ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
ALUMNI/EMPLOYER SURVEY RESULTS, K-12 ACHIEVEMENT RESEARCH
FINDINGS, AND WHAT REMAINS TO BE INVESTIGATED
D r. M i ke A l f a n o, D r. M i c h a e l Fa g g e l l a - L u b y,
D r. R a c h a e l G a b r i e l , D r. M a r i j ke Ke h r h a h n ,
D r. M a r y Ya k i m o w s k i
University of Connecticut
Transition to the Connecticut State Standards and System of Assessments
Third Annual Connecticut Assessment
Crown Plaza, Cromwell
Rocky Hill, CT
August, 2012
PowerPoint available at: HTTP://WWW.EDUCATION.UCONN.EDU/ASSESSMENT/
This panel from UConn’s Neag School of
Education will discuss major findings from
research on their teacher preparation
programs. This session will include a description
of the Neag School of Education’s Assessment
Plan and an overview of studies that have been
completed recently. Specifically, panelists will
describe major findings from our alumni and
employee surveys, staffing research, and K-12
studies (including recent results from studies of
student achievement in math and reading).
Then, with audience participation, we will open
a discussion of possible directions for future
research to meet CT’s K-12 district needs.
Introducing …
Mary E. Yakimowski
Neag School of Education
Director of Assessment
The Neag Assessment Plan
The Alumni Surveys
The Employer Surveys
Introducing …
Michael Alfano
Formally, UConn Neag School of Education
Executive Director of Teacher Education
Currently, Southern CT State University
Professor & Chair, Dept. of Sp Ed & Reading
The Placement of Alumni
Introducing …
Michael Faggella-Luby
Neag School of Education
Associate Professor, Special Education
The Evidence-based
Survey Studies
Introducing …
Dr. Rachael Gabriel
Neag School of Education
Assistant Professor, Reading/Language Arts
The Pupil Performance Studies
Introducing …
Dr. Marijke Kehrhahn
Neag School of Education
Associate Dean
Where This Leads Us &
Generating Ideas from You
Mary E. Yakimowski
Neag School of Education
Director of Assessment
The Neag Assessment Plan
The Alumni Surveys
The Employer Surveys
NEAG SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT PLAN
 Assessment/Evidence-based
culture leading to continuous
improvement
 Accreditation
CYCLE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
NEAG SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
ASSESSMENT PLAN
ASSESSMENT PLAN
NEAG ASSESSMENT PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
Incorporated many best practices including:
 Focus on facilitating an assessment culture.
 A system of participatory participation in assessment
development and reporting.
 Formative and summative assessments at both the
candidate and program level to embrace ongoing
feedback.
 Efforts made to ensure that assessments are credible, fair,
consistent, accurate, and unbiased, allowing for
multiangulation.
(CONTINUED)
 Information available from external sources such as
state licensing exams, evaluation through clinic
experiences, employer reports, and alumni studies.
 Alignment of all accreditation processes from the
university to program levels.
 A concerted effort to provide a spotlight on
assessment.
 A system for reviewing and approving the assessment
plan.
 Assessment-related research opportunities.
