So NOT Amazing!

8/3/2019 So NOT Amazing!

1/34

Teachers College RecordVolume 113, Number 5, May 2011, pp. 861894Copyright by Teachers College, Columbia University0161-4681

So NOT Amazing! Teach For America

Corps Members Evaluation of the FirstSemester of Their Teacher Preparation

Program

HEATHER CARTERAUDREY AMREIN-BEARDSLEY

CORY COOPER HANSENArizona State University

Background:Much of the research related to Teach For America (TFA) is related to the con-cerns surrounding whether such teachers should assume primary teaching responsibilityand whether alternatively certified teachers are effective in the classroom. This research studytakes a different approach and moves the conversation into a new domain of evaluating thecoursework that TFA teachers undertake to meet state-mandated certification requirements.

Based on initial course evaluations at a college of education, TFA students rated their uni-versity courses and instructors more critically than did non-TFA students.Purpose of Study:The purposes of this study were (1) to explore the aforementioned differ-ences in quality ratings of courses and instructors and (2) to examine what items on the stu-dent evaluation instrument could be used to identify salient constructs that are mostnecessary to meet the needs of TFA students.Setting:This research was conducted at a college of education at a Research I universityinvolved with a TFA partnership through which TFA students earn masters and certifica-tion while teaching in high-needs schools.Participants:Participants in this study were TFA students who were teaching on an alter-

native teaching certificate, as compared with traditional students who were enrolled in thesame methods courses with the same instructors. Both sets of students were enrolled in their

first year of their teacher preparation program.Research Design:The researchers analyzed the numerical differences between student eval-uation scores posted for the same instructors by different groups of students (TFA and


2/34

862 Teachers College Record

traditional students enrolled in the same methods coursework). The researchers also analyzedsurvey (Likert-type and open-ended) data to evidence and explain differences.Findings/Results: (1) TFA students did in fact rate their courses and instructors signifi-

cantly lower than did their non-TFA peers; (2) TFA students, as practicing teachers incharge of real-time classrooms, were more critical consumers, critical in the sense that theyneededor, more appropriately, felt that they neededcoursework that provided just-in-timeknowledge; and (3) TFA students did not feel as if they were treated like masters students.They wanted instructors who modeled practical teaching strategies and did not dumb downcourse activities, many of which they believed were irrelevant and a waste of time given theirimmediate needs.Conclusions/Recommendations:Issues related to certification coursework are highlighted,and included are specific and immediate course improvement recommendations and a callto reexamine educational policies related to alternative teacher certification.

Teach For America (TFA) was established as a nonprofit program by aPrinceton graduate in 1990 and recruits top college graduates to teachfor two years in public schools that are difficult to staff (Dillon, 2008).Since its inception, educational researchers have examined the effective-ness of these teachers, more broadly the effectiveness of under- and alter-natively certified teachers regarding student achievement. Much of thenational peer-reviewed research published in academic journals hasfocused on this issue. Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Veilig(2005) and Laczko-Kerr & Berliner (2002) are two notable, often-citedarticles that examine this issue; both compare the effectiveness of varioustypes of certified and noncertified/undercertified teachers.

Beyond academia, the effectiveness of TFA has been sensationalized bythe popular press. Newsweek, Time, Business Week, and The New York Timesare just a few of the popular news outlets that regularly sing the praisesof TFA as part of the solution to fill empty classrooms with highly dedi-cated individuals. The New York Times published an article praising therecruitment efforts of TFA, citing a press release announcing that TFAwould place 3,700 new teachers in high-needs classrooms in the fall of2008 (Dillon, 2008). Two days later, the editorial board followed with astatement extolling TFA and dismissing traditional teacher preparationprograms as merely diploma mills (Teach for America, 2008). Nationalconversations surrounding TFA are regenerated every school year as newcorps members enter high-needs classrooms across the country, and con-versations typically focus on whether TFA should be placing teachers intoclassrooms at all.

Although the praises and cautionary talk are valuable, neither rhetoricaddresses the immediate need of how to best support these first-yearteachers who begin teaching children in some of the neediest schools in


3/34

Teach For America Corps 863

the country. Using The New York Timesarticles statistics (Dillon, 2008),the 3,700 teachers are therein classrooms as first-year teachers. It is imper-ative that academia begin looking at the training that TFA teachersreceive, both from TFA and colleges of education, and move beyondquestioning whether they should be there at all.

Prior to beginning formal certification training within a college of edu-cation, TFA starts preparing corps members to enter the classroom andcontinues during their 2-year tenure. TFA claims to spend more than$19,000 per corps member in professional development and training,which includes a 5-week summer training program in which corps mem-bers complete a modified student teaching experience. This program isfollowed by a 2-year program of continuing support, during which corpsmembers are observed and engage in dialogue with TFA program direc-tors (Mikuta & Wise, 2008).

Shortcomings of the TFA corps member training were the focus of adedicated issue ofPhi Delta Kappan(June, 2008). A TFA alumna and doc-toral student argued to change the 2-year structure of the teaching com-mitment to include a year of teacher-in-residence, with the idea ofproviding corps members with a type of student teaching experiencebefore they assumed full teaching responsibilities (Hopkins, 2008).Several colleges of education deans spoke to this by putting forth expla-nations about how universities might partner at a deeper level with TFAto provide more support to corps members but stopped short of suggest-ing any other changes to TFA itself (Koerner, Lynch, & Shane, 2008).Darling-Hammond (2008) also interjected by citing the research sur-rounding the idea of the extended teacher-in-residence.

But still, as this debate ensues, TFA continues to place nontradition-ally prepared teachers into classrooms across the country to take on pri-mary teaching responsibilities, and support during that all-importantfirst year is typically received though the collaborative efforts of collegesof education, TFA, and the employing school districts. Most states requirecorps members to enroll in some form of teacher preparation programto supplement the professional development offered by TFA. Such is thecase at the crux of this study. The purpose of this study was to undertakea critical evaluation of a restructured masters program designed for TFAfirst-year corps members.

BACKGROUND

In the state where this study took place, a college of education at aResearch I university restructured a masters and certification programto align with the state requirements for an alternative path to teacher


4/34


certification. While teaching, TFA corps members enroll in one of thethree teacher preparation programs offered: elementary education, sec-ondary education, or special education. Although corps members ulti-mately receive a masters degree plus certification, they enter theclassroom on an intern certificate that is valid for 2 years and is depen-dent on fingerprint clearance, passing a content exam demonstratingsubject expertise, employment by a school district, and simultaneousenrollment in one of the universitys state-approved teacher preparationprograms. As a teacher on an intern certificate, the teacher is classifiedas highly qualified according to No Child Left Behind (2002) guidelines.

The program at the center of this study was based on an initial teacherpreparation program designed originally to certify graduate noneduca-tion majors as K12 teachers. In an attempt to tailor the program to theneeds of intern teachers, the courses were spread out over a 2-year period(as per state requirements), and classes were scheduled one night a weekfor 5 hours at a time. No classes were scheduled on weekends or duringthe summer. In addition, university instructors who taught the methodscourses joined their TFA students in their elementary classrooms duringthe teaching day to observe and provide feedback. This was done inhopes of making the university preparation courses more reflective ofwhat was happening in the field. This was also done so that universityinstructors might have more intimate knowledge of the context in whichtheir TFA students were teaching so that they could tailor their course-work requirements to better meet TFA students needs.

In the fall of 2007, the first semester that the program was offered, 180corps members enrolled. At the end of the semester, despite programpersonnels best intentions, program leaders discovered that the contentof the courses offered, and the course instructors, may not have met theimmediate and critical needs of the first cohort of TFA teachers.Through the teacher preparation programs standard student evaluationprocess, it was discovered that first-semester TFA students rated theircourses and instructors at statistically significant lower levels than didtheir traditional undergraduate and graduate student peers. There wassuch a marked difference in overall and by-factor means that programresearchers decided to further explore this phenomenon.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

As stated, much research focuses on the existence and effectiveness ofthe TFA project and its corps members. However, it is easy to miss a keyimplication in Darling-Hammond et al.s (2005) research when caughtup in the debates surrounding TFA. In a press release from Stanford


5/34


News Service featuring the Darling-Hammond et al. (2005) study, Trei(2005) quoted Linda Darling-Hammonds response to TFAs reaction tothe original article, stating, The finding is that it makes a difference forall teachers, including TFA teachers, to be certified. The major policyimplication of the study is that training does matter.

Following this logic, and with this as an impetus for reviewing the effec-tiveness of this particular program, it became time to critically review thecoursework that corps members received while teaching in the class-room. The goal of this study was to be reflective in order to improve bothcoursework and instructor delivery within the TFA teacher preparationprogram. The ultimate goal was to improve the program to best meet theneeds of the high-needs students they were teaching.

Specifically, researchers conducted this study (1) to explore the afore-mentioned differences in quality ratings of courses and instructors dur-ing the TFA and traditional students first semester, and (2) to examinewhat items on the student evaluation instrument could be used to iden-tify salient constructs most necessary to meet the needs of these uniquegraduate students.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Alternative certification programs have reached critical mass over thepast 25 years, with approximately 1 in 5 teachers entering the classroomas an alternatively certified teacher each year (Spellings & Manning,2006). Most states boast alternative routes to certification. Requirementsrange from simply passing a series of tests, to passing a test or tests andtaking a limited number of education courses, to passing a test or testsand enrolling in an accredited, full-blown teacher preparation program(Walsh & Jacobs, 2007).

What is an alternative path to certification? Alternative paths to certifi-cation are as varied as the states offering them. Using the most generaldefinition, an alternative path to certification is anything other than a tra-ditional teacher preparation program. In 2003, the National Associationfor Alternative Certification (NAAC) established a clearinghouse forinformation to collect and disseminate data related to nontraditionalpaths to certification.1 According to the NAAC, no two states share thesame requirements for alternatively certifying teachers; however, typicalcandidates who follow an alternative path to certification hold a bache-lors degree outside of education and then decide to become teachers.What makes these paths unique is that there typically is no student teach-ing requirement in the traditional sense; these candidates assume fullteaching responsibility on day one, with little, or in some cases no,


6/34


preservice training. Demographics beyond that vary by the type of pro-gram in candidates they enroll.

TFA is usually identified as an alternative path to teaching, yet TFA isnot a path to certification. Each state certifies teachers based on specificand unique guidelines, and TFA is responsible for the recruiting, select-ing, and placing of teachersnot the certifying of teachers. This is a fun-damental difference. In states where TFA teachers are placed, corpsmembers enter the classroom through some form of an alternative pathto certification. Once a person is selected by TFA, the journey toward cer-tification begins. Fewer than 10% of corps members have completed ateacher preparation program, and most hold undergraduate degrees inother areas such as psychology, business, and engineering. The majorityof 2006 corps members, for example, had degrees in social sciences(28%), followed by government and public policy (17%), language andliterature (17%), math, science, and engineering (16%), business (6%),humanities (4%), art and architecture (3%), education (2%), and other(6%) (Lipka, 2007).

As noneducation graduates, each corps member must meet the corre-sponding state requirement for alternative certification to be eligible toenter the classroom as the teacher of record. This must be done beforeentering TFAs professional development, which includes a 5-week pre-service experience completed in a summer school training site, followedby a 2-year period during which TFA staff observe and provide feedbackto corps members in line with the TFA mission and philosophy. The focusof this training is on student achievement. Ongoing professional develop-ment includes activities such as formal observations and dialogue aroundstudent achievement, and various meetings and seminars designed tocoach corps members over the course of the 2-year commitment (Mikuta& Wise, 2008).

TFA also partners with local education agencies, including schools andcolleges of education, to provide support above and beyond what TFAprovides. Sometimes this support is in the realm of mere certificationrequirements, and sometimes corps members are enrolled in mastersdegrees in education programs (Mikuta & Wise, 2008). According todeans from several colleges of education, programs undergo diligentreview to tailor teacher preparation to meet the unique needs of TFAteachers (Koerner et al., 2008). Customizations include increased men-toring and supervision of corps members in their K12 classrooms, hir-ing teacher practitioners to teach classes, and sequencing courses to bestmeet the already demanding schedules of first-year teachers.

Upon first read, one might assume that enrolling in an alternative


7/34


teacher preparation program would provide the much-needed supportfor these novice teachers, who have little preservice experience.However, in a recent report sponsored by the Thomas B. FordhamInstitute, Walsh and Jacobs (2007) argued that alternative paths to certi-fication are nothing more than restructured traditional paths and have,thus far, missed the opportunity to fundamentally change the routesthrough which teachers become certified. Most times, the coursework isthe same as traditional programs, offered in a traditional format andschedule. One requirement that often sets alternative programs apartfrom traditional programs is the conventional student teaching experi-ence prior to being recognized as the teacher of record.

Regardless, teachers who choose alternative routes express more dissat-isfaction with their preparation programs than those who follow tradi-tional programs. Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow (2002)reported that alternatively prepared teachers, including TFA students,rated their preparation more poorly than did traditional undergraduateand graduate students. Alternatively trained teachers also reported lessself-confidence and sense of efficacy than their traditionally preparedpeers. Yet, no systemic data exist to help explain why this is the case. Whatis known is that reducing certification requirements is the least of alter-natively certified teachers worries (Rochkind, Ott, Immerwahr, Doble, &Johnson, 2007).

The question becomes, then, as formal teacher preparation programeducators, what do we do to support new teachers who have entered theclassroom with little formal teacher training? Rather than removingteacher preparation course components from certification requirementsbecause of low satisfaction ratings, one solution is to critically evaluateexisting programs and find opportunities to improve the teaching expe-rience for new, alternatively certified teachers. Critical evaluation of theexisting TFA program within this research study helped to determine theextent to which, and why it was that, TFA corps members evaluated theircourses and instructors significantly more critically than did their tradi-tional undergraduate and graduate student peers.

DATA COLLECTION

Data for the study came from two sources: the fall 2007 student evalua-tion results and a follow-up survey questionnaire developed to investigatedifferences between TFA and traditional students in the spring of 2008.Tracking these students was feasible because the TFA students proceedthrough their courses in cohorts.


8/34


FALL 2007 STUDENT EVALUATIONS

First, researchers looked at the data from the fall 2007 semester studentevaluations across all 37 TFA course sections. Course evaluations areadministered as per board of regents requirements at the end of eachsemester to help administrators evaluate course quality and instructionaleffectiveness and to help instructors improve their courses and instruc-tional methods. The courses evaluated during this semester includedinstruction in content methods, lesson planning, classroom manage-ment, and literacy theory and strategies.

A pattern emerged indicating that TFA students were distinctly morecritical than their peers enrolled in the traditional teacher program. Toexplore this phenomenon further, researchers sought comparable sets ofstudent evaluation data about instructors who taught the same course toboth TFA and traditional graduate and undergraduate teacher prepara-tion students during the same semester.

Based on those criteria, 4 instructors were identified as eligible partic-ipants in the study. One instructor had a PhD in her content area, andthe other 3 instructors had masters degrees in education. The instructorwith the PhD had 10 years of experience teaching at the college level.

The instructors with masters degrees were recognized as outstandingeducators with over 10 years of K12 teaching experiences but had lim-ited experience teaching at the college level. One of these instructorstaught two different cohorts of TFA students, yielding a total of five com-parable data sets that could be used for this analysis. All 4 instructorsagreed to participate and release their TFA and traditional student eval-uation data for their five comparable sets of classes (n= 237 students).

The TFA students were either elementary or secondary first-year teach-ers in low-income schools and were teaching on an alternative teaching

certificate. The traditional students were enrolled in comparable under-graduate and graduate courses within the traditional teacher preparationprogram. Both sets of students were part of their respective elementaryand secondary cohorts, enrolled in their first year of their teacher prepa-ration program, and, specific to this study, enrolled in two complemen-tary sections of a secondary general instruction/classroom managementcourse and three complementary sections of an elementary literacymethods course. Because these data are confidential, specific demo-graphic data could not be culled to test whether significant differences

beyond this existed between respondents that may have biased theirratings further.Although the sample size for the class unit seems small, these were the


9/34


only comparable data that could be culled from the larger data set andanalyzed to determine whether faculty perceptions that their TFA stu-dents were more severe in their ratings were indeed true, signaling toresearchers that further exploration was warranted. Results were notexpected to generalize given the small sample. Results simply indicatedthat further exploration was justifiable and sound, even given the poten-tial differences between instructors and student groups, which may havecompromised levels of reliability and validity.

SPRING 2008 STUDENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Once this marked difference was observed, researchers surveyed thesame TFA students who evaluated their courses and instructors duringthe previous semester. Again, this was easily done because all TFA stu-dents going through the program proceeded in cohorts.

Researchers constructed a 35-item student survey questionnaire (seethe appendix) framed largely by the colleges current five-factor (overallscore, overall course content, overall instructor, overall testing, and over-all affective; see Table 1 for within-factor items), 28-item student evalua-tion form (the instrument on which both TFA and traditional studentsrated their courses and instructors) to investigate why it was that TFA stu-dents graded their courses and instructors more critically.

Again, researchers had their thoughts on this but wanted to gatherempirical data to test their assumptions and, more specifically, to deter-mine (a) what course/instructor qualities mattered most to these stu-dents in terms of learning how to be an effective teacher, (b) some oftheir more global values about teaching and expectations of their coursesand instructors, and (c) why they thought their traditional peers gradedthe same courses and instructors so differently, and more favorably. A

total of 37 TFA students (separate from this study) pilot tested the surveyinstrument, after which revisions were made before distribution to thecomplete sample of first-year TFA students.

Researchers administered the questionnaire to each cohort during oneof their spring 2008 face-to-face classes. Laptops were brought in forthose without laptops, and all students completed the survey question-naire online. Of the 109 TFA students who were enrolled in the five com-parable classes and contributed to the first semesters evaluation results,88 completed the online survey questionnaire (response rate = 81%).

Coefficient-alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability(Cronbach, 1951) were computed for each of the five factors included inthe survey instrument and are reported in Table 1. As illustrated, each


10/34


factor is at an acceptable alpha level. Values below 0.70 are often consid-ered unacceptable (Nunnally, 1978). This instruments alpha levelswarrant the use of this survey instrument for the purposes of this study.

METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS

To determine if the differences between TFA students and their tradi-tional peers who scored the same courses taught by the same instructorsat the end of their first semester were actually significant, ttests for dif-ferences between two independent means were used to examine differ-ences using group means, group standard deviations, and the totalnumber of students who evaluated their courses/instructors (non-TFAn

= 133; TFAn= 104). Differences that were statistically significant at a pvalue 0.01 (two tailed) are noted. To control for Type I error,researchers used Bonferronis approach and divided the significantpvalue p 0.05 by the number of factors included on the Likert-type sec-tion of the survey instrument (five). Thus, the value ofp 0.01 was usedas the cutoff for statistical significance. Actualpvalues are reported.

For effect sizes, researchers calculated Cohens d using independentgroup means and standard deviations for all factor scores. Some educa-tional statisticians believe that only statistically significant effect sizesshould be included in calculations of average effect sizes (Robinson &Levin, 1997), whereas others criticize this position on the basis that it canlead to misinterpretations of overall results. Members of this secondcamp believe that all effect sizes should be reported and averaged regard-less of statistical significance (Thompson, 2006). As such, effect sizes forall statistically significantpvalues and allpvalues regardless of statisticalsignificance were averaged, yielding two mean effects.

In addition, participant responses to the open-ended, free-responsequestions included on the student evaluation instrument were read,coded, and reread to categorize into bins (Miles & Huberman, 1994).Once bins became focused and mutually exclusive in nature, the itemswere collapsed into categories, quantified, and labeled.

Table 1. Survey Instrument Coefficient Alpha Estimates of Internal Consistency Reliability

Factor Within-Factor Items Coefficient Alpha Estimate of Reliability

Overall score Items 128 0.895

Overall testing Items 19 0.875

Overall instructor Items 1019 0.795

Overall course content Items 2024 0.797

Overall affective Items 2528 0.707


11/34


Researchers then presented the working themes to a sample of 7 TFAstudent participants invited to participate in a follow-up focus groupbecause of their expressed and active interest in improving the program.Thereafter, working themes were left intact, edited for accuracy, or leftalone without additions or deletions.

To capture which of the items included on the student evaluation formmattered most, TFA students were asked to rate the extent to which theyagreed that each coursework component mattered in terms of thembecoming an effective teacher. Students responded to a 4-point Likert-type scale series per item (strongly agree= 4, agree= 3, disagree= 2, stronglydisagree= 1); student responses were averaged, standard deviations werecalculated, and means were ordered highest to lowest, illustrating whichcourse/instructor items mattered most to least. Overall means were cor-related with standard deviations to determine participant levels of inter-group agreement as related to the items that students thought mattered.

Participant responses to the open-ended, free-response items includedon the survey instrument also underwent qualitative data analysis (seepreceding discussion).

RESULTS

FALL 2007 STUDENT EVALUATIONS

To reiterate, when the instructors who taught the same courses to bothtraditional and TFA students noticed that TFA students scored theircourse content and instructional effectiveness substantially lower,researchers explored differences across the fall 2007 student evaluations.TFA students were more critical consumers, critical in the sense that theyneededor, more appropriately, felt that they neededjust-in-timeknowledge as practicing teachers in charge of real-time classrooms. Ifinstructors did not deliver what the TFA students thought they needed tomeet the everyday challenges in their high-needs schools, they gradedtheir instructors down.

As stated, 4 instructors taught the same classes to two different sectionsof students during the same semester (one instructor taught three sec-tions: two TFA and one traditional). Student evaluation is broken intofive factorsoverall score, overall course content, overall instructor, over-all testing, and overall affectivewhich yielded a total of 25 sets of differ-ent scores to be tested for statistical significance. To test whetherinstructors received lower scores from their TFA students, theresearchers gathered all sets of student evaluation data and analyzedempirically whether this was the case. It was.


12/34


Out of the 25 total comparisons, 16 ttests (64%) yielded statistically sig-nificant differences (p 0.01), 100% of which illustrated that TFA stu-dents did in fact rate their courses and instructors more harshly than didtheir non-TFA peers (see Table 2). The average mean difference illus-trates that instructors teaching TFA students were graded one quarter ofa category lower (-0.25 on a Likert-type scale, 14 with 4 being outstand-ing) than they were in their seemingly identical content courses teaching

Overall ScoreOverallTesting

OverallInstructor

OverallCourseContent

OverallAffective

n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Instructor 1Non 27 3.88 0.28 3.82 0.39 3.90 0.23 3.88 0.30 3.94 0.21

TFA 22 3.57 0.37 3.50 0.43 3.63 0.38 3.43 0.77 3.75 0.40

Mean difference 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.45 0.19

p values *0.002 *0.008 *0.004 *0.008 *0.033

Effect sizes 0.43 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.29

Instructor 2Non 16 3.94 0.21 3.94 0.22 3.96 0.18 3.94 0.25 3.94 0.25

TFA 20 3.87 0.19 3.74 0.30 3.95 0.12 3.84 0.32 3.96 0.17

Mean difference 0.07 0.20 0.01 0.10 -0.02

p values 0.276 *0.029 0.901 0.320 0.722Effect sizes 0.17 0.36 0.03 0.17 -0.04

Instructor 3Non 32 3.86 0.27 3.86 0.25 3.86 0.28 3.85 0.30 3.88 0.27

TFA 24 3.34 0.52 3.16 0.35 3.44 0.52 3.31 0.76 3.53 0.55

Mean difference 0.52 0.70 0.42 0.54 0.35

p values *0.000 *0.000 *0.000 *0.001 *0.003

Effect sizes 0.53 0.75 0.45 0.42 0.37

Instructor 4Non 32 3.86 0.27 3.86 0.29 3.86 0.28 3.85 0.33 3.88 0.27

TFA 22 3.49 0.39 3.40 0.39 3.49 0.43 3.43 0.47 3.67 0.42

Mean difference 0.37 0.46 0.37 0.42 0.21

p values *0.000 *0.000 *0.000 *0.000 *0.028

Effect sizes 0.48 0.56 0.45 0.46 0.29

Instructor 5Non 26 3.58 0.52 3.44 0.62 3.62 0.50 3.53 0.66 3.81 0.38

TFA 16 3.62 0.29 3.48 0.33 3.73 0.32 3.49 0.58 3.84 0.27

Mean difference -0.04 -0.04 -0.11 0.04 -0.03

p values 0.742 0.800 0.416 0.848 0.793

Effect sizes -0.05 -0.04 -0.13 0.03 -0.05

Table 2. Statistically Significant Differences Between Non-TFA and TFA Student Ratings and Effect Sizes

Note. For fall 2007, please see the numbers of students who evaluated their instructors per class (n), instruc-tors mean scores per course evaluation factor (with 4.0 being most desirable score), standard deviations

per instructor and factor (SD), mean differences per instructors teaching non-TFA versus TFA students,pvalues (which are noted if levels of statistical significancep .01), and Cohens deffect sizes.

* indicates that mean difference is significant atp .01.


13/34


traditional education students. Including only statistically significanteffect sizes, the mean effect was 0.43, which might be interpreted as amedium effect. Including all effect sizes, the mean effect was 0.23, whichmight be interpreted as a small effect.

Again, these were the only comparable data that could be culled fromthe larger data set and analyzed to determine whether faculty percep-tions were indeed accurate. Results from this section are not expected togeneralize given the small sample size. Results simply indicated that fur-ther exploration was justifiable and sound.

And whether these results were due to a halo effect (students form afavorable view of their instructor and respond to specific items with thispositive holistic impression) on the part of the traditional education stu-dents or due to a severity error (inversely related to a halo effect; studentsform an unfavorable view of their instructor and respond to specificitems with this negative holistic impression) on the part of the TFA stu-dents warranted further inquiry. Why was it that TFA students gradedtheir instructors in a different and more critical way? To further explorethis, researchers analyzed the qualitative comments included on the stu-dent evaluation, by groups and instructor, to help make sense of thequantitative data.

The first round of analysis explored the ratings of students who did notinclude any comments in the open-ended, free-response section on theevaluation instrument. Only 20% of traditional students completed theevaluation without writing any qualifying comments, whereas more thantwice as many TFA students (42.6%) chose to let their numerical evalua-tions stand without further detail. In other words, TFA students weretwice as likely to consider the evaluation complete without sharing per-sonal feedback about the quality, or lack thereof, of coursework and/orinstruction. The ratings of all students who did not include commentswere then analyzed to determine if a correlation between no commentsand high or low scores could be established. It could not. The lowest eval-uation score for all instructors was 1.6, from a student in a traditional pro-gram, and 17% of TFA students awarded perfect 4s, compared with 50%of traditional students.

The next step was to look at the evaluations that included comments.More than half of all evaluations (68%) included comments that pro-vided insight into how students perceived the quality of their instructorand the required course. About half of the evaluations that includedcomments were positive. Traditional students were more likely to write apositive comment than were the TFA students. Within positive com-ments, traditional students shared their appreciation for their instructorswho were knowledgeable and taught with enthusiasm and relevancy, and


14/34


from a practical perspective. Traditional students also appreciated thecontent of the course itself. Superlatives such as amazing, awesome, andfantasticwere used 50% less often by TFA students than traditional stu-

dents to describe the same instructor.In contrast, TFA students positive comments focused more on the per-

sonal qualities of the instructor, praising helpfulness, organization, andpreparedness. Instructors who rocked, according to several TFA stu-dents, were those who demonstrated personal interest in them, theirroles as teachers of record, and the children in their classrooms. Beingavailable for help outside of class was another indicator of an effectiveTFA instructor. TFA students were also much less apt to comment on thequality of the course (TFA at 6% and traditional at 21%) and were less

likely to note their level of satisfaction with how much they learned fromthe course (TFA at 4% and traditional at 18%).

Traditional students were twice as likely to present any critical com-ments about the instructor or course by beginning with something theyliked and then sharing a concern. For example, one traditional studentwrote:

Jacob is very motivational and a positive role model for futureteachers. The only feedback I have for his instructional methodis to do more demonstrations to class on how to do certain tasksand to have a syllabus updated as things change. Todays collegestudents, regardless of level, require strict structure concerningdue dates, expectations, etc. Thanks.

TFA students were less cordial: I think some of the activities were busywork or seemed below us. We understand the value of practice but we arealso educated adults.

Instruction not geared to personal grade levels or grade-level prefer-ences was critiqued sharply by students from both programs. Studentsalso critiqued issues with scheduling. Meeting less often and meeting forshorter periods were common suggestions. Misuse of valuable time wasnoted often by TFA students, and traditional students voiced displeasurewith unclear assignments and lack of variety in teaching methods.

SPRING 2008 STUDENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

A 35-item student survey instrument, part of which was aligned with theactual student evaluation instrument on which TFA students scored theircourses/instructors lower, was administered online to discover what itwas that TFA students found lacking in their coursework and what they


15/34


desired from their instructors. Researchers used this instrument to probemore deeply into TFA students perceptions and expectations.

When TFA students were asked to rate the extent to which the course

and instructor qualities mattered in terms of their learning how to be aneffective teacher, students collectively agreed that more traditionalinstructional practices and course qualities mattered most. Averages illus-trating what mattered most correlated with standard deviations at a statis-tically significant, high level (r= -0.89; p 0.01). The higher the meanevaluation factor, or the more the factor mattered, the lower the standarddeviation.

In other words, students responded in more homogeneous ways to theitems they collectively believed mattered most in terms of their profes-

sional teacher preparation. Students thought that traditional itemsrelated to course content (whether course material was helpful, whetherthe class was well organized, and whether assignments were clear) andtraditional items related to the instructor (whether the instructor wasorganized and prepared for class, clarified difficult points, and gave clearpresentations) were more important than items related to tests andhomework assignments, the fairness of the grading system, and whetherthe instructor created a friendly atmosphere or congratulated studentswhen they did well. Course content and instructor factors outweighed all

other factors for these students (see Table 3).

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics Illustrating What Mattered to TFA Students

Q# Strongly agree= 4; Agree= 3;Disagree= 2; Strongly disagree= 1 n M SD

3 Course material helped me in my professional development 88 3.77 0.45

8 Assignments were appropriate 3.72 0.52

9 Class activities were a valuable learning experience 3.68 0.56

6 Class was well organized 3.59 0.56

7 Assignments were clear to students 3.58 0.62

15 Instructor organized class time sensibly and effectively 3.56 0.5813 Instructor seemed current on the subject 3.54 0.64

17 Instructor was prepared for class 3.40 0.67

11 Instructor successfully clarified difficult points 3.38 0.65

18 Instructor gave clear presentations 3.38 0.63

20 Tests & assignments helped me focus on what I was supposed to learn 3.38 0.70

16 Instructor emphasized important points 3.37 0.65

21 Tests & assignments reflected what I was taught 3.26 0.75

14 Instructor was available for help 3.24 0.70

25 Instructor cared about students learning 3.22 0.80

2 Content of course matched the stated purpose of the course 3.20 0.6626 Atmosphere in the class was friendly and helpful 3.20 0.82

28 Instructor seemed interested in teaching the course 3.16 0.78


16/34


This verified the researchers initial hypothesis that TFA studentswanted (what they perceived to be) critical knowledge on a just-in-timebasis. This also verified the researchers hypothesis that TFA studentsbelieved that their ability to capture (again, what they perceived to be)critical knowledge was largely due to the practicality of course contentand the timely, organized, and clear way in which practical content was

delivered.Next, TFA students were asked what course qualities they valued most

or thought would help them become effective teachers. If studentsresponded to this question with a response related to instructor quality(e.g., a knowledgeable instructor), their responses were removed fromthe analysis and composite results. The 88 student participants provided260 values within their free responses to this question. These are pre-sented in aggregate form here.

TFA students indicated most often that they valued course qualities typ-

ical of students under pressurethat is, completing coursework andteaching in high-needs schools at the same time. A plurality of studentrespondents stated that they valued course activities, assignments, strate-gies (mentioned 5 times more often than instructional methods or teach-ing techniques), and resources that served their immediate needs. TFAstudents also valued courses in which methods and resources could bepractically applied and made sense or were relevant to real-time teach-ing. Last, they valued courses that were reasonable, defined by TFA stu-dents as courses that included light amounts of work, little to no

homework, manageable assignments, and assignments that were not toochallenging, overwhelming, or distracting given their full-time jobs in thefield. Student responses illustrating this include the following:

1 Instructor clearly identified content of course in terms of learning 3.07 0.73

19 Instructor spoke clearly and understandably 3.07 0.73

4 Course objectives or goals are presented to students 3.06 0.81

23 The grading system was fair to students 3.02 0.9327 Instructor helped me appreciate the subject 3.02 0.83

5 Syllabus was helpful to us in the course 2.99 0.88

22 Assignments were graded fairly 2.98 0.95

24 Grading policy was clearly stated by instructor at beginning of class 2.83 0.98

10 Instructor encouraged student participation 2.74 0.80

12 Instructor informed students when they did well 2.67 0.86

Pearson correlation coefficient (of averages by standard deviations) r= -0.89;p .01

Note. Descriptive statistics derived from the 28 items that TFA students were asked to rate, given the extent

to which the course and instructor qualities taken from the current student evaluation form (see theappendix) mattered in terms of their learning how to be an effective teacher.


17/34


Stuff I can use NOW, TOMORROW, NEXT WEEK ApplicabilityCan I put this into MY CLASS? I dont want resources

for the future. I can find those when I need them. I want what INEED NOW. Getting resources and advice I can use TOMORROW.

Learning anything that will help my students learn IMMEDIATELY.

A second, much smaller set of TFA student responses indicated thatthey valued course qualities more similar to what their instructors mighthave hoped they would note. These students responded that they valuedcourses in which they learned research-based methods and best practicesthat would help them become more professional teachers. They valuedchallenging and demanding courses that they felt illustrated traditionalmasters courses; courses with positive atmospheres; opportunities tointeract and collaborate with peers; and climates that were conduciveto their learning, in that order. One student stated that courses shouldbe fun.

Next, TFA students were asked what instructor qualities they valuedmost or thought would help them learn to become effective teachers. Ifstudents responded to this question with a response related to coursequality (e.g., a class with little homework), their responses were removedfrom the analysis and composite results. The 88 student participants pro-vided 294 values within their free responses to this question. These arepresented in aggregate form here.

TFA students indicated most often that they valued instructor qualitiestypical of students who needed content directly related to their teachingresponsibilities. A plurality of these students stated that instructorsshould not waste their time. They also valued instructors who understoodtheir lives as real-time teachers in high-needs schools, and their struggleswhen attempting to balance their working-in-school and learning-in-col-lege time. They valued instructors with experience, particularly in shar-ing practical strategies that they could apply immediately, just-in-time, thenext day. They valued instructors who they perceived were knowledge-able and markedly intelligent. Last, they valued instructors who wereorganized and prepared, clear and clarified difficult points, and wereaccessible, available, and approachable. Student responses illustratingthis include the following:

That they are understanding of our unique situation and create aclass that supports, not interferes with our schedules as teachers.

An instructor who respects our situation as first-year TFA memberswe are stressed to the nth degree and sometimes professors do notseem to care that TFA adds all this pressure to you.


18/34


I want an instructor who understands where Im coming from. Myeducation is secondary, and since we are actually teaching real stu-dents, I would appreciate an instructor that understands that andcan cater to my needs.

An instructor that doesnt make us do the corny teaching things (likejigsaws).

Provides meaningful learning activities rather than fluff (creatingposters and other time fillers).

OrganizationCan I tell from the get go what I have to do? Give mebulleted lists of the elements of assignments.

A second, much smaller set of TFA student responses indicated thatthey valued the instructors affective characteristics. These studentsresponded that they valued instructors who were engaging and dynamic;rigorous and challenging; honest, positive, humorous, fair, and profes-sional; open-minded and reflective; friendly and respectful; and strongand confident; who built a strong classroom community; and who werestudent-focused, in that order.

Next, students were asked about their expectations for their TFA mas-ters-level course. The 88 student participants expressed 279 expecta-tions. A plurality of these students stated that they expected that theircourses would be more practical or applied. Students also wanted relevant coursework that could be immediately applied. These responsescomplement and validate the results presented earlier, when studentswere asked what course qualities mattered most.

In response to this question, however, students were much more vocaland wrote significantly lengthier responses. This might serve as an indi-cation that they were frustrated that what they expected was not what wasdelivered. Students expressed that they felt that much of the courseworkwas worthless busy work, especially if some of the course activities tookplace online. Students wanted more challenging and intellectually stimu-lating coursework, and some believed that required readings, quizzes,tests, midterms, class projects, and case studies were a waste of time. They wanted less fluff and cognitive stuff and more nitty-gritty. Studentswanted increased opportunities to engage in discussions and debates andshare ideas with their peers, and coursework that was reasonable andmanageable. Student responses illustrating this include the following:

My expectations are skewed because of our circumstances. Nothingwill ever seem as rigorous as actually teaching everyday. Its like beingthrown into war daily and complaining that our evening shootingpractice doesnt feel real enough.


19/34


Busy work, exams, projects that I couldnt use in my classroom, etc.is frustratingI teach 5060 hours a week and to spend time onsomething that I cant use is annoying.

My expectations are that [the university] will respect our time andmake sure their [sic] is no fluff in the course.

Students also stated that they wanted courses to help them expandtheir knowledge about teaching and education in general; some statedthat they thought their courses were light on research and theory andthought that coursework should be based on the TFA standards. One stu-dent disagreed, charging that the TFA standards were limited.

Next, students were asked about expectations for their TFA masters-level instructors. The 88 student participants expressed 291 expectations.A plurality of these students stated that they expected that their instruc-tors would be more experienced as teachers in the classroom and morelikely to draw on these experiences in practical ways. Students alsoexpected knowledgeable and intelligent instructors; a fraction of thesestudents expected instructors with PhDs. Students also expected instruc-tors who would be more understanding of their situations and be reason-able and flexible in response. Student responses illustrating this includethe following:

They [should be] clear, prepared, to the point, have taught (or areat least up to date on the subject matter) and most importantly,REALIZE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY TEACHING. I feel thatsome professors talk down to us or dont realize that we are teachingand have figured out a lot of things on our own. Teaching us how toteach counting is ridiculous. I figured that one out in August.

I dont expect special treatment, but I do expect my instructors toknow that I am currently teaching 100 students on a daily basis, thatI am giving my life to help my kids out. When I come to class for 5hours, I want my instructor to at least fill it with practical, usefulcontent.

These complement and validate the results presented earlier, when stu-dents were asked what instructor qualities mattered most. But inresponse to this question, again, students were much more vocal and wrote significantly lengthier responses, serving again as an indicationthat they were frustrated that what they expected was not what theyreceived. Students expressed that they felt like they were not treated likemasters students and not respected given their academic histories; a frac-tion of these students were especially frustrated by instructors no-laptop


20/34


policies. These students felt like this policy in particular was an indicationof disrespect. Student responses illustrating this include the following:

We are adults and should be treated as such (ie: dont nag me, let memake my own decisions, I am able to multi-task and Im a grown-up!Some professors do not treat us like adults and thats INCREDIBLYannoying.)

The instructor should teach us at the level we should be learning andtreat us at that level. We are masters students that have come to thisprogram through another program that weeds out unqualified peo-ple. Therefore, we are all intelligent, capable people, and we are notbeing treated as such.

In terms of instruction, TFA students expected their instructors to beorganized, prepared, clear, and to the point. Some students wantedfewer, better lectures, and a fraction were frustrated by instructors whoused others previously created PowerPoint presentations. Some of thesestudents expected instructors to model teaching practices more oftenand suggested that instructors actually practice what they preach; yet oth-ers stated that was a bad idea. Student responses illustrating this includethe following:

A teacher who just sits there and feeds me powerpoints about irrele-vant information or makes me do assignments that have no bearingwhatsoever on my teaching is not what I expect. I expect a teacherwho can level with me, who understands where I am coming from,and who tailors instruction according to that.

Were told to teach high up on Blooms, yet we are being taught to ona very low level. This is infuriating.

I expect instructors to be able to engage me, and willing to move intoa meta level of conversation where they can question their ownexpectations, assumptions, and practice as well as challenge me toexamine mine. Currently, it seems like many instructors see them-selves as conduits of information, and not so much as active agentswilling to negotiate about knowledge.

Otherwise, students expected their instructors to be accessible andhelpful, engaging and dynamic, rigorous and challenging, efficient, open-minded and reflective, friendly and respectful, and caring, in that order.

Next, students were reminded that during the fall 2007 semester, manyTFA students complained that what they were receiving was not masters-level work, nor what they expected from a masters-level course. So


21/34


students were asked whether this reflected what they thought in order todetermine if the sentiments of some of their classmates generalizedacross their peers. If they felt this way, they were asked to respond why.

All 88 student participants replied to this question. A majority of stu-dents agreed with these comments, about 1 in 3 disagreed, and fewerwere unsure as to whether this was the way they perceived their courses.As qualifiers, the 88 student respondents expressed 193 explanations.

For those who wrote that they agreed, students stated that their courseswere too easy, that their courses were not challenging enough, and thatthe things they learned were irrelevant. These students also expressedthat they would have felt more challenged if they had been given moreopportunities to think critically about research-based practices. On a sim-ilar note, they felt that too much of their courses consisted of busy work,especially when disconnected assignments, readings, discussion boards,and quizzes/tests were given online outside of class. They expressed thatthey felt that the preceding were due to instructional quality (instructorswithout PhDs) and instructional methods; that their instructors did notrespect them as exceptional graduate students and tailor instruction totheir learning needs; and that, because their instructors were not asknowledgeable as expected, they filled their classroom instruction withfluff. One student felt that (s)he already learned everything at the pre-masters institute, so what the coursework offered was a waste of time;another felt that if class sizes were smaller, students might be more ableto learn more pertinent and relevant information. Student responsesillustrating this include the following:

Yes, this reflects what I think. Courses so far were either not engag-ing or were taught almost haphazardlyas though it did not matterwhether we completed them successfully or not. I do not expect an

instructor to tell me that my assignments dont matter, that I justneed to complete SOMETHING to meet minimum requirementsand pass. If a masters course doesnt expect me to challenge myselfand exceed, then what is its purpose? I dont mind doing a lot ofwork if it is clearly relevant and I understand how it will improve myteaching.

Yes. It was a joke. I couldnt tell you right now what I learned fromthe fall semester besides a few random points here and there. I knowthat ELL stands for English Language Learner and that SEI stands

for Sheltered English Instruction. Thats about it. I do not know whatmasters level work is supposed to be, but what I have experienced sofar is a bunch of busy work that stresses me out mixed with a bunchof useless assignments that I could have done in high school.


22/34


On the flip side, TFA students who wrote that they disagreed or wereunsure did not feel like they were masters students in this program, butthey attributed this to working full time as nonrepresentative masters stu-dents. These students noted that the masters degree program fit well within their situations as classroom teachers and really did not wantmore, given that they knew they could not handle more.

These students also expressed that their answers to this questiondepended on their individual classes. Many did not know what to expectof a masters class, particularly a masters class in the field of education,so they were hesitant to judge the programs quality. A large number ofstudents expressed that they did not know what all of the fuss was aboutand were more worried than anything that because of their peers com-plaints, they might get more work if program administrators took whatthe critical students had to say seriously. A student response illustratingthis includes the following:

Point blank, I will get out of these classes what I put in, and I am notputting in much, so I have not been getting much out of it. Never inmy life have I had to choose between my own education and some-thing else. At this time, that something else, teaching, comes firstbefore everything. I have put teaching over my physical and mentalhealth (an unintelligent idea) and my own education. I come last.

Next, students were informed that they were much more critical thantheir peers enrolled in the same classes in the traditional teacher educa-tion program. TFA students were more critical consumers of the coursecontent delivered and more critical of their instructors, so they studentswere asked why they thought their responses were more severe.

All 88 student participants replied to this question, with 184 explana-tions. Students felt that they were more critical because they were collec-tively more intelligent, were Ivy Leaguers who graduated from some ofthe top universities in the country, and were raised in these institutionsto be critical thinkers and more reflective and outspoken than theirpeers. TFA students also felt that they were more critical because theywere in a state of emergency, teaching in hyper-pressure environments,in high-needs schools, in sometimes unsafe neighborhoods.

Some students were ultracritical if what they were learning in theircourses was wasting their extremely precious time or not serving theirimmediate needs. On a similar note, students thought that they werehypercritical because they were tired, super-stressed, annoyed, bitter, irri-table, moody, mean, angry, hostile, and disgruntled. Students also feltthat because they were overachievers with higher expectations than


23/34


students in traditional education courses, they did not want to just get byand cruise through their coursework.

TFA students also felt that they responded in more valid ways becausethey better understood why feedback was important, given that they werebeing evaluated as teachers of record in their schools. In addition, theywere more likely to think their opinions mattered and they perceived thatthe university was willing to listen to what they had to say. Another setbelieved that they were more critical because they did not sign up for amasters degree, yet were being forced, through this particular program,to pay for it. Student responses illustrating this include the following:

Most of all, I really think that students were just generally unhappywith their lives and the pressures between our district requirements,[university] requirements, TFA requirements, having a new job, liv-ing in a new city, etc. Also, I think we are busy and tired and want ourtime used really well. We were probably more likely to get annoyedmore quickly.

TFA teachers have seen whether or not the coursework was actuallypractical. Theory does not seem useful at this point. They also havehigher expectations for the rigor. Most TFA teachers are also used to

more difficult coursework than probably most average masters andundergrad students.

1. We are critical thinkers and we criticize everything! 2. We comefrom great schools across the country and were used to a very highlevel of instruction and challenge. 3. Were overwhelmed with ourjob and look at [the university] through a negative lens as a burdenwe have to get through so we criticize it.

Another small set of students were more critical of their peers. Some

students thought that their peers were more critical because they thinkthey are generally amazing, theyre too good for everything, and theyare on a high horse from college, are elitist, hoity-toity, have a senseof entitlement, think the university owes them something, are overlyself involved, are chronic whiners, and are overly critical of every-thing. These students noted they were sometimes embarrassed becauseof this.

Last, the TFA students were asked if they had anything else to add. Ofthe 88 student participants, 57 students responded with the following:Most vented their final words of disappointment and dissatisfaction byreemphasizing the themes already discussed; some blessed the programfor the most part; some expressed their appreciation and thanks for


24/34


using this survey research study to gather their opinions and use theirfeedback to make programmatic adjustments; fewer suggested that ele-mentary cohorts should be grouped into higher and lower elementarylevels and content courses should be delivered in the first semester; andothers made positive or negative remarks about individual instructors.One student expressed thanks for offering a masters degree with in-statetuition, and another expressed that TFA should more clearly explain theexpectations of this program so that students are aware of what they signup for.

IMPLICATIONS

Teacher preparation programs and TFA have managed to coexist in spiteof the rhetoric surrounding the effectiveness of both. As outlined in theintroduction, most peer-reviewed academic research has examined issuesrelated to teacher effectiveness. In this new work, the authors expand theconversation to a different domain, undertaking research to criticallyevaluate the teacher preparation coursework of TFA teachers who arealternatively certified. This is no easy task.

A partnership exists between two organizations with separate and dis-tinct philosophies, and yet they must work together to support TFAs first-year teachers. The support of these teachers is comingled with multiplevariables, including TFA support, district-level professional development,and the academic coursework and supervision from the university.However, colleges only have influence in one arenacoursework andsupervision. As teacher educators and researchers, it is time to look crit-ically within colleges of education to determine how to shape teacherpreparation programs to meet the challenging needs of TFA teachers.This analysis begins with immediate examination of coursework and con-tinues with shaping long-term philosophical understandings of how TFAand universities can partner to best serve the needs of first-year teachersin some of the neediest schools in the country.

Issues identified in this study highlight key components of teacherpreparation programs coursework that need to be rethought, accordingto these alternatively certified students. Issues surrounding universityinstructors actions and course organizational structure seem to rise tothe forefront of conversations surrounding the quality of these programs.Whether these issues emerged because TFA students are simply dissimi-lar from their peers enrolled in traditional teacher programs (e.g., byeducational backgrounds, capabilities, and expectations.) or becauseTFA students have substantially different expectations as practicingteachers of record has yet to be determined.


25/34


In the future, research might be conducted to compare three sets ofteachersstudents enrolled in the colleges traditional education pro-grams, students enrolled in the colleges TFA partnership program, andstudents enrolled in another alternative certification programto sortout these variables. Conducting further research in this area might beeasier as alternative paths continue to surface and universities explorehow to best meet the needs of these alternative students.

But for the short term, there are simple solutions to some of these con-cerns. These include looking at issues of professional development foruniversity instructors and allowing them to design courses in a mannerthat best meets the needs of full-time teachers who are simultaneouslygraduate students. A teacher preparation program would benefit fromprofessional development to help instructors make the leap from work-ing with students who have the luxury of time to learn how to teach, to working with adult learners in the throes of the job today. This is animportant consideration because results indicate a disconnect betweentreating the students like masters students, and simply modeling practi-cal teaching strategies and dumbing down course content.

In addition, concrete changes in cohort structures are easy changes tomake, such as grouping students by grade level and content level whereappropriate. In other words, a class full of preservice elementary teach-ers learning about teaching third, fourth, or fifth grade because they donot know what grade they will end up teaching will not serve the teacherteaching first grade today. These first-year teachers need strategies forteaching first grade, not a future sixth-grade class that may never come tofruition.

Finally, in-class or online activities should be viewed as relevant to theimmediate needs of first-year teachers. Organizing class activities aroundreal-world teaching responsibilities is an easy changefor example, giv-ing credit for daily teaching activities such as maintaining a grade book,writing a lesson plan, or creating a classroom operating manual. Theseare simple changes to make, ones that take nothing more than time andprofessional development on the part of the teacher preparationprogram.

Questioning the deeper structure of the traditional teacher prepara-tion program and asking if this is what first-year teachers immersed in therealities of day-to-day teaching really need is the genuine challenge. Asmentioned by Walsh and Jacobs (2007), most certification programsdesigned for alternative candidates are nothing more than reformattedtraditional programs. Such is the case with this program studied; it was aprogram built off of an existing state-approved program. This was donedeliberately to fill an immediate need for certifying large numbers of


26/34


teacher candidates. There was no time, so to speak, to build a differenti-ated program.

Perhaps that is where the real problem lies: Universities are trying to fita square peg of traditional teacher preparation courses into a round holeof alternatively certified needs, and it just does not fit. Designing a pro-gram tailor made for alternatively certified teachers could take up to two years for internal university approval. However, the problem is biggerthan any one teacher preparation program or any one college of educa-tion. Even if a university undertook such a challenge, there are stillrequired state mandates placed on teacher preparation programs thatmust be included for certification.

This is a fundamental flaw in the larger policy and system of teachercertification. Until there are major changes undertaken at the state levelto address the unique needs of alternatively certified teachers (such asTFA corps members), each college of education is restricted by the con-straints of the state-mandated certification system. A one-size-fits-allapproach does not work when preparing and supporting two differentpopulations of teachersthose learning to teach before teaching, andthose teachingwhile learning to teach.

Another interesting area worthy of further exploration is the historybetween TFA and colleges of education. Specifically, as mentioned, TFAand colleges of education have an extended history, as highlighted in thefeature section of the June 2008 edition of Phi Delta Kappan (Smith,2008). Perhaps some of that struggle is manifesting itself in the studentevaluations. Although this partnership was built on a strong foundationof mutual benefit, the dual professional development programs (TFAand the university curriculum) could be contributing to the stress of thecorps members. Corps members are engaged in full-time graduate workand ongoing, extensive training from TFA. Often, researchers only focuson the initial 5-week training afforded corps members; but looking farbeyond that, there are elaborate internal systems in place for corps mem-ber support.

All this training is in addition to any professional development pro-vided by the employing school district, which is variable based on the dis-trict in which the corps member is placed. Considering the national pushfor teacher mentoring and induction programs, the corps member isoften immersed in a district-based training program during the entirefirst year of teaching. As a result, the first-year teacher ends up servingmany mastersthe employing district, TFA, and the university partner.Each master requires artifacts, evidence, and/or assignments as demon-stration of skills. In other words, during any given week, the TFA teach-ers may have three assignments due, all equally important, in addition to


27/34


the demanding responsibilities of everyday teaching.For example, in October, a midterm assignment may be due for the

masters program, TFA may ask for student achievement data, and first-quarter grades may be due for the school district. Even to a veteran, thiswould be a challenging situation. At the very time that a person is under-taking an extremely stressful new job with little training, he or she is try-ing to meet the expectations of TFA, the school district, the university,and, not to be forgotten, personal goals. Perhaps there is such a thing astoo much help, and what the corps members need as first-year teachersis one unified commitment to professional development and support.

Given that 3,800 new TFA corps members entered classrooms in 2008,perhaps it would be wise for the three entities to engage in deep conver-sations about how to work together, rather than in competition, to sup-port first-year teachers. This would be an improvement over the currentenvironment, given that students in this study often viewed universitycoursework as nothing more than another hoop through which theywere forced to jump. The real challenge would be for each organizationto recognize the areas in which they could collaborate, and in doing so,give a bit in terms of individual agendas for the good of the group. Oneentity cannot take priority over another.

CONCLUSIONS

Only through self-reflection and the willingness to consider honest feed-back can an organization improve. This was the purpose of this studyto delve into the salient constructs of an existing teacher preparationprogram to best support minimally trained teachers in high-needs class-rooms. It was found that TFA corps members rated their instructors morecritically than did non-TFA students taking the same courses, from thesame instructors. Not only did TFA students rate the instructors lower,but they also provided a more variable rating of specific course character-istics than did non-TFA students. This is interesting because of the con-structs that bring about these differencesthe differences in setting ordifferences in students that were explored herein. Most of the findingsinclude concerns surrounding instructor actions in the teacher prepara-tion program, such as designing relevant classroom assignments, makingvaluable use of class time, and having the instructors express value forthese unique first-year teachers. In the opinion of TFA students, coursecontent needed to provide just-in-time strategies and require less busywork or fewer online activities.

The major implications of this study can be summarized in one state-ment: Traditional teacher preparation programs do not necessarily work


28/34


for TFA corps members serving as first-year teachers in hard-to-staffschools. This message first resonated across the student evaluation datacollected as part of the standard university protocol for evaluatingcourses and instructors, and it became even clearer when studentsresponded to survey questions about their instructors and course con-tent. The researchers better understood TFA student needs by probinginto why this unique subset of nontraditional students rated their instruc-tors lower than their traditional peers did and what might be done toaddress program shortcomings. The answers lie in a myriad of solutions,some of which include tinkering with existing programs, reevaluatingentire teacher certification policies at state levels, and creating collabora-

tive partnerships across all stakeholders in the process.In reality, the easiest way to address the findings presented herein is tosimply adjust the existing programs in such a way that TFA first-yearteachers value required coursework in colleges of education while work-ing toward certification. However, if the effort stops short of simultane-ously looking at larger policy issues surrounding teacher certificationrequirements and creating meaningful partnerships between organiza-tions, then this research would have been conducted in vain. Resultsmight be used for nothing more than attempts to improve one program,

versus the greater goal of improving teacher preparation for alternativelycertified teachers working in some of the highest needs schools acrossthe country.

