Office of the Dean
Teachers for a New Era
Teacher for New Era
Assessment Committee Minutes
May 15, 2007
12:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Meeting Purpose: To review evolving committee activities tied to assessment in TNE.
Present: Michael Alfano, Andre Chabot, Joe Madaus, Betsy McCoach, Heather Nicholson, Peter Prowda, Jane Rogers, Jason Stephens, Hariharan Swaminathan, Mary Truxaw, Yuhang Rong, Mary Yakimowski
Absent: Fran Archambault, Dipak Dey (sabbatical), Patricia Jepson, Al Larson, Rosalyn Reese, Darcy Robinson, Xing Liu, Mark Olson, Sandy Chafouleas, Jay Dixon, Bill Farr, Jaci VanHeest
Welcome
Committee members were welcomed to the meeting. The committee charge and today’s agenda were reviewed. Committee members were given the opportunity to provide further agenda items. None were suggested. There was one announcement. Mary Yakimowski shared that we will have a TNE Evidence Consultant, Sam Stringfield, and visiting UConn.
First Discussion Item: Alumni Survey
At the 1st meeting this year and by use of e-mail system between meetings, the committee formulated and revised a survey designed for alumnae survey from the IB/M and TCPCG programs from 1994 to 2006. In the spring, this survey was administered. We have entered all data and done preliminary analyses. The purpose of the first discussion item was to review an initial draft of the report to obtain feedback such as other analyses which may be conducted.
The report is a self-contained document to provide: 1) background information from the national, state, and university-wide levels; 2) methods involved in creating the survey; 3) how contact information was obtained and the survey distributed, 4) present how results of quantitative and qualitative analyzes, and 5) offer a discussion and “next steps.”.
The Committee members were asked to suggest further analyses and areas of improvement to the report. As part of our 40 meeting discussion, the following is a list of were offered:
1. Include N’s and indicate missing data in all tables
2. Provide footnotes with applicable tables stating the Likert scale used
3. Indicate where respondents were instructed to select more than one response on the table
4. Rank order the scores in each table; do this for “importance” when applicable
5. Note the numbering of the tables and include “List of Tables”
6. Provide frequency distributions in addition to means and standard deviations for tables reporting scores from five-point Likert scales
7. Differentiate between the number of respondents from the TCPCG program before and after 2003; indicate the total number of graduates from the IB/M and TCPCG programs in each year; and provide percentages from total graduating class and survey respondents in Table 3
8. Calculate effect sizes for “satisfaction” and “importance” ratings in Table 5
9. Crosstab tables for explanations of why/not currently involved in the field of education
10. Create subgroups (e.g., look at the respondents who graded NSoE as a C or below) and report interesting findings
Discussion during the review of the report generated a couple suggestions for possibly improving the survey in future administrations. [Mary’s Yakimowski note: This will be accomplished at the 1st meeting in 2007-2008.] For example, the question regarding graduation year could be more explicit to address year of graduation from the NSoE teacher preparation program. Students may also need a “Don’t Know” option for rating aspects of the NSoE, like cooperation between the NSoE and CALS. The question regarding likelihood of attending “UConn” can be reviewed to maybe have “NSoE.”
Next Steps: Committee members will receive a copy of an updated draft incorporating suggestions. Additional suggestions will be sought regarding the new draft. Any committee members who have further suggestions for ways to improve the analysis should contact Heather within two weeks of the meeting.
The committee will revisit the report in the first meeting next fall. At this time we will seek “fine tunings” to the Introduction, Methods, and Results sections of the report. We will focus on the initial draft for Discuss and formulate “Next Steps.”
Second Discussion Item: Educational Expansions
An update was provided on where we now stand with the CSDE in developing and implementing a Memorandum of Agreement to have student and teacher variables more accessible.
Committee members were asked to generate specific questions to address the overall research questions of: Are there significant differences in CMT scores for pupils in classrooms instructed by Neag prepared teachers in comparison to those in classrooms instructed by non-Neag prepared teachers? A whole-group discussion among committee members resulted in the following questions:
1. Are there differences in pupil growth over time?
2. What is the affect of teacher ability?
3. Should pupils be matched on schools?
4. What are the differences in classroom environment?
5. What are the differences in pupil aspirations?
6. What are the differences in pupil perspectives on the learning environment?
7. Are there differences in daily average attendance?
8. Are there differences in suspension rates?
9. Are there differences in terms of retention?
10. What are the differences in longevity regarding:
- Time in the profession?
- Time at a specific subject or grade level?
- Attrition vs. growth in the profession?
Committee members also noted additional limitations of using the CMT. Additional limitations discussed include small sample sizes of NSoE graduates in some districts and defining both what “teacher performance” means and how it can be measured. Further discussion also addressed what is unique about NSoE, what exactly it is that our teachers do better, and whether these differences actually lead to improved pupil scores and are a product of the teacher training or admissions procedures. Keeping in mind these limitations, however, the charge of the TNE Assessment Committee is to answer the question fundamental to the Carnegie Foundation of how we know that graduates from our programs are making a difference in student achievement. It is possible to expand beyond CMT scores in answering this question but analyses must start with the CMTs.
Updates
A summary of the status of clinic evaluations was provided. The next key date for this activity is June 2.
The Teacher Preparation Programs students completed the 2006 Common Entrance Survey of which the final draft report was provided to committee members. Within two weeks of the meeting, individuals were asked to provide feedback to Mary Yakimowski.
A draft of analyses on the 2007 Common Exit Survey was also provided. We look forward to developing a report on this, too. If you have suggestions for further analyses, please give feedback to Mary Yakimowski.
Committee members to complete and submit a survey designed to help us schedule meetings next year.
Mary Yakimowski thanked all members for serving on this important committee this year. Committee’s input was seen note only as timely and relative, but it was extremely valuable. In particular, a special note of appreciation was given to Heather Nicholson, the Graduate Assistant assigned to TNE Assessment Committee. Her skills at coordinating the work involved was much appreciated. This was her last meeting.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.