Exhibit 2.3.E
Student Teaching Evaluations
Two potentially highly influential sources exist related to the student teaching experience, but data from them have not yet been compiled.
Student Teacher Evaluation Form
First, the 2003 edition of the Student Teaching Handbook, found in Exhibit 3.6, contains (on pp. 77-81) a revision of the Student Teaching Evaluation Form that has been aligned with the AStandards and Benchmarks@ (goals) of the initial teacher preparation program. As soon as an analysis of the data (supplied by the university supervisor for each candidate) for the 56 items included in this instrument can be completed, there will be a data set of great importance to the EMU Assessment System.
It is anticipated that these data will be collected and analyzed each semester, not only for the individual candidate (to determine a pass/fail in student teaching), but to indicate program strengths and weaknesses as reflected through performance in student teaching.
Work Sample Requirements
Second, the same document (Exhibit 3.6), pp. 9-23, contains for the first time a common format for a teaching unit, adapted from Teacher Quality Project materials. The scoring form is given on pp. 22-23.
The EMU Teacher Preparation Program has been in the process of implementing a revised student teaching unit over the past year. The process has included development, implementation, training of supervisors and cooperating teachers, and obtaining and using feedback from students and supervisors. This unit has integrated aspects of the prior student teaching unit, the work sample developed by the Renaissance Teacher Quality grant participants including EMU, and requirements from courses earlier in the program, specifically the performance assessments in the Introduction to Assessment and Evaluation course (EDPS 340) and Curriculum and Methods courses (CURR 304 and CURR 305).
Specifically, the process has included the following steps:
Renaissance Teacher Work Sample. A small group of student teachers have been involved in the grant over the past five years. These students have completed teacher work samples based on the requirements of the Renaissance Teacher Work Sample Project. (See Exhibit G-22.)
Quantitative results from several semesters of administration of the Teacher Work Sample are available through a click here. (Please note this is a very large file and takes time to load.)
Integration of Teacher Work Sample in Student Teaching
Goals:
1. Summer '02. Directions and a sample unit were developed. First, an analysis of the performance assessments from the curriculum and assessment courses, the prior student teaching unit, and the Renaissance Teacher Work Sample was carried out. Based on this analysis, the new expectations and directions were developed. While the old unit required (1) outcomes tied to state standards, (2) a concept map, (3) lessons, and (4) reflections, the new unit added (1) an analysis of contextual factors, (2) a pre-unit analysis, and (3) a student learning analysis. Each of these tasks was integrated into the student journal or the unit. A sample unit on the Revolutionary War was created as a model for supervisors, cooperating teachers, and students.
2. Fall '02. A group of six full time student teacher supervisors and their 108 student teachers pilot tested the new unit. At the end of the semester, students and supervisors were informally surveyed. Students reported that they felt prepared and able to complete the new requirements based on their prior course work. Supervisors made suggestions concerning the process and final student products. They suggested that students be given intermediary deadlines (by their supervisor). They also suggested that the journal activities be included in the unit rather than requiring two separate products.
3. Winter '03. All supervisors, with the exception of Early Childhood and Special Education, were asked to implement the new unit with their students. The unit was, therefore, taken to scale with 564 student teachers during Winter semester.
4. Summer '03. Rubrics were developed for each section of the unit. Changes were made in the unit and sample to make them parallel with the rubrics and to take supervisor suggestions into account. It was decided that student teachers would need to receive a 2 or 3 on each section of the rubric in order to pass. In addition, sections 1-4 (those sections that dealt with preparation of the unit) would need to be completed at a level 2 or 3 before the student teacher could teach the unit.
There was a training session for student teacher supervisors late in the summer. The session's purpose was to familiarize supervisors with the unit and new rubric and to give them practice at scoring a practice unit. Approximately 30 supervisors attended the session.
5. Fall '03. All student teachers in regular programs (not including Early Childhood or Special Education) are completing the new teaching unit. Each unit will be graded using the common directions and rubric. Scores will be collected and analyzed for future use.
In addition, supervisors were surveyed at the end of the summer concerning their experiences with the unit, what help they needed this year, and what suggestions they had for other supervisors. These surveys are in the process of being analyzed.
Non-Successful Candidates
The following information is supplied with respect to students who have not been successful during the Winter 2001- Winter 2003 terms (five terms), inclusive.
|
Teaching field: |
Number of Students | |
|
Elementary education |
19 |
|
|
Special education fields |
||
|
Emotionally impaired |
2 |
|
|
Cognitively impaired |
1 |
|
|
POHI |
1 |
|
|
Special education |
1 |
|
|
Secondary/K-12 |
||
|
Mathematics |
6 |
|
|
History |
3 |
|
|
Social studies |
3 |
|
|
English |
2 |
|
|
Speech |
2 |
|
|
Business education |
2 |
|
|
Vocal music |
2 |
|
|
Marketing education |
1 |
|
|
French |
1 |
|
|
Technology & design |
1 |
|
|
Political science |
1 |
|
|
Art education |
1 |
|
|
Geography |
1 |
|
|
Psychology |
1 |
Reasons (usually multiple for same individual)