ALUMNI AND EMPLOYER SURVEYS
Every 2 years for select programs, every 4
years by school
PURPOSE
Collect information from stakeholders (10 years of alumni) for:
 Continuous improvement of the Neag School
 Dissemination to school, depts, unit, programs
Commitment to “high quality programs of study and to conduct meaningful
research that speaks to the critical issues in education, technology, sports,
and health and wellness” (http://www.education.uconn.edu)
4,244 total alumni identified
3,818 of those had valid addresses
758 responded
17% of total identified alumni
20% response rate from contacted alumni
29 REPORTS
School-wide, Each Department, and
Teacher Education Report
School-wide Report
Department of Curriculum &
Instruction
Bilingual Education
Elementary Education
English/Language Arts
Mathematics
Music
Science
Social Studies
World Language
Department of Educational Leadership
Ed Leadership Education Admin
Ed Leadership Executive Leadership
Ed Leadership UCAPP
Department of Educational Psych
Cognition and Instruction
Counseling Education
Gifted & Talented
School Psychology
Special Education
Department of Kinesiology
Athletic Training
Exercise Science
Physical Therapy
Sports Management
Teacher Education Unit
IB/M
TCPCG
SATISFACTION AND IMPORTANCE
Six-point Likert-type scale
Scale Satisfaction
1
Very unsatisfied
2
Moderately unsatisfied
Importance
Very unimportant
Moderately unimportant
3
4
5
Somewhat unsatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Moderately satisfied
Somewhat unimportant
Somewhat important
Moderately important
6
Very satisfied
Essential
N/A
No opinion
No opinion
TEACHER EDUCATION: SATISFACTION WITH
EDUCATIONAL QUALITY
Educational Quality
Two highest items
accessibility of faculty
overall quality of instruction
Sample Items Rated
• Quality of advising
• Up-to-date equipment
• Course content
• Quality of teaching
• Accessibility of faculty
• Program challenged you to meet your
fullest academic potential
• Faculty experience as practitioners
• Sense of community with other students
• Clinic/Practicum/Internship experiences
• Job readiness
Three lowest items
range of courses
course content
challenged to meet academic potential
OVERALL PREPARATION
Mean:
Combine multiple approaches to solve problems
Collaborate effectively with others
Adapt to changes in your working environment
Think analytically and logically
Learn on your own, pursue ideas and find necessary
information
Lead and/or supervise groups of people
Formulate creative and original ideas
Effectively use technology
Consider the perspectives of others
Conduct inquiry and/or research
Understand research in professional journals
Satisfaction
Importance
Gap
5.20
5.56
5.32
5.40
5.52
5.47
5.69
5.61
5.62
5.67
-0.26
-0.13
-0.29
-0.22
-0.15
5.19
5.32
4.86
5.43
5.26
5.05
5.44
5.59
5.49
5.56
5.09
4.92
-0.25
-0.27
-0.63
-0.13
+0.17
+0.13
Preparation for the Teaching Profession
Mean:
Creating meaningful learning experiences for students.
The content and/or area specialty
Working effectively with parents.
The degree of preparation for working in the profession.
Challenging students to meet their fullest potential.
The difficulty level of the program.
Standardized assessment skills.
Educating students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
Teaching English language learners.
Integrating technology into classroom instruction.
Classroom management skills.
Teaching students who are both in spec ed& ELL.
Educating students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Formative classroom assessment skills.
Teaching special education students
Teaching gifted and talented students.
Satisf.
Import.
Gap
4.53
4.44
4.42
4.19
4.15
4.12
4.05
4.04
3.84
3.81
3.79
3.58
3.55
3.45
3.27
3.04
4.85
4.76
4.60
4.84
4.80
4.52
4.16
4.55
4.35
4.46
4.85
4.32
4.57
4.58
4.64
4.33
-0.32
-0.32
-0.18
-0.65
-0.65
-0.40
-0.11
-0.51
-0.51
-0.65
-1.07
-0.74
-1.02
-1.13
-1.37
-1.29
WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE MOST
VALUABLE EXPERIENCE OFFERED BY THE
NSOE?
Top 3 themes:
Clinical
My student teaching experience changed my life and affected my teaching more than I ever
thought possible. I was able to implement many of the teaching strategies that I learned at
NEAG during this experience. Having spent the first half of the year visiting the classroom, and
the second half student teaching in that same classroom was incredibly beneficial.
Courses
The individual methods courses offered for each content area during the TCPCG program has
been the most relevant and useful of all courses. Furthermore, the courses on Multicultural
education and Students with special needs continue to be important in my career and I often
refer to materials for information.
