The Teacher Candidate Dispositions Index University of North Texas - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Teacher Candidate Dispositions Index University of North Texas 2016 AACTE Annual Meeting Irene Frank Assistant Director, Student Advising Office Brandon Bush Accreditation/Compliance Specialist Lisbeth Dixon-Krauss Associate Dean for Educator Programs Kelley King Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction

Background • University of North Texas – One of the five largest public universities in Texas. – Research I Status – Spring 2016 – Around 1,000 students certified per year – 24 undergraduate and graduate-level teacher education programs.

Purpose • National – CAEP accreditation • State – “Screening” teacher candidates • Texas Educator Code of Ethics • Teacher Disposition Index – (Schulte, Edick, Edwards, & Mackiel, 2004)

Literature Review • Published teacher disposition measurement tools reveal unique lists of desired dispositions for each EPP, as well as a wide range in the number of dispositions measured. (Almerico, 2011) • Significant overlap (Alawiye & Williams, 2010; Johnston, Almerico, Henriott, & Shapiro, 2011). – open-mindedness – reflective practice – intellectual curiosity – impartiality

Literature Review • Each EPP must operationalize desired dispositions so that both teacher candidates and the individuals evaluating these candidates have a common understanding of indicative behaviors (Alawiye & Williams, 2010; Almerico et al., 2011).

Literature Review • In some EPPs, dispositions measurement is used for gate-keeping. (Almerico et al., 2011; Brewer, Lindquist, & Altemueller , 2011) • In some, candidates who continuously have poor disposition scores are referred to retention committees (Almerico, 2011). – Remediation/growth plans (Brewer et al., 2011). – If there is a preponderance of evidence & remediation is fruitless, the candidate is dismissed (Almerico et al., 2011; Brewer et al., 2011).

Guiding Questions 1. Which teaching dispositions are important to faculty at UNT? 2. How can a dispositions instrument be developed and implemented across such a large EPP? 3. How can the data from a dispositions instrument inform programs and administration at a large EPP?

Timeline Spring Summer Fall Spring Fall 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 • Create the Dispositions/Admissions Committee – Faculty, Administrative Staff, Clinical Practice Staff, Academic Advisors. • Reviewed other programs’/institutions' processes • Decided to create our own, short, instrument combining available measurement tools.

Timeline Spring Summer Fall Spring Fall 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 • Nine Disposition Instruments consolidated into 19 Items: – UNT’s Teacher Disposition Index – Texas State’s Fitness to Teach Checklist – Texas A&M’s Disposition Checklist – Greenville College’s Teacher Disposition Behavior Checklist – Northwest Missouri State University’s Disposition Instrument – The Iowa Disposition Model – Niagara University’s Disposition Instrument – University of West Florida’s Disposition Instrument – Idaho State University Teacher Education Program Admission Standards and Indicators

Timeline Spring Summer Fall Spring Fall 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 • Surveyed Faculty – rate importance of measuring each of the 19 items • 77 Faculty responded – Adjunct Faculty – Full-time Faculty – Graduate Assistants • 7 items eliminated – Redundant – Limited to the clinical practice setting – Not measurable

TCDI Alignment Texas Teacher Standards UNT InTASC Conceptual Standards Framework Teacher Candidate Disposition Instrument

Timeline Spring Summer Fall Spring Fall 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015

Timeline Spring Summer Fall Spring Fall 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 • Piloted instrument – Elementary and Middle School Foundation Course – Science/Math Foundation Course – Student Teacher Supervisors – 65 Teacher Candidates, 5 Faculty • Faculty comments on pilot instrument: – “This seems more concise and to the point.” – “Covers the essential elements for effective teaching.” – “Good range of criteria.”

Timeline Spring Summer Fall Spring Fall 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 • Implemented in student teaching semester with all programs; assessment completed by both cooperating teacher and university supervisor. • Implemented at two earlier transition points in undergraduate programs. Elem./Middle Secondary STEM KINES KINE 3550 Beginning EDEE 3320 EDSE 3800 EDSE 3500 KINE 3560 EDEE 4350 Middle EDRE 4860 EDSE 4840 EDSE 4000 KINE 4100 EDRE 4870 Clinical Teaching (Student Teaching) End

