TNE Teacher Education Assessment Committeemeeting Minutes

TNE Teacher Education Assessment CommitteeMeeting Minutes

March17(St. Patrick’s Day) Gentry Room 144

Welcoming

After our luncheon, Mary convened the meeting portion of the TNE Teacher Education Committee agenda. She began by welcoming all participants. The general purpose of this committee was shared – provide assessment support and advice regarding TNE-related research projects; and, assist in development, implementation, and analysis of assessment protocols of Neag teacher education students on various surveys (for example, Common Entry, Common Exit, Alumni). Everyone proceeded to introduce themselves to committee members.

Who? / Representing … / Current position is …
Michael Alfano / Teacher Ed Leadership / Director for TCPCG
Anne Begin / Student / Student in Teacher Education
Christine Brown / LEA / Glastonbury/Asst Supt
Scott Brown / Cognition & Instruction / Faculty
Sarah Ellsworth / SEA / Bureau Chief/Data Collection, Research & Evaluation
Kathryn Edison / LEA / Tolland/Director of Curriculum & Instruction
Michael Faggella-Luby / Special education / Faculty
Burcu Kanistan / Student / GA, TNE – General assessment
Al Larson / LEA / Meriden/Research and Evaluation Specialist
Xing Liu / Community member / Retired TNE student; ECSU (absent)
Joseph Madaus / Special education / Faculty
Rachelle Perusse / Rel Serv/School Counseling / Faculty
Peter Prowda / Community member / Retired CSDE; Consultant
Amanda Richmond / Teacher Ed student / Student in Teacher Education (absent)
Helen Jane Rogers / Measurement & Evaluation / Faculty
Rohini Sen / Student / GA, Ed Expansions
Lisa Sanetti / Rel Serv/Sch Psych / Faculty (child rearing leave)
Jason Stephens / Cognition & Instruction / Faculty in Teacher Education
Hariharan Swaminathan / Measurement & Evaluation / Faculty (absent)
Natalia Tabakin / Student / Student in Teacher Education(absent)
Jaci Van Heest / Kinesiology / Faculty (absent)
Manuela Wagner / CLAS/World Language / Faculty in Teacher Education
Wei Xia / Student / GA, Ed Expansions
Mary E. Yakimowski / Neag School; Assessment / Director of Assessment

We also had the following visitors who introduced themselves: MarijkeKehrhahn, Director of TNE; Donalyn Maneggia, Administrative Assistant for TNE; Madeline Sedovic, School Psychology student serving asa GA.

Mary then reviewed the “guiding rules” used last year. With a motion by Peter and a second by Jason, they were approved unanimously.

Mary asked for a timekeeper for the meeting. Donalyn agreed to serve in that role. (Thank you.)

Because we were running a little behind as we delayed the start of the meeting for the arrival of our guest, Spotlight on Assessment was not shared. The Spotlight on Assessment is our strategic plan toward a culture of assessment which has faculty on assessment committees, regular discussion on assessment at department/school faculty meeting, the series of colloquium, conference, News Brief, web site, and bulletin board.

TNE: A Look to the Next Five Years for the Entire Project

Mary explained that over the summer the transition began in TNE. Scott had been the leader for the first five years of this project. Now, with Scott stepping down from the role of director, the school wanted TNE to be more connected to the Teacher Education Program. As such, Marijke, the Director of Teacher Education, is now the Director of TNE.

Marijke began her discussion by stated that the more she thought about it, she really could not discuss the TNE project in the next five years because so much is changing now. She said that she would share within the next year or two.

A handout was passed around that illustrated what has worked in TNE into standard practices for the Neag School and the Office of Teacher Education as the project moves forward to build university-wide involvement and support. Each of the three design principles from Carnegie wasarticulated and 4-5 bullets of activities explained.

A question was raised by Jason about the whereabouts of the entry, exit, and alumni survey. Marijke indicated that they were included under “teacher education assessment, a bullet under the first principle, decision-driven evidence.” Joseph asked what she saw this committee focusing on over the next few years. Marijke replied that she did not know yet.

Peter inquired of Marijke whether TNE and/or Neag School are playing any role in engaging with legislators with new teacher education policy with regards to today’s newspaper. Marijke responded that the Neag School has always a role of working with the state representatives but she did not see the article today in the paper so she doesn’t know the content.

There being no other questions, Mary thanked Marijke for her presentation and time with the committee today.

TNE Common Entry Survey Project

Mary introduced one of the three major surveys done each year: the Entry Survey. Burcu, the TNE Assessment GA, has been working on this survey since October. She was introduced and provided the presentation on this project.