Faculty
 I think the most valuable experiences I had in the Neag School were the connections I made
with my professors. I always felt well-supported and mentored by the professors I had, and I
still e-mail with several of them for advice and help. These professors are not only experts in
their fields, but valuable resources and friends to all students in the Neag School.
WHAT DID YOU FIND LEAST VALUABLE?
Top 3 themes:
 Courses
 The course about special education was not effective in preparing me for the
teaching field. While this is an important topic to be aware of, the material was
not presented in a manner that I was able to retain information, and I did not feel
prepared to handle situations involving special education upon entering the
teaching field.
 Clinical
 The clinicals that were outside of your concentration-- for me, high school social
studies did not help me much with elementary school. Instead give us time in
primary vs. intermediate elementary.
 Technology
 During my time there, the technology component was least valuable. We basically
just demonstrated proficiency with Microsoft Office programs.
RECOMMEND NSOE?
95.9% of respondents would recommend graduate study at the
Neag School of Education to others
Positive responses to survey regarding alumni
perceptions of the Teacher Education programs
Most are employed in field for which they received
training and satisfied with their employment
Parts of Teacher Education to improve were most
often identified as courses and clinical
experiences
Michael Alfano
Formally, UConn Neag School of Education
Executive Director of Teacher Education
Currently, Southern CT State University
Professor & Chair, Dept. of Sp Ed & Reading
The Placement of Alumni
(via district and CSDE records)
HOW MANY ALUMNI ARE
EMPLOYED BY CONNECTICUT
PUBLIC SCHOOLS?
ANSWER: 3,090
165/166
DISTRICTS
Distribution of
Our Alumni Across
Connecticut School
Districts
Alumni Teachers Employed by
Connecticut School Districts (map does not include
related services and administrators)
Alumni Elementary Teachers Employed in by
Connecticut School Districts
Green= alumni
Orange= alumni
Alumni Secondary Teachers
Employed by Connecticut
School Districts
Alumni Special Education Teachers Employed
by Connecticut School Districts
Pink = alumni
Where are our alumni employed as
related service personnel
Alumni Employed as School Psychologists in
by Connecticut School Districts
Red = alumni
Alumni Employed as School Counselors in
2009-2010 by Connecticut School Districts
Yellow = alumni
Top Employers of Alumni as
Related Service Personnel
Employer
West Hartford School District
South Windsor School District
Trumbull School District
Newtown School District
Madison School District
Monroe School District
New Fairfield School District
Capitol Region Education Council
n
62
45
21
20
12
12
7
6
Top Employers of Alumni as
School Psychologists
Employer
East Hartford School District
West Hartford School District
Glastonbury School District
Enfield School District
Windham School District
Top Employers of Alumni as
School Counselors
Employer
Manchester School District
New London School District
Where are our alumni employed
as administrators?
Alumni Employed as Elementary Administrators
by Connecticut School Districts
Asst. Principals
Principals
Areas shaded represent alumni
Areas shaded represent alumni.
Principals
Asst. Principals
Alumni Employed as Middle School Administrators
by Connecticut School Districts
Alumni Employed as High School Administrators
by Connecticut School Districts
Asst. Principals
Principals
Areas shaded represent alumni.
Alumni Employed as Central Office Personnel
by Connecticut School Districts
Pink = alumni
WHO EMPLOYED THE
MOST OF OUR ALUMNI?