Results Spring 2015 – Elem./Middle Program TCDI Item Means Clinical Clinical TCDI EDEE 3320 EDEE 4350 EDRE 4860 EDRE 4870 Teaching – Teaching – Faculty CT N 120 101 83 90 133 133 Q1 2.16 2.33 2.65 2.52 2.77 2.59 Q2 2.17 2.40 2.83 2.64 2.74 2.73 Q3 2.23 2.36 2.76 2.71 2.78 2.71 Q4 0.92 2.47 2.39 2.17 2.63 2.63 Q5 1.53 2.40 2.36 2.44 2.78 2.76 Q6 2.10 2.37 2.70 2.54 2.74 2.63 Q7 2.10 2.42 2.81 2.63 2.80 2.73 Q8 1.25 2.45 2.64 2.14 2.60 2.49 Q9 1.53 2.38 2.80 1.88 2.74 2.51 Q10 2.18 2.40 2.75 2.59 2.79 2.71 Q11 1.53 2.45 2.82 2.36 2.77 2.77 Q12 2.14 2.45 2.82 2.40 2.84 2.79

Results Spring 2015 – Secondary Program TCDI Item Means Clinical Teaching – Clinical Teaching – TCDI EDSE 3800 EDEE 4840 Faculty CT N 136 47 49 49 Q1 2.29 2.72 2.69 2.57 Q2 2.74 2.42 2.73 2.82 Q3 2.46 2.74 2.59 2.80 Q4 2.74 1.40 2.57 2.67 Q5 2.30 2.79 2.63 2.82 Q6 2.27 2.70 2.59 2.61 Q7 2.34 2.74 2.73 2.82 Q8 1.94 2.70 2.51 2.57 Q9 2.70 2.21 2.53 2.59 Q10 2.30 2.74 2.61 2.82 Q11 2.70 2.20 2.45 2.86 Q12 2.31 2.72 2.45 2.84

Results Spring 2015 – STEM Program TCDI Item Means Clinical Teaching – Clinical Teaching – TCDI EDSE 3500 EDSE 4000 Faculty CT N 34 28 26 26 Q1 1.82 1.82 2.46 2.62 Q2 2.09 2.00 2.42 2.73 Q3 2.06 1.82 2.46 2.62 Q4 0.00 1.04 2.46 2.54 Q5 2.09 1.89 2.50 2.73 Q6 1.76 1.75 2.42 2.54 Q7 2.09 1.93 2.42 2.73 Q8 0.00 0.00 2.23 2.38 Q9 1.94 0.75 2.23 2.42 Q10 1.85 1.86 2.50 2.65 Q11 0.00 2.00 2.15 2.69 Q12 2.09 2.00 2.54 2.69

Results Spring 2015 – Elementary Program TCDI Reliability EDEE 4350.001 EDEE 4350.002 EDEE 4350.003 EDEE 4350.004 EDEE 4350.005 Courses EDRE 4860.001 EDRE 4860.002 EDRE 4860.003 EDRE 4860.004 EDRE 4860.005 Adjunct Adjunct GA GA Adjunct Role Lecturer GA GA Adjunct Adjunct N 15 16 14 18 17 Faculty 8.5 26.8 98.3 89.8 2.8 Variance (%) Reliability 0.71 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.53 Absolute SE 0.07 0.15 0.47 0.48 0.11 Note : GA = Graduate Assistant

Results TCDI across multiple semesters Student Example EDSE 4840 (middle of the program) Graduate Assistant Comment: Student knows his content very well. He must improve organizational skills. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Total: 24

Results Secondary Student Teaching (end of the program) Faculty Teacher has progressed as the semester developed . He listened to suggestions and criticisms to help him to become a stronger teacher. Teacher acknowledged areas that he knew he had to work on and did a good job to try to change and develop the suggestions. He has a good understanding of ELA and wants to share that knowledge with students. He will do a good job in the future because he wants to do a good job and wants to teach. 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 Total: 28 Cooperating Teacher The student continued to struggle with the same things throughout his student teaching. Each week as we sat down to do a reflection together, we had the same conversations again and again. I gave him every suggestion and piece of advice I could come up with from my own experiences, as well as advice I sought out for him through other teachers, but continually saw little improvement in several areas. These areas include thinking on his feet and adapting lessons in the moment and planning ahead to set up success in a lesson, creating student centered and driven lessons, driving the lesson and being a leader in the classroom, and gaining student respect and buy in. 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 Total: 18

Results STEM Student Teaching (end of the program) Cooperating Teacher This student often procrastinated with lesson planning and pre-writing her questions for each lesson as shown when she came unprepared for lessons. This student also struggles to receive constructive criticism and does not seek out professional growth opportunities. This student did not like to be observed because she did not like the feedback portion of the observation. After discussing her mock interview, I suggested finding professional growth opportunities and researching best practices and she seemed more open to looking into professional growth in her time off. Towards the end of student teaching, This student started self-reflecting on lessons, but lacks a growth mindset. This student is courteous in her interactions with peers, colleagues and students and remains rational and calm during conversations. This student was open to learning about educational laws and policies and strived to follow all mandates with integrity. Faculty This student is ready for her own students.