LESSON PLAN ANALYSIS
Lesson Plan Teacher Candidate Performance Analysis Report
Data were collected and analyzed from two groups of Teacher Candidates (traditional
Teacher Candidates and MAT Teacher Candidates) over a total of four terms. The first three
terms of data were based on Teacher Candidate lesson plan performance as measured by a
four-point rubric (minimum of one and maximum of four), although the last term of data was
based on Teacher Candidate lesson plan performance as measured by a three-point rubric
(minimum of one and maximum of three). Therefore the fourth and most recent term of data
was analyzed separately.
Lesson Plan Teacher Candidate Performance Analysis based on 4.0 Scale
The first three terms resulted in a total of 38 traditional Teacher Candidates and 50 MAT
Teacher Candidates. Each Teacher Candidate was assessed on a total of seven outcomes
resulting in seven different scores as well as an overall lesson plan score (average of all seven
dimensions). The reliability of the seven indicators of Teacher Candidate performance was
found to be excellent for traditional Teacher Candidates (α = .882) and for MAT Teacher
Candidates (α = .804) as defined by Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel (2007)1.
The performance profile for both groups of Teacher Candidates is featured in Figure 1.
The results indicate that the two groups had very similar performance profiles whereby they
exhibited relative performance strengths in the materials and state standards components of a
lesson plan, and they exhibited relative performance weaknesses in the assessment and
behavioral objective components of the lesson plan. The results also indicate that mean
1
Ponterotto, J. G. & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An overview of coefficient alpha and a
reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with
psychological research measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 997-1014.
LESSON PLAN ANALYSIS
performances for both groups were well above 3.0 across all seven dimensions or components.
Finally, the results indicate that the MAT group slightly outperformed the traditional group,
although the difference was not statistically significant, F(1,86) = 2.77, p = .100.
Figure 1. Group performance profiles: All three terms combined.
The overall lesson plan performance by group and term is presented in Figure 2.
The
results indicate that there was a non-linear patter in the scores for the traditional group, although
the MAT group performance was relatively stable across the three terms.2
2
The overall
There was only one traditional student represented in the 20101 term and therefore the
comparison between traditional and MAT students for that particular term may not be a reliable
or valid comparison because the statistical conclusion validity is compromised by the low sample
LESSON PLAN ANALYSIS
differences between the two groups were statistically significant, F(1,82) = 24.13, p < .001; the
overall differences between the three terms were statistically significant, F(2,82) = 11.96, p <
.001; and the interaction between the group and term was statistically significant, F(2,82) = 7.25,
p = .001. Therefore the MAT group significantly outperformed the traditional group overall,
Teacher Candidate performance differed significantly by term, and the group profiles differed
significantly across the three terms.
However, it is important to note that there was only one
traditional Teacher Candidate for the 20101 term and therefore the low performance of this
Teacher Candidate may not be a reliable indicator of typical traditional Teacher Candidate
performance. With this being said, the differences detected between traditional and MAT
Teacher Candidates for the 20101 term should be interpreted with caution.
size for that particular term.
LESSON PLAN ANALYSIS
Figure 2. Overall lesson plan profile performance by group and term.
LESSON PLAN ANALYSIS
Lesson Plan Teacher Candidate Performance Analysis based on 3.0 Scale
The fourth and most recent term was based on a 3.0 scale and consisted of only six lesson
plan outcomes (homework was not one of the lesson plan outcomes for the fourth term). Also,
it is important to note that there was only one Teacher Candidate in the traditional group and
therefore a reliability analysis was not conducted for the two groups separately.
The reliability
results indicate that the six lesson plan outcomes yielded excellent internal reliability (α = .884)
as defined by Ponterotto & Ruckdeschel (2007).
The performance profile for both groups of Teacher Candidates is presented in Figure 3.
The results indicate that the traditional Teacher Candidate had a different performance profile
when compared to the MAT group. For example, the traditional Teacher Candidate had a
perfect mean score across five of the six lesson plan outcomes with a low mean score for the
assessment outcome while the MAT group had more consistent performance across the six
lesson plan outcomes; although the relative weakness for the MAT group was also the
assessment lesson plan outcome.3
Finally, since there was only one Teacher Candidate in the
traditional group, no tests comparing the two groups for statistically significant differences were
conducted.
Summary
Based on the lesson plan Teacher Candidate performance results, three key findings
emerged: (1) performance on the state standard component of the lesson plan is a relative
Teacher Candidate strength; (2) performance on the assessment component of the lesson plan is a
relative Teacher Candidate weakness; and 3) MAT Teacher Candidates tend to have higher
performance in comparison to traditional Teacher Candidates.
3
The traditional group was comprised of only one student and therefore the results for this
comparison may not be a reliable indication of differences in performance.
LESSON PLAN ANALYSIS
Figure 3. Group performance profiles: Fall 2011 term.