5 Years Later: Tracking Graduates into the Field

5 Years Later: Tracking Graduates into the Field

• 1.
  Five Years Later: TrackingGraduates into the Field AACTE 2016 East Carolina University, College of Education University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, Education Policy Initiative at Carolina KRISTEN CUTHRELL JOY STAPLETON LIZ FOGARTY ANN BULLOCK ADRIENNE SMITH AUBREY COMPERATORE
• 2.
  Presentation Goals ● Challengesin efficiently evaluating COE innovations ○ Following graduates ○ Robust measurements and pertinent outcomes ○ Effective partnerships with external evaluators ● Results of our evaluations ● Lessons learned
• 3.
  COE Innovations
• 4.
  Challenge #1 How dowe follow our pre-service teachers into the field? ● Partnered with Educational Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC) ● access to large, longitudinal datasets ● ability to track all ECU graduates teaching in NC public schools
• 5.
  Challenge #2 How canwe look at effectiveness across a wide range of outcomes? ● Collaborated with EPIC to explore ○ ways graduates teach ○ how much their students academically gain ○ how graduates feel about their preparation ○ how long graduates intend to stay in the teaching profession
• 6.
  Challenge #3 How dowe know if some of the innovations are more effective than others? ● Established a data system to track each pre-service teacher’s exposure to individual reforms ● Designed mini-pilots to explore the effectiveness of individual reforms ● Formed research groups to grow internal research capacity and promote faculty buy-in ● Developed explicit descriptions of the innovations to clearly define treatment for replication
• 7.
  Results ● CLASS andInstructional Strategies ● Student Achievement ● Perceptions of Self-Confidence and Job Satisfaction ● Retention
• 8.
  CLASS Positive Climate Negative Climate TeacherSensitivity Respect for Student Perspective Classroom Organization Productivity Content Understanding Instructional Learning Formats Analysis and Problem Solving Quality of Feedback Instructional Dialogue Student Engagement
• 9.
  Instructional Strategies Thinking Maps AdvancedMaps Examples & Non-examples Compare & Contrast Games Higher-level Questioning Think, Pair, Share Jigsaw Formative Assessment Summative Assessment
• 10.
  The difference inteacher EVAAS scores (generated using student achievement scores) between ECU and UNC non-ECU comparison sample teachers is not statistically significant for any subject- grade combination. –Results do not change even after controlling for school level covariates We looked at: Elementary Grades Math Elementary Grades Reading Elementary Grades Science Middle Grades Math Middle Grades Reading Middle Grades Science Student Achievement
• 11.
  The difference inscores between ECU and UNC non-ECU comparison sample teachers is not statistically significant for self-confidence or job satisfaction composites. –Results do not change even after controlling for school level covariates We looked at: Perceptions of Self- Confidence (e.g., I feel confident in my ability to differentiate instruction based on student needs) Job Satisfaction (e.g., I consider teaching to be my ideal career) Graduate Perceptions of Self- Confidence and Job Satisfaction
• 12.
  Retention 95% 92% 92% 91% * **
• 13.
  Retention ECU nonECU ** * * *
• 14.
  * ECU non ECU ** ** * Retention
• 15.
  Lessons Learned
• 16.
  What did welearn? ● Gather and use actionable data to drive reflection and program improvement. ○ teach strategies graduates can use once in the classroom ● Develop innovations across program areas: ○ create consistency in program ○ systemic and longstanding • sustain and measure impact ● Continue to implement the innovations and track graduates. ● Maintain momentum.
• 17.
  Questions? ● Questions, Concerns, Ideas,Suggestions… ● Ask now or ● Send an email ○ Kristen Cuthrell [email protected] ○ Adrienne Smith [email protected]