Evidence of Teacher Candidate Quality

This page includes evidence of our Ohio University teacher candidates. These data represent both external sources of data (data collected by an outside source on our teacher candidates) as well as internal sources of data (data that we have collected on our teacher candidates).

External Sources of Data

Praxis II Licensure Data

The Praxis II content and Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) tests are administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and must be passed for teacher candidates to be licensed in the State of Ohio. Pass rates reported to us by ETS and are only available for tests with more than 5 takers. The National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) requires that programs maintain a minimum of an 80% pass rate. Our overall pass rate in the 2009-2010 academic year was 94%.

Praxis II 2009-2010 (Athens Campus)
Test Codes	Test Name	# of Examinees	Pass Rates
0014	Elementary Ed: Content Knowledge	130	97.0%
0021	Education of Young Children	61	98.4%
0030	Biology and General Science	11	100.0%
0041	Eng Lang Lit Comp Content Knowledge	57	79.0%
0049	Middle School English Language Arts	48	93.0%
0061	Mathematics: Content Knowledge	28	82.1%
0069	Middle School Mathematics	38	100.0%
0081	Social Studies: Content Knowledge	47	85.1%
0089	Middle School: Social Studies	44	89.0%
0091	Physical Ed: Content Knowledge	12	92.0%
0113	Music Content Knowledge	18	100.0%
0121	Family & Consumer Sciences	5	100.0%
0133	*Art Content Knowledge	8	75.0%
0191	Spanish Content Knowledge	15	93.3%
0200	Intro to the Teaching of Reading	74	93.2%
0235	Biology Content Knowledge	8	100.0%
0353	Education of Exceptional Students: Content Knowledge	62	100.0%
0410	Ed Leadership Admin and Supervision	21	100.0%
0420	School Guidance and Counseling	14	100.0%
0439	Middle School Science	42	90.4%
0571	Earth & Space Sciences: CK	8	100.0%
0521	PLT: Early Childhood	71	99.0%
0522	PLT: K-6	42	90.4%
0523	PLT: 5-9	88	83.0%
0524	PLT: 7-12	176	97.2%

*This program is no longer admitting candidates.

Pre-Service Teacher Preparation Program and Knowledge Survey (A Federally Mandated Study)

Study on Teacher Preparation in Early Reading Instruction

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasizes the importance of early reading and instructional practices that are grounded in scientific research. The Study of Teacher Preparation in Early Reading Instruction, commissioned by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance at the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, examines the extent to which teacher education programs focus on the essential components of early reading instruction. The study was conducted by the American Institutes for Research.

Researchers collected a nationally representative sample of 2,237 pre-service teachers scheduled to graduate in spring or summer 2007 from 99 public and private colleges and universities that prepare elementary school teachers for initial licensure. Up to 30 graduating pre-service teachers from The Patton College main campus in Athens were randomly-selected and included in the study. (Graduate and Post-Baccalaureate students were not included in Ohio University’s data.) Institutions with primarily on-site, rather than online, programs were included in the study. Institutions that offer middle or high school training but not elementary education were not included in the study.

The study was designed to answer two primary research questions:

To what extent does the content of teacher education programs focus on the essential components of early reading instruction; and

To what extent are graduating pre-service teachers knowledgeable about the essential components of early reading instruction?

The study focused on the five essential components of early reading instruction (as defined by the federal legislation and informed by the National Reading Panel):

phonemic awareness
phonics
vocabulary development
reading fluency, particularly oral reading skills
reading comprehension strategies

Data for the study were collected using a scientifically-validated questionnaire called The Pre-Service Teacher Preparation Program and Knowledge Survey, which has two parts: 1) The Program Survey; and 2) The Knowledge Assessment. The Program Survey and the Knowledge Assessment collapsed the five essential components of early reading instruction into four variables:

All Components: information from items on all five essential components of early reading instruction, analyzed as a single factor
Alphabetics: information from items on phonemic awareness and phonics
Fluency: information from oral reading fluency items
Meaning: information from vocabulary and comprehension items

Program Survey

The Program Survey has three scales that reflect pre-service teachers’ perceptions of various aspects of their training programs:

• Coursework Emphasis

• Field Experience Exposure

• Feelings of Preparedness to Teach

Coursework Emphasis and Field Experience Exposure have four-point scales:

None Little Moderate Considerable

0 1 2 3

Feelings of Preparedness to Teach also has a four-point scale, but with different qualifiers:

Not at All Prepared Somewhat Prepared Mostly Prepared Definitely Prepared

0 1 2 3

To view the report in its entirety, please click HERE.