DRG
I
H
B
F
B
I
F
B
I
D
I
D
Other
H
Other
F
I
A
H
B
C
D
C
B
H
F
Employer
Hartford School District
East Hartford School District
Glastonbury School District
Manchester School District
West Hartford School District
New Britain School District
Vernon School District
South Windsor School District
Windham School District
Tolland School District
Waterbury School District
Windsor School District
Connecticut Technical High School System
Bristol School District
Capitol Region Education Council
Enfield School District
New Haven School District
Simsbury School District
Stamford School District
Farmington School District
Mansfield School District
Newington School District
Ellington School District
Greenwich School District
Meriden School District
Groton School District
Total
149
99
89
83
82
61
59
57
57
53
52
49
49
45
45
39
39
37
37
36
35
33
32
32
32
31
TOP EMPLOYERS OF
ALUMNI
Top Employers
of Alumni
Secondary
English/LA
Teachers
Employer
Glastonbury School District
Vernon School District
East Hartford School District
Windham School District
Connecticut Technical High School System
n
13
11
10
10
10
TOP EMPLOYERS OF ALUMNI
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS
Employer
Manchester School District
Glastonbury School District
East Hartford School District
West Hartford School District
n
12
12
12
9
Michael Faggella-Luby
Neag School of Education
Associate Professor, Special Education
The Evidence-based
Survey Studies
Evidence-based Examination of
Classrooms:
Do Pre- or In-service Teachers and
Your Field Make a Difference?
PURPOSE & RESEARCH QUESTION
Purpose: to examine whether variations in response to an
evidence-based instrument can be attributed to:
• group membership (pre- on in-service teacher),
• field (elementary, secondary, special; education), and/or
• the interaction between group membership and field.
Research Question:
Is there a significant interaction between group (pre- and inservice teachers) and field (elementary, secondary, special
education) with respect to the overall score and factor scores on
an instrument designed to measure confidence of evidencebased practice use?
SRBI/RTI FRAMEWORK
Tier 3:
5%
15%
Tier 1:
Comprehensive &
Coordinated
Instruction
for All Students
Specialized,
Individualized
Intervention for Students
at High Risk
Tier 2:
Supplemental
Instruction for Students
at Some Risk
80% of Students
5 DOMAINS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER
PREPARATION
1. Planning and Preparation
2. Evidence-based Classroom and Behavior
Management
3. Evidence/standards-based Instruction
4. Evaluation
5. Professional Behaviors and Responsibilities
THE DOMAINS
Domain
Performance Indicator
Domain 1: Planning and preparation
Student teachers will…
1A. physically prepare space and materials needed to
deliver instruction
1B. design lesson plans to provide all learners access to
the general curriculum
1C. modify lesson plans to address needs of students with
disabilities
Domain 2: Evidence-based Classroom
and Behavior Management
Student teachers will…
2A. maintain a structured learning environment
2B. use a small number of positively stated expectations
2C. reinforce appropriate behavior
2D. respond to inappropriate behavior
2E implement individualized behavior strategies for
students with disabilities
THE DOMAINS (CONTINUED)
Domain
Performance Indicator
Domain 3: Evidence-based
Instruction
Student teachers will…
3A. introduce lesson content
3B. maximize student engagement
3C. provide performance-based feedback
3D. review lesson content at the end of instruction
3E. teach lesson content relevant to student population
Domain 4: Evaluation
Student teachers will…
4A. assess student ability and/or knowledge prior to
instruction
4B. assess student outcomes related to IEP during
instruction
4C. assess student response to instruction
Domain 5: Professional Standards
and Responsibilities
Student teachers will…
5A. uphold high standards of competence and integrity
and exercise sound judgment in the practice of the
profession
5B. engage in professional activities related to
continuous learning and advocacy
5C. respectfully with all stakeholders
METHOD
Subjects: n=484
•
282 Pre-service IBM & 202 In-service TCPCG
Procedures:
•
Online survey
•
NSOE Current and Alumni students invited participation
Measure: The Student Teaching Evaluation and/or Self-Assessment Survey (STE-SAS)
•
21-item instrument
•
Six-point Likert rating scale on STE-SAS, with “1” indicating Not At All Confident to “6” indicating
Very Confident
•
Intended to provide common language for professional conversations with the university faculty
about evidence-based teaching, learning, and assessment
•
Examination of the technical properties of the STE-SAS including reliability and evidence-based
four-factor structure
Descriptive Statistics Overall, Pre- and In-service
Groups, and by Field
N
Pre-Service In-Service
%
N
%
N
Total
%
28.0
89
44.1 168
34.7
Secondary 160 56.7
88
43.6 248
51.2
Elementary 79
Sp Ed
43
15.2
25
12.4 68
14.0
Total
282 100
202
100 484
100
STE-SAS FOUR FACTORS
Factor 1 : Planning and Assessment (α = .886)
1 Physically prepare space and materials needed to deliver instruction
2 Design lesson plans to provide all learners access to the general curriculum
9 Introduce lesson content
10 Maximize student engagement
11 Provide performance-based feedback
12 Review lesson content at the end of instruction
13 Teach lesson content relevant to student population
14 Assess student ability and/or knowledge prior to instruction
16 Assess student response to instruction
Factor 2 : Professional Standards & Responsibilities (α = .879)
17 Uphold high standards of competence in the practice of the profession
18 Uphold high standards of integrity in the practice of the profession
19 Use evidence to guide exercise/exercising sound judgment in the practice of the
profession
20 Engage in professional activities related to continuous learning
and advocacy
21 Collaborate respectfully with all stakeholders
Factor 3 : Instructional Delivery (α = 0.845)
3 Modify lesson plans to address needs of students with disabilities
8 Implement individualized behavior strategies for students with disabilities
15 Assess student outcomes related to IEP during instruction
Factor 4: Behavior Management (α = 0.769)
4 Maintain a structured learning environment
5 Use a small number of positively stated expectations
6 Reinforce appropriate behavior
7 Respond to inappropriate behavior
RESULTS
Mean total STE-SAS was 5.39 (SD = 0.56) indicating overall confidence
Respondents highest in:
• professional standard and responsibilities (M = 5.65, SD = 0.56),
followed by
• maintaining classroom control (M = 5.47, SD = 0.62),
• general teaching/assessment tasks (M = 5.42, SD = 0.59), and
Least confident in individualizing their teaching (large SD)
• instructional flexibility/individualization (M = 4.90, SD = 0.96).
STE-SAS Descriptive Statistics by Field
Sec
Ele
M
SD
M
SD
Sped
M
SD
Total
M
SD
General
teaching/assessment tasks
5.40 0.53 5.38 0.63 5.62 0.52 5.42 0.59
Professional standards and
responsibilities
5.62 0.52 5.63 0.62 5.78 0.38 5.65 0.56
Instructional
flexibility/individualization
4.79 0.88 4.73 1.00 5.77 0.41 4.90 0.96
Maintaining classroom
control
5.58 0.47 5.31 0.71 5.74 0.38 5.47 0.62
RESULTS
ANOVA to test significant interaction between group and field
• significant main effect for field [F (2, 450) = 13.791, p =.000]
• neither significant effect for type of service, nor interaction
effect between field and type.
• Scheffee’s analysis yielded special education exhibited
significantly higher global scores than other respondent
groups
Secondary Analysis also demonstrated:
• Special education rated general teaching/assessment tasks
and instructional flexibility/individualization higher than both
elementary and secondary respondents
• Secondary education reported significantly less confidence
than either elementary or special education respondents
ANOVA Results for STE-SAS Total Score for Group
Membership (Pre- vs. In-Service) and Field (Elem, Secondary, Special Education)
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Sig.
9.694a
5
1.939
6.445
.000
9797.352
1
9797.352
32569.417
.000
Type
.063
1
.063
.211
.646
Field
8.297
2
4.148
13.791
.000
Type * Field
.958
2
.479
1.593
.204
Error
135.367
450
.301
Total
13400.785
456
145.061
455
Corrected Model
Intercept
Corrected Total
SIGNIFICANCE AND FUTURE RESEARCH
1. Respondents in special education feel significantly more confident than respondents in both
elementary and secondary education, irrespective of type of service, in their knowledge of and
confidence for these factors
• Could this be the result of the redesign of the Special Education Program?
• Perhaps special education teachers practice in each of the four factors relates to higher
levels of confidence?
