Notes from CAEP: 2013 initial preparation- The provider ensures that effective 2,1 [components 2.1 and 2.2] and high-quality clinical practice [component 2.3] are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students' learning and development.
2016 advanced level preparation-The provider ensures that effective partnerships [component A.2.1] and high-quality clinical practice [component A.2.2] are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions appropriate for their professional specialty field.
Making a case: High quality clinical practice is a unique and critical feature for both initial and advanced preparation programs. Standards 2 and A.2 are the places to demonstrate that the provider has partnerships with P-12 schools that are beneficial to both parties (component 2.1 and A.2.1). The provider explains how collaborative partnerships are conducted, monitored, and evaluated, and how this evidence has led to changes in programs for both initial preparation and for advanced preparation. The EPP provides examples of beneficial collaboration and how the provider and schools work together (e.g., the process for co-selection of mentor (co-op) teachers and university supervisors-component 2.2).
The clinical experiences are addressed in component 2.3 for initial preparation and component A.2.2 for advanced level preparation. For initial clinical experiences, what associations does the provider find between the particular aspects of its preparation (such as breadth, depth, diversity, coherence, and duration) and candidate outcomes-such as completion and licensure. For advanced preparation, EPPs should document the opportunities for candidates to practice their developing knowledge and skills, and address what faculty have learned from the relationship of culminating experiences with candidate success in problem-based tasks or research characteristic of their professional specialization.
Summary Statement:
Partnerships with P-12 schools and other community organizations are important to the development of teacher candidates. The Clinical Partnership Evidence (CP) Packet articulates the MU EPP's reflection on the following questions related to CAEP standard 2:
- Are the clinical partners co-constructed and mutually beneficial to P-12 school and community arrangements, and do they offer opportunities for technology-based collaborations?
- In what ways does the MU EPP work with stakeholders to develop mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit in order to link theory and practice as well as to share accountability for candidate outcomes?
- To what extent does the MU EPP work with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students' learning and development?
- How are clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, structured to have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates' development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions (as delineated in Standard 1) that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students?
Standard 2.1 Because of the institution's rural setting, with the next town more than fifteen miles away, the EPP relies heavily on the local school system for many of the clinical experiences. Changes in DTEs and administration in the local schools as well as the geographical location of MU has posed some challenges for the EPP. However, to proactively address these issues, the EPP has held face-to-face meetings between the current DTE, the field experience coordinator, other EPP faculty, and administrators and clinical faculty. It also hosts biannual meetings of the Teacher Advisory Council and an annual community partnership lunch. Both groups involve a collaboration between important stakeholders; as a result, the EPP has increased communication and improved the quality of the experiences.
Each of the required education courses includes a field experience. The EPP has structured field experiences in foundational courses such as EDUC 111, 211, 237, and 245 with focused observations. Once candidates have been admitted to the program, they experience small group teaching experiences. Today’s structured junior-level field experiences is based on one of the most mutually beneficial partnerships the EPP has experienced. The clinical experience organically emerged in February 2011 when the local community schools eliminated nineteen paraprofessional positions in the elementary school. Third-grade classrooms heavily dependent on paraprofessionals to run reading groups were the hardest hit by the sudden budgetary cut. For the remainder of the year, the teacher candidates enrolled in EDUC 340: Literacy Block ran the reading groups in collaboration with the clinical faculty. This co-constructed clinical experience has grown into an organized daily clinical experience Monday through Thursday throughout the academic year. Teacher candidates work with third grade teachers to establish skills-based curriculum and interventions during Response to Intervention (RTI).
In the spring of 2018, responding to a request by the intermediate school in the local school corporation, the EPP collaborated with clinical faculty to provide support small groups of fifth-grade students with support in literacy for two days and in math skills the other two days. While the fifth-grade partnership is a new development, the feedback from the classroom teachers as well as the teacher candidates indicate a positive experience for everyone involved. At the end of the spring semester 2018, an intern within the EPP held focus groups and recorded the participants' responses; additionally, representatives from the EPP and clinical faculty created a plan of action for the 2018-2019 school year.
Collaboration of this kind meets the needs of both parties, and because they are co-constructed with stakeholders, they are more intentional than those which simply involve the EPP placing students in a classroom for observation. Frequent meetings with the clinical faculty and the candidates allowed candidates to discuss data collection, design interventions, and see their impact on student learning. The collaborative effort also provided insight into the professionalism involved in teaching. Using this experience as a model, the Field Experience and Assessment Coordinator and the DTE will continue to partner with other clinical sites.