A summary of the results for the Program Survey are as follows:

Coursework Emphasis

OU students’ median rating of the emphasis of their coursework on the essential components of early reading instruction is well above the national median rating on the scale as a whole. OU students’ ratings are well above the Moderate level but not as high as the Considerable level.
OU students’ median rating of the emphasis of their coursework also is well above the national median rating on two of the scale’s components: Alphabets and Meaning. For both components, OU students’ ratings are well above the Moderate level but not as high as the Considerable level.
OU students’ median rating of the emphasis of their coursework is equal to the national median rating on the Fluency component, which is equal to a Moderate level of perception of proper emphasis. See figure 1.

Field Experience Exposure

OU students’ median rating of their field experience exposure to the essential components of reading instruction is well above the national median rating on the scale as whole and on all of its components: Alphabets, Meaning, and Fluency. Specifically, OU students’ median rating is well above the Moderate level but below the Considerable level. See figure 2.

Feelings of Preparedness to Teach

OU students’ median rating of feeling prepared to teach the essential components of reading instruction is well above the national median rating on the scale as a whole and on two of its components: Alphabets and Meaning. Specifically, OU students’ median rating is well above the Mostly Prepared level but below the Definitely Prepared level.
On the Fluency component of the scale, OU students’ median rating is equal to the national median rating, a score that is above the Mostly Prepared level but not as high as the Definitely Prepared level. However, since the national median rating on the two previous components (Alphabets and Meaning) are so low, the OU students’ median rating on Fluency is actually higher than their median rating on the two other components. See figure 3.

Knowledge Assessment

The Knowledge Assessment consists of 56 multiple-choice questions about the essential components of reading instruction, especially as they are taught in kindergarten to grade 3 classrooms. The results are measured aginst the median values of Expert and Novice comparison groups. Scores on this instrument are reported as the percentage of responses correct, ranging from 0 to 100 percent.

Expert: researchers and teacher educators who are professors at universities who are recognized for their contributions to reading research through publications and reading-related projects as well as professors who teach courses about reading pedagogy in pre-service teacher programs.
Novice: recent college graduates working at Optimal or AIR who do not work on reading-related projects and have no experience tutoring or teaching reading to young children.

The study reports median (rather than mean) values because there are large ranges of scores (large standard deviations) within groups. The box plots presented in the summary report confirm these large standard deviations.

The results for the Knowledge Assessment are as follows:

Both the national comparison group’s and OU students’ scores are not at the Expert level on the Knowledge Assessment and its three components: Alphabets, Fluency, and Meaning. On the other hand, both the national comparison group’s and OU students’ scores are above the Novice level on the entire instrument and all three of its components. See figure 4.

Source: Study of Teacher Preparation in Early Reading Instruction, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, September 2010. (NCEE 2010-4036, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)

Internal Sources of Data

Impact on P12 Student Learning and Teacher Candidate Content Competency

Teacher Work Sample-2009-2010

The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) is a capstone assessment completed by teacher candidates during their professional internship. This assessment requires teacher candidates to demonstrate their ability to design a unit that aligns to stated learning goals, assess student learning before, during, and after instruction. The TWS is assessed by university clinical supervisors. Below is a 2009-2010 data chart that demonstrates our teacher candidates’ ability to use ongoing analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions and demonstrate P12 student learning. This chart illustrates that approximately 98% of our candidates either meet or exceed each of the standards.

