Secondary Education Teacher Preparation Programs Should

Illinois State University Illinois State University

ISU ReD: Research and eData ISU ReD: Research and eData

Theses and Dissertations

7-27-2013

Secondary Education Teacher Preparation Programs Should Secondary Education Teacher Preparation Programs Should

Differentiate Curriculum and Instruction for Traditional and Differentiate Curriculum and Instruction for Traditional and

Nontraditional Preservice Teachers Nontraditional Preservice Teachers

Cynthia Jane Schairer-Kessler

Illinois State University

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd

Part of the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Schairer-Kessler, Cynthia Jane, "Secondary Education Teacher Preparation Programs Should Differentiate

Curriculum and Instruction for Traditional and Nontraditional Preservice Teachers" (2013).

Theses and

Dissertations

. 15.

https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/15

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted

for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD: Research and eData. For more

information, please contact [email protected].

SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS SHOULD

DIFFERENTIATE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR TRADITIONAL

AND NONTRADITIONAL PRESERVICE TEACHERS

Cynthia J. Schairer-Kessler

117 Pages August 2013

A quantitative study of traditional and nontraditional preservice student

teachers at the secondary level at Illinois State University.

SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS SHOULD

DIFFