Course evaluation summary report

Course evaluation summary report

• 1.
  Scottish Teachers fora New Era (STNE) is a collaborative six-year pilot project which seeks to prepare ‘teachers for a new era’ able to face up to the challenges of knowledge and learning in the twenty-first century. The programme’s aims include the creation of an extended professional culture, the broadening of learning experiences, opportunities to develop new and personal approaches to teaching and a broader conceptualisation of pupil gains leading to improved teacher and pupil learning. Common Course Evaluation May 2010 Introduction The design of STNE initiative incorporates common course evaluation as part of collaborative evidence gathering and decision making tool. The evaluation process is an effective means of building confidence in the teachers graduating from the programme in the face of the challenges and needs of learners and society in the 21st century. Within STNE, improvement and modification is habitually anticipated based on various forms of reviews. The common course evaluation involves course teams, student teachers and evaluation researchers. The main function of the evaluation researchers is to facilitate data gathering and evidence-based decisions. Other functions of the common course evaluation are: creating an institutional culture which values decision-making based on evidence; encouraging communication, cooperation and collaboration of staff; facilitating joint ownership of evaluation; and facilitating professional growth; and translating evaluation outcomes into practice and policy on the programme.
• 2.
  Common Course Evaluation Method Themixed-method (quantitative-qualitative) design was adopted on STNE for the common course evaluation. This involves collecting data using a questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale of items ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and open-ended items. This design is considered appropriate because a combination of qualitative and quantitative design helps to predict the likely impact various courses have on student teachers’ professional growth (Grammatikopoulos et al. 2008). By combining quantitative and qualitative data, it is possible to obtain insights that neither of the methodologies yields in isolation (Towns and Serpell, 2004). Quantitative information such as ratings of various aspects of the courses may help identify areas that need revision. Qualitative information, such as responses to open-ended questions about a programme provides feedback which may not have been anticipated. The procedure of data collection was led by both course teams and evaluation researchers. The student teachers were involved in the process of generating aspects of the programme which they considered essential for their growth. They were also involved in the piloting of the questionnaires. Tutors on the programme provided further directions and insight on the design of the questionnaire in terms of aspects of focus. Course co-ordinators and researchers administered the questionnaires to the student teachers after a lecture, tutorial or workshop. The student teachers were informed of the purpose of the common course evaluation. They were also assured that the information they provide would be treated in confidence and analysed anonymously. Student teachers were encouraged to participate in the exercise as a way of providing feedback and contributing to further improvement that they saw necessary on the programme. The participants in the common course evaluation were student teachers cohorts on the STNE programme. The average student teacher participation rates per semester were 64 out of 114 (first year), 68 out of 100 (second year), 65 out of 117 (third year), and 77 out of 91 (fourth year) student teachers. Data analysis involved using SPSS descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of qualitative data. The data reported here was collected in the 2008/2009 academic year.
• 3.
  Common Course Evaluation Results Firstyear student teachers felt they were able to identify the social-constructivist orientation of the programme, they indicated being effective in applying collaborative skills and implementing professional enquiry. They had started to develop values and commitment to social justice and inclusion. Student teachers also noted they were beginning to engage and act upon personal and professional reflection. The most significant learning experiences on the course were the serial day placements and the personal-professional development. They pointed to the following as requiring further consideration: field placement, and tutorial/workshops. Second year student teachers felt they had developed an understanding of curriculum in its broadest sense, they felt paired field placement promoted personal and professional learning and skills which enable them to work effectively in co-operation with peers and other professionals. They stated being more interested in becoming teachers and were becoming more capable of being effective teachers. They perceived the following as the most significant learning experiences on the course: serial day placement, lesson implementation on placement, creativity days, and tutorial support. The areas requiring further considerations were: communication and field placement. Third year student teachers felt they developed research skills and knowledge for use in future for evidence gathering in the classroom, they had developed appropriate assessment approaches to support pupil learning, they had developed skills in embedding their knowledge of the local context of the school in supporting children’s learning, they had developed knowledge and understanding of how to contribute to the processes of curriculum development, and through field experience, they were able to develop skills in demonstrating positive and professional interaction and relationships with children. They viewed workshops, field placement, personal and professional advisory, planning teaching and learning as the most significant experiences. They considered field experience, support for research, input on planning and assessment as areas for further consideration. Fourth year student teachers felt action research project enhanced their knowledge and understanding of educational theory and practice, deepened and broadened their understanding of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), extended their understanding of the necessity for children’s learning of integrating literacy across all curricular areas. They perceived field experience, curricular areas, and subject knowledge as the most significant experiences. They perceived planning, ICT, research activities, curricular, and assessment practices as areas for further improvement.
• 4.
  Common Course Evaluation Discussion/Conclusion Engagingin common course evaluation and evidence-informed decision making is very crucial. Staff members on STNE are engaging in more systematic inquiry by constantly improving the design and delivery of teacher education programmes based on evidence. The findings here indicate that the student teachers on the STNE programme are part of the process of further programme improvement and evidence gathering strategies. The findings demonstrate that the programme has made significant strides in using common course evaluation as a tool for dialogue and co-inquiry. They demonstrate that the student teachers were developing appropriately and that the various components, such as field experience, were critical in advancing the aims of the programme. At the same time, the findings also indicate areas for further improvement in a bid to make the programme more responsive to the needs of the student teachers. Such further improvements underline the significant place that common course evaluation has in generating ideas for programme consideration. As such, it is imperative that a culture of systematic and robust common course evaluation is sustainably embedded as part of the teacher education curriculum on initial teacher education such as the STNE programme. References Grammatikopoulos, V., Zachopoulos, E., Tsangaridou, N., Liukkonen, J., & Pickup, I. (2008). Applying a mixed method design to evaluate training seminars within an early childhood education project. Evaluation and research in education 21 (1), 4-17. Mertens, D.M. 2005. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Towns D.P., & Serpell, Z. (2004). Successes and challenges in triangulating methodologies in evaluations of exemplary urban schools. In Thomas, V.G., & Steven, F.I., eds. Co- constructing a contextually responsive evaluation framework (pp.49-62). San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.