The culminating field experience occurs during the candidates' senior year with the student teaching experience, most commonly taking place in the spring semester. While student teaching is only one semester, the candidates have obligations which span the entire academic year. In the fall prior to student teaching, candidates participate in the first four days of the clinical placements' academic year. This experience provides candidates with insight into the setting up of a classroom and the beginning days of a school year when the community of the classroom is established. Throughout the fall semester, elementary candidates spend a minimum of six Tuesdays and Thursdays as well as a full-week in their student teaching classrooms. They also spend one week in a Spanish-immersion elementary school in the urban setting of Fort Wayne Community Schools. Secondary and all-grade candidates, because of their course schedules, do not have designated days as the elementary candidates. They spend a minimum of 25 hours throughout the fall semester. During the January session prior to the student teaching experience, secondary and all-grade candidates spend the session in a clinical placement in Jefferson Middle School, also part of Fort Wayne Community Schools. The student teaching clinical experience begins with the first day of the semester and ends on the last day of final exams.
Meetings between clinical faculty, university supervisors, clinical administrators, and the EPP provide opportunities to co-construct the experiences.
Standard 2.2 The preparation of teacher candidates is dependent upon high quality clinical experiences. As a result, the EPP networks intentionally with school systems to develop scaffolded opportunities as identified in Standard 2.1. This requires frequent communication between the Field Experience and Assessment Coordinator and the Director of Teacher Education to develop a cadre of high quality clinical educators to serve as mentors for teacher candidates.
The EPP has established criteria for administrators to use when selecting clinical faculty for field experiences. Through the memorandums of understanding signed by both the Director of Teacher Education and the school systems' superintendents, the EPP articulates the expectations for clinical faculty (Evidence: Memorandum). Evidence also exists in the Clinical Partnership packet showing minutes from community partnership luncheons and the Teacher Advisory Council. These two groups include administrators from all surrounding school corporations, and the agendas often include discussion of dispositions of candidates as well as important skills and knowledge candidates must possess. Equally as important, the groups discuss the training and qualities required of clinical educators to support the candidates’ clinical experiences. Prior to the spring of 2018, the EPP did not have a formal way of collecting feedback regarding clinical faculty. As the EPP makes better use of the online platform CORE, the EPP can collect feedback regarding the clinical faculty from university supervisors as well as the teacher candidates.
Standard 2.3 With the addition of the Field Experience and Assessment Coordinator, the EPP continues to work towards more intentional clinical experiences. Each of the required courses includes a clinical experience. The foundational courses, taken in the first and second years of the program, require simple observation; the third-year transitions to small group instruction of third or fifth-grade students. Through collaboration with the clinical faculty, teacher candidates are introduced to the elements of planning for instruction based on authentic assessments.
The Teacher Education Student Handbook offers an outline of the clinical experiences, and the Field Experience and Assessment Coordinator communicates frequently with partners to ensure candidates are meeting the requirements and the clinical faculty are providing the candidates with the appropriate depth in experience. The outlined expectations along with the EPP-created evaluation form provide coherence in the experiences. In the Spring of 2018, the EPP purchased the same online platform (CORE) used by the School of Pharmacy. Through this system, candidates can log their hours and clinical faculty can provide immediate feedback to the EPP regarding the candidates’ performance and dispositions. With more open lines of communication, the EPP anticipates an increase in the retention of clinical faculty and better experiences for the candidates.
To bring diversity to the clinical experiences, senior candidates have an intensive introduction to an urban clinical experience by the program's partnership with Fort Wayne Community Schools, the largest public school system in Indiana. Elementary candidates spend one full week during the fall methods block in Lindley Elementary, a Spanish immersion elementary school. Secondary and all-grade candidates spend the January session immediately prior to student teaching in a classroom at Jefferson Middle School. Both intensive experiences prior to student teaching offer teacher candidates with settings different than the ones they have previously experienced.
Strengths and Challenges: Like other institutions, especially those located in a rural setting such as North Manchester, the EPP struggles with scheduling clinical experiences outside the local public schools because teacher candidates are dependent upon transportation and hampered by traditional course schedules not conducive to clinical experiences which require flexibility. However, the small size of the institution as well as the local community is also a strength. Administrators, clinical faculty, and members of the EPP know each other professionally and personally. When opportunities arise for collaborative projects, it is common practice for one of the parties to reach out to the other. Regarding the research questions, the EPP is confident it continues to improve the clinical experiences for candidates, and it has a clear plan of action for how it will increase collaboration with partners.
With the new position of the Field Experience and Assessment Coordinator and the community partnership lunches, the EPP has increased co-constructed and mutually beneficial with clinical partners (Q1). Evidence is in the Memorandums of Understanding (2.1, 2.2) and other evidence located in the Clinical Partnership Packet such as minutes from the Teacher Advisory Council and community partnership luncheon support the commitment to co-constructing partnerships. The feedback provided by the intern regarding the two RTI settings indicate several of the following strengths: to “work one-on-one and give the students the attention they need to help them succeed;” “coming up with own lessons and implementing;” “working on ‘teacher-skills’ and being a professional;” seeing progress with the students;” and “using cooperative teaching and being able to have that extra help/support of another peer.” Not only do the candidates find the experience beneficial, but the clinical faculty have committed to continuing the partnership because of the benefits afforded the 3rd and 5th grade students. The EPP is currently working on creating online surveys using the CORE software program. This will give the EPP more definitive data regarding the candidates’ perception of their experiences. The CORE program will also allow the EPP to have clinical faculty complete online evaluations and provide feedback on the clinical experience in general. Ultimately, the partnership will continue to be mutually beneficial.
Integrating technology continues to pose an issue for the EPP, and using it for collaborative clinical experiences is no different.; however, it does collaborate with classroom teachers. For example, the EPP frequently uses Facetime or Google Hangout to collaborate with clinical faculty or classrooms of students. One of the ideas explored during the community partnership lunch was a professional development experience through technology. Administrators in the community partnership lunch as well as the members of the Teacher Advisory Council also are committed to exploring a variety of new partnerships.
The EPP has identified the need to define mutually beneficial partnerships and consider more quantitative ways to measure the effectiveness of the clinical experiences for candidates, the P-12 students, the EPP, and the clinical settings. The survey and focus groups conducted by the intern this spring provide a foundation for future assessment practices; however, the EPP understands it must create evaluation tools to measure effectiveness for this particular question and standard.
Examining the minutes of the Teacher Advisory Council, the community partnership lunch, and the Teacher Education Committee provides adequate evidence the MU EPP collaborates with stakeholders to develop mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit in order to link theory and practice as well as to share accountability for candidate outcomes (Q2). The best examples of the EPP adequately answering question 2 are the junior and senior clinical experiences. Through the self-study, the EPP has identified a need to deepen the relationship with partners regarding clinical experiences the first two years of the program. Both the Field Experience and Assessment Coordinator and the DTE have made a commitment to schedule meetings with clinical sites to connect expectations with clinical experiences, incorporating all stakeholders’ insights.
Until recently, field experiences were dictated by the EPP with little input of the partners. Often, the EPP provided the guidelines to the administrators who then placed candidates. Through intentional planning and feedback during meetings with stakeholders, the EPP has moved to a more collaborative approach to constructing the field experiences. In regards to the question 3, “to what extent does the MU EPP work with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students' learning and development,” the EPP understands the need to focus attention on the first two years of clinical experiences. It believes having candidates in the field in the first semester is critical to developing and retaining high-quality teaching candidates; however, it also recognizes the current foundational field experiences need more focus and intentionality as is supported by the outlined expectations and minimum hours. One of the major questions the EPP continues to wrestle with is how to increase the rigor and caliber of the experiences when many candidates are simply exploring teaching as an option.
Finally, the EPP is comfortable with many of the current clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities; however, it is working towards multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates' development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions (as delineated in Standard 1) in order to have a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students (Q4). Currently, assessments associated with the clinical experiences are subjective evaluations of the candidates’ dispositions rather than performance-based assessments. Two questions emerged during the self-study: (1) how can the EPP involve partners in the design of performance-based experiences other than observations, and (2) who will be responsible for designing the assessments used for the performance-based assignments?
Implications
In the fall of 2018, the EPP will work with stakeholders to define co-constructed and mutually beneficial. Once the definitions have been established, the EPP will work with stakeholders to determine appropriate evaluation tools for measuring the benefit of the clinical experiences. The EPP has realized the current disposition rubric needs better aligned with program outcomes and InTASC and CAEP standards. Clinical faculty, members of the EPP, and the Teacher Advisory Council will work together in the fall of 2018 to revise the disposition rubrics. Clinical faculty will need trained on the evaluation of dispositions as well.