The results from the TNE Entrance Surveys were presented. The majority of participants are white, female, and coming from homes in which they preliminary speak English at home. The majority of participants reported their parents completed college and graduate school. The majority of participants went to middle SES, suburban high schools. Most of them would like to focus on elementary education.

Results fromself-efficacy of classroom teaching were sharedby using survey items with a scale from 1 to 5. The results revealed that students on an average are “somewhat confident” across all the self efficacy measures. Students were asked to rank a) the three statements based on what their most important priority is as a teacher (1=most important priority; 3=least important priority) b) their skills as educators (1=your strongest skills/qualities as an educator; 5=their least strong skills/qualities as an educator).

Burcu finalized her presentation by recommending the efficacy scale be passed through a factor analysis.

Jason offered that the difference between 1 (not at confident) and 2 (slightly confident) may be not equal to the difference between 2 and 3 (somewhat confident) or 4 (quite confident). Christy raised the point that some items may not conceptually measure the construct of self efficacy such as “Respect cultural backgrounds different from your own” because there is no skill or ability attached to it. Ann added that students may have inflated their perception about their confidence on some of these items. Mary commented that it was interesting that mean score of “respect cultural backgrounds different from your own” was high but “implement a variety of teaching strategies to reach students who are not native English speakers” was very low. Michael said that it is not surprising given that the majority of students in the sample were white and attended suburban schools, so they may not know how to deal with ELL population. A discussion then took place as to bolstering the response rate.

Mary added we might need to look at the scale as we review what is put on the survey in the next five years. Kathryn askedfor some clarity on what we will do with the survey results. Marijke stated she would like to see more students serving underrepresented students like in low achieving schools.

As a follow-up to this discussion, in the next week committee members will receivethe final draft report and asked to make comments and/or edits.

TNE Alumni Survey Project

Mary then introduced the second major survey: TNE Alumni Survey Report. Madeline was introduced to the group and facilitated the presentation. She sharedan overview of the participants, methodology, results, and next steps.

Graduates of 2004-2008 cohorts were surveyed and 63 responded. The majority of respondents were White, English-speaking and females. Overall, they were most satisfied with the preparation they received on respecting people from diverse cultures, and least satisfied with working effectively with parents and teaching students who are both in special education and are English language learners (EEL). Classroom management skills and teaching special education students who are also ELL and working effectively with parents were areas in which alumni satisfaction ratings had the largest discrepancy with their importance ratings. Most alumni are still involved in education, would choose to attend UConn again, and would give UConn a grade of A/B.

There was a discussion on comparing satisfaction scores to importance scores, and the committee suggested using a contingency table with a two by two matrix instead to analyze discrepancies between these two areas.

There was a question about what was meant by the statement: “Creating meaningful learning experiences for students in English.” It was determined that “in English” may be a typo and needs to be looked into.

The committee decided that rather than administering the survey to students from several graduation years (e.g., 2004-2008); the survey would be administered to one graduating class at a time (e.g., class of 2008). Additionally, it was agreed that the survey should not be administered to alumni every year, but at one year and five years after graduation.

As a follow-up to this discussion, within the month, the committee members will receive the draft report and be asked to make comments and/or edits.

Educational Expansions Project

Research questions addressed by Educational Expansions Project are important for the TNE, teacher education programs, and local and state policy makers. The committee heard that this next presentation on Educational Expansions will investigate to what degree there significant differences for pupils in the classrooms instructed by Neag are prepared teachers in comparison to those in classrooms instructed by non-Neag prepared teachers on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) in reading, mathematics, writing and science. Given this, Mary then discussed some things that we have to take into account. This includes ERGs/DRGs in Connecticut, and the fourth generation of Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT-4), and the new Modified Assessment System (MAS). Further discussion about the MAS indicated that it was administered this month as an assessment option for students with disabilities, the alternate assessment for the CMT. Scott then described the purpose of the Educational Expansions project, what is currently being done, and the reason why the project is important for Teacher Education program in Neag School. Scott and Wei articulated the research design being used. This included Wei’s presentation of the number of districts, the variables being gathered, the codebook, and the instrumentation process. It was explained that we already have over 75,000 records and, after we collect data for year 4, we will have approximately 110,000 data records. Finally, Mary gave a brief introduction about the vertical scaling system which was newly developed by Connecticut State Department of Education, and how the vertical scaling system can be used by the state, district, school, and are group with Educational Expansions.Committee members had various questions addressed throughout the presentation.

TNE: The Next Five Years

Because we had limited time, some “next steps” were articulated. This included feedback to the entry and alumni report, prioritization of research items, and a “survey of the surveys.” There will be more information forthcoming to committee members via email.

Conclusion

The committee members were thanked for their contributions. The meeting concluded at 1:40. The next meeting will be on May 6th.