Note

1. See http://www.teach-now.org/aboutncac.cfm.

References

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,

16, 297334.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). A future worthy of teaching for America. Phi Delta Kappan,89, 730736.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R. & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation:How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach?Journal of Teacher Education, 53,286302.

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Veilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacherpreparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, andteacher effectiveness.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved April 20, 2008,

from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/Dillon, S. (2008, May 14). Teach for America sees surge in popularity. The New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/education/14teach.html?ref=us

Editorial: Teach for America. (2008, May 16). The New York Times. Retrieved from


29/34


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16fri4.htmlHopkins, M. (2008). Training the next teachers for America: A proposal for reconceptual-

izing Teach for America. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 721725.

Koerner, M., Lynch, D., & Shane, M. (2008). Why we partner with Teach for America:Changing the conversation. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 726729.

Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, September 6). The effectiveness of Teach forAmerica and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A caseof harmful public policy.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved October 3,2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/

Lipka, S. (2007). Elite company. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(42). Retrieved April 27,2008, from http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i42/42a03101.htm

Mikuta, J., & Wise, A. (2008). Teachers for America: Catalysts for change or untrained con-temporaries? Education Next, 8(2). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/teachers-for-america/

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. R. (1997). Reflections on statistical and substantive signifi-

cance, with a slice of replication.Educational Researcher, 26(5), 2126.Rochkind, J., Ott, A., Immerwahr, J., Doble, J., & Johnson, J. (2007). Working without a net:

How new teachers from three prominent alternative route programs describe their first year on the job.Naperville, IL: REL Midwest, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality andPublic Agenda.

Smith, B. M. (Ed.). (2008). A conversation about Teach for America [Special section]. PhiDelta Kappan, 89(10).

Spellings, M., & Manning, J. F. (2006). Secretarys fifth annual report of teacher quality: A highlyqualified teacher in every classroom. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Officeof Postsecondary Education.

Thompson, B. (2006). Research synthesis: Effect sizes. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B.Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 583603).

Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Trei, L. (2005, April 20). Darling-Hammond comments on controversial study: Study:

Student success linked to certification. Stanford News Service. Retrieved June 22, 2008, fromhttp://ed.stanford.edu/suse/faculty/displayFacultyNews.php?tablename=notify1&id=387

Walsh, K., & Jacobs, S. (2007). Alternative certification isnt alternative. Washington, DC:Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

APPENDIX

Student Survey Questionnaire

Part 1

Purpose of the Study:

To explore why there is a difference between TFA and traditional students on how

they respond on the college student course evaluation instrument.


30/34


Why should you participate?

Through participation in this study, you will have the opportunity to shape the future

of the colleges programs. Your opinions are of the utmost value as the college con-

tinues to adjust and modify its programs to more closely meet TFA students needs.

How long will this take?

This survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Are there any risks in participating?

As always, your participation is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to with-

draw from the survey at any time, there will be no penalty. Your participation in this

study will in no way impact your grade in any course or your progress towards degree

completion.

Your responses will be completely anonymous. The results of this study may be used

in reports, presentations, or publications but your name will not be known or used.

Results will only be shared in the aggregate form.

If you have any questions concerning this research study, please e-mail xxx xxx at

[email protected] or call xxx at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

Part 2

To what extent do you agree the following course and instructor qualities (taken from the current

student evaluation form) matter in terms of your learning how to be an effective teacher?

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree

1. Instructor clearly identified content

of course in terms of learning K K K K

2. Content of course matched the stated

purpose of the course K K K K

3. Course material helped me in my

professional development K K K K

4. Course objectives or goals are

presented to students K K K K

5. Syllabus was helpful to us in the course K K K K


31/34


6. Class was well organized K K K K

7. Assignments were clear to studentsK K K K

8. Assignments were appropriate K K K K

9. Class activities were a valuable

learning experience K K K K

10. Instructor encouraged student

participation K K K K

11. Instructor successfully clarified

difficult points K K K K

12. Instructor informed students when

they did well K K K K

13. Instructor seemed current on the subject K K K K

14. Instructor was available for help K K K K

15. Instructor organized class time

sensibly and effectively K K K K

16. Instructor emphasized important points K K K K

17. Instructor was prepared for class K K K K

18. Instructor gave clear presentations K K K K

19. Instructor spoke clearly and understandably K K K K

20. Tests & assignments helped me focus on

what I was supposed to learn K K K K

21. Tests & assignments reflected what

I was taught K K K K

22. Assignments were graded fairly K K K K


32/34


23. The grading system was fair to students K K K K

24. Grading policy was clearly stated byinstructor at beginning of class K K K K

25. Instructor cared about students learning K K K K

26. Atmosphere in the class was friendly

and helpful K K K K

27. Instructor helped me appreciate

the subject K K K K

28. Instructor seemed interested in

teaching the course K K K K

Part 3

Please answer the next series of open-ended questions about your courses and instructors.

29. What are the course qualities you value most?

30. What are the instructor qualities you value most?

31. What are your expectations for a TFA masters-level course?

32. What are your expectations for a TFA masters-level instructor?

33. In many of the course evaluations and/or surveys conducted during the fall of2007, TFA students reported that this is not masters-level work or this is not what

I expected from a masters course. Does this reflect what you think? If so, why?

Part 4

The College has been reviewing the existing student evaluation instrument in hopes of creating

a more valid and reliable measure of teaching effectiveness. In general, it seems that both our

undergraduate students and our graduate students do not differentiate between the various

items measured by the instrument.


33/34


However, TFA students were more critical consumers of our classes and differentiated between

items on the instrument in the fall of 2007.

34. Why do you think TFA students were more critical of their courses?

35. If there is anything else you would like to add, please do so here.

HEATHER CARTER is the director of Community Engagement andCommunications for the College of Teacher Education and Leadershipat Arizona State University. In this role, she has worked extensively withASU and its Teach For America Partnership specifically, as well as otherorganizations and nonprofits interested in teacher certification and pro-fessional development. Her research interests include alternative pathsto certification and teachers use of social networking sites. Two recentpublications are: Carter, H. L., Foulger, T. S., & Ewbank. A. D. (2008).Have you Googled your teacher lately? Teachers use of social networkingsites. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 681685; and Ewbank, A. D., Kay, A. G.,Foulger, T. S., & Carter, H. L. (in press). Conceptualizing codes of con-duct in social networking communities. In H. Yang & S. Yuen (Eds.),Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communitiesand networking. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

AUDREY AMREIN-BEARDSLEY is currently an assistant professor in theCollege of Teacher Education and Leadership at Arizona StateUniversity. Her research interests include educational policy, high-stakestests, and aspects of teacher quality and teacher education. She has beennationally recognized for her research in these areas. Two recent publi-cations are: Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008, March). Methodological con-cerns about the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS). Educational Researcher, 37(2), 6575; and Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2007,September). Recruiting expert teachers into hard-to-staff schools:Recovering student achievement one-step at a time. Phi Delta Kappan,89(1).

CORY COOPER HANSEN is an associate professor in the College ofTeacher Education and Leadership at Arizona State University. Herresearch interests include best practice in literacy instruction at all levels,including effective integration of technology. Her scholarship and teach-ing have received academic awards and honors. Two recent publications


34/34


are: Hansen, C. C. (2008). Observing technology enhanced literacylearning. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2).Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/25334; and Hansen, C. C.(2008). Integrating technology in early childhood literacy instruction. InA. T. Columbus & R. M. McBride (Eds.), New research on early childhoodeducation(pp. 83113). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

So NOT Amazing!

Documents

Transcript of So NOT Amazing!