – Remarks of
Secretary Arne Duncan at Teachers College, Columbia University, October 22, 2009.
Retrieved November 24, 2009 from
www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/10/10222009.html
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money
matters. Harvard Journal of Legislation, 28 (2), 465-498.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Haberman, M. & Post, L. (1998). Teachers for multicultural schools. Theory into Practice, 37
(2), 97-1104.
McDermott, P. & Rothenberg, J. (2000). The characteristics of effective teacher in high poverty
schools: Triangulating our data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
McKinney, S. E. Haberman, M., Stafford-Johnson, D., & Robinson, J. (2008). Developing teachers
for high-poverty schools: The role of the internship experiences. Urban Education, 43,
(1), 68-82.
Transformation Initiative Proposal Draft 4 9 2012
16
Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in
school settings (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher
education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers:
Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved
Student Learning. Washington, CD: NCATE.
National Council of Teachers of English (2004) NCTE Position Statement Guideline. Retrieved
from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/adolescentliteracy
New Teacher Center (2002). Continuum of Teacher Development. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher
Center.
Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Preparing white teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-Smith, S.
Feiman-Nemser & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education:
Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559-582). New York: Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group and the Association of Teacher Education.
Watson, D. (2011). “Urban, but not too urban”: Unpacking teacher’s desires to teach urban
students. Journal of Teacher Education, 62 (1), 23-34.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms.
Newark, DE: Jossey-Bass.