Instructional Decision-Making/ Analysis of Student Learning

	Indicator Not Met (1 pts)	Indicator Partially Met (2 pts)	Indicator Met (3 pts)	Indicator Exceeded (4 pts)	*Mean*
Sound Professional Practice (i.e., instructional decisions are pedagogically sound and are likely to lead to student learning) for Example One	1	3	32	250	3.86
Sound Professional Practice (i.e., instructional decisions are pedagogically sound and are likely to lead to student learning) for Example Two	2	2	37	245	3.84
Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning (i.e., modifications to instruction appropriate to address individual student needs; informed by analysis of student learning/performance) for Example One	2	3	39	242	3.82
Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning (i.e., modifications to instruction appropriate to address individual student needs; informed by analysis of student learning/performance) for Example Two	3	3	39	241	3.81
Interpretation of Data	3	0	72	211	3.71
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning (i.e., student learning is documented and includes the number of students who achieved or made progress toward each learning goal).	2	3	44	237	3.80

Sound Professional Practice for Example One

1(0%)

3(1%)

32(11%)

250(87%)

Sound Professional Practice for Example Two

2(0%)

37(12%)

245(85%)

Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning for Example One

2(0%)

3(1%)

39(13%)

242(84%)

Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning for Example Two

3(1%)

39(13%)

241(84%)

Interpretation of Data

3(1%)

72(25%)

211(73%)

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

2(0%)

3(1%)

44(15%)

237(82%)

Indicator Not Met

Indicator Partially Met

Indicator Met

Indicator Exceeded

Teacher Work Sample-2008-2009

The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) is a capstone assessment completed by teacher candidates during their professional internship. This assessment requires teacher candidates to demonstrate their ability to design a unit that aligns to stated learning goals, assess student learning before, during, and after instruction. The TWS is assessed by university clinical supervisors. Below is a 2008-2009 data chart that demonstrates our teacher candidates’ ability to use ongoing analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions and demonstrate P12 student learning. This chart illustrates that approximately 95% of our candidates either meet or exceed each of the standards.

Instructional Decision-Making/ Analysis of Student Learning

	Indicator Not Met (1 pts)	Indicator Partially Met (2 pts)	Indicator Met (3 pts)	Indicator Exceeded (4 pts)	*Mean*
Sound Professional Practice (i.e., instructional decisions are pedagogically sound and are likely to lead to student learning) for Example One	0	5	95	376	3.78
Sound Professional Practice (i.e., instructional decisions are pedagogically sound and are likely to lead to student learning) for Example Two	0	5	99	372	3.77
Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning (i.e., modifications to instruction appropriate to address individual student needs; informed by analysis of student learning/performance) for Example One	3	11	115	347	3.69
Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning (i.e., modifications to instruction appropriate to address individual student needs; informed by analysis of student learning/performance) for Example Two	3	10	130	333	3.67
Interpretation of Data	1	21	141	313	3.61
Evidence of Impact on Student Learning (i.e., student learning is documented and includes the number of students who achieved or made progress toward each learning goal).	0	12	125	339	3.69

Sound Professional Practice for Example One

5(1%)

95(19%)

376(78%)

Sound Professional Practice for Example Two

5(1%)

99(20%)

372(78%)

Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning for Example One

3(0%)

11(2%)

115(24%)

347(72%)

Modifications Based on Analysis of Student Learning for Example Two

3(0%)

3(1%)

130(13%)

333(69%)

Interpretation of Data

1(0%)

21(4%)

141(29%)

313(65%)

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

12(2%)

125(26%)

339(71%)

Indicator Not Met

Indicator Partially Met

Indicator Met

Indicator Exceeded

Questions concerning these data should be emailed to Dr. Connie Patterson, Director of Assessment and Academic Improvement for the Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education at patterc1@ohio.edu

Use links at right to access NCATE materials.

If you have questions about NCATE or the accreditation process, contact Director of Assessment & Academic Improvement Dr. Connie Patterson.

To learn more about The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education 's other accrediting bodies, visit the Office of Assessment & Academic Improvement.

As a Unit, we prepare leaders-educators, practitioners and human service professionals who share our commitment to lifelong learning and serving society responsibility as change agents in meeting diverse human and social needs.