2. Given the significant main effect for type and the positive correlation results, it could be
implied that there may exist more complicated relationship in specific areas such as
instructional flexibility/individualization or general teaching/assessment tasks. More research
is necessary
3. Findings are significant as teacher education programs reevaluate curricula toward evidencebased models of service delivery such as RtI.
• How does the teacher education program use this data to drive course revision?
• How might qualitative examination of students in individual programs yield deeper
understanding?
• How are practitioners implementing evidence-based practices in relationship to confidence?
4. The findings raise important questions about the changing role of the special educator in K-12
schools, signaling a potential change in how schools leverage interventionists to support
multiple tiers of school-wide support.
Dr. Rachael Gabriel
Neag School of Education
Assistant Professor, Reading/Language Arts
The Pupil Performance Studies
OUR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Integrated Bachelors/Masters (IB/M) Program
Entering students in the Junior year
Exiting with a Masters
Special feature - Students participate in
1,200 hours in Clinics, Student Teaching,
and Internship
Teacher Certification Program for College
Graduates (TCPCG) Program
Masters level students
Training for Secondary Education
Special feature - Shortages areas
(Mathematics, Science, Special
Education) is a focus
A Great Education Begins with Great Teachers
Teachers for a New Era (TNE) - An initiative
designed to improve teacher quality by
reforming outstanding teacher preparation
programs
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
1. Emphasize to preservice teachers the
importance of demonstrating student
achievement through evidence.
2. Fully integrate faculty from the liberal arts and sciences,
enriching future teachers' general and subject matter
knowledge.
3. Support will be extended to beginning teachers from
their individual colleges and universities.
Examining K-12 performance to inform
teacher preparation
These studies examine achievement patterns of 3rd-8th
grade pupils of graduates of our Teaching Education
Program in Reading and in Mathematics
LITERATURE REVIEW
 High-quality teacher education programs take on an
important role (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006)
 Lack of empirical evidence connecting teacher education
programs with student outcomes (Crowe, 2010; Grossman, 2008)
There are significant interests in examining growth
achievement models (e.g., Barone, 2009)
PURPOSE OF THESE STUDIES
Examine the impact of teacher education
programs on pupil performance in content
areas (i.e., reading, mathematics)
Compare a program of interest (that is
UConn Neag School of Education) with
other programs to investigate the impact of
unique characteristics
SAMPLING
 5 public school districts in Connecticut
 Approximately 12,00 students from grades 3
through 8
INSTRUMENTATION
 The fourth generation of Connecticut Mastery
Test (CMT-4)
 Grades 3 through 8 in the spring at each year
DATA ANALYZED
•
•
•
•
•
Total (Raw) Score
Domain Scores
Strand Scores
Proficiency Level Scores
Vertical Scale Scores
Research Questions
Is overall achievement for teachers prepared by UI alumni
any different from pupils of alumni from other
institutions?
Scores
Overall
raw
score
Type
Other
Descriptive, 1 year
t-test
Is performance in the domains different for pupils taught Domain Descriptive, 1 year
by teachers from the UI any different than the performance scores
t-test
of pupils taught by alumni from other institutions? (Math
only, not Reading)
Is performance on the strands any different for pupils
taught by teachers from the UR any different than the
performance of pupils taught by alumni from other
institutions?
Strands
Is the pattern in pupil proficiency status for those educated Prof
by UI alumni any different from pupils of alumni from
level
other institutions?
Is overall achievement for those taught by UI alumni
different after controlling for initial differences in earlier
achievement?
Descriptive, 1 year
t-test
Proportion
analysis
Vertical ANCOVA
scale
1 year
2
years
Overall Score in Mathematics
UConn Alumni Pupil Performance
Overall Mean was 106 (SD = 22.8)
Those not taught from UConn
Overall Mean was 95.3 (SD = 26.8)
DOMAIN 1 – NUMERICAL / PROPORTIONAL
UCONN
(UI-University of Interest)
53.3
Non-UCONN (Non-UI)
46.4
Similar results attained across each domain in
mathematics
We also looked at strands within domain
Domain 1 - Strand Score Results
PROPORTIONAL ANALYSIS SHOWING
PROFICIENCY LEVEL IN MATHEMATICS
Level
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Goal
Advanced
Non-UI
UI
%
9.1
10.7
20.4
32.6
27.2
%
4.2
4.4
15.4
36.2
39.8
MATHEMATICS PUPIL PERFORMANCE AS
MEASURED BY VERTICAL SCALE SCORES
Groups
n
Unadjusted
2007-2008
Non-UI
UI
9072
816
513.0
534.2
Unadjusted
2008-2009
Adjusted
2008-2009
541.3
564.2
542.6
549.1
F
Between-Subjects Effects
Intercept
MAVS2007-2008
Teacher Group
3914.3
32283.6
36.6
p
0.001***
0.001***
0.001***
Overall and Strands Scores in Reading
UI
Non-UI
N
M
Overall Score
964
32.4
Strand 1
839
Strand 2
SD
N
M
Overall
SD
N
M
SD
5.1 10644 29.8
6.7 11608 30.0
6.7
8.7
1.8
7453
7.9
2.4
8292
8.0
2.4
839
8.2
1.7
7453
7.3
2.1
8292
7.4
2.0
Strand 3
839
6.2
1.4
7453
5.4
1.8
8292
5.5
1.8
Strand 4
839
9.4
2.0
7453
8.0
2.4
8292
8.2
2.4
Strand 1: Forming a General Understanding, 2: Developing Interpretation, 3:
Making Reader/Text Connections, 4: Examining the Content and Structure
14.00
12.00
Strand Score
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Strand by Teacher Group
An example of CMT-4 reading strands
for UI and non-UI groups
Proportional Analysis Showing
Performance Level in Reading
Level
UI
Non-UI
Overall
Below basic
n
44
%
4.6
n
1508
%
14.2
n
1552
%
13.4
Basic
37
3.8
790
7.4
827
7.1
Proficient
85
8.8
1199
11.3
1284
11.1
Goal
447
46.4
4681
44.0
5128
44.2
Advanced
351
36.4
2451
23.1
2802
24.2
Total
964
8.3
10629
91.7
11593
100
Reading Pupil Performance as
Measured by Vertical Scale Scores
Unadjusted
Unadjusted
Adjusted
2007-2008
2008-2009
2008-2009
Groups
N
Overall
11832
473.9
497.0
496.6
10863
471.9
495.2
501.0
969
497.1
517.1
498.8
Non-UI
UI
Source
F
Sig.
2 10796638.70
9130.48
.001
1
4229.84
.001
1 21166675.99 17900.19
.001
1
16484.60
.001
Error
13987591 11829
1182.48
Total
2958138675 11832
Corrected Model
Intercept
Covariate (2007-08 Rd)
UI vs. Non-UI
Corrected Total
SS
21593277
5001714
21166675
16484
df
MS
5001714.21
13.94
35580868 11831
ANCOVA Results: Reading Pupil Performance on the
Adjusted Vertical Scale Scores Based on Initial Differences
R Squared = .607 (Adjusted R Squared = .607)
Dr. Marijke Kehrhahn
Neag School of Education
Associate Dean
Where This Leads Us
Generating Ideas from You
Where we have been
Alumni Survey
Employer Survey
District/CSDE Examination
Evidence-based Studies
Pupil Performance Studies
Where we think we have more to do
Help us determine what we should
further explore
As Education Secretary Duncan discussed the goal
from Obama administration’s Race to the Top
legislation at an annual meeting of the American
Association of College of Teacher Education in
February of 2010 in Atlanta, “To put it in the
simplest terms, we believe teacher-preparation
programs should be focused on results.”
We continue to strive to build an evidence-based
teacher preparation model for our own teacher
preparation program directly linked to pupil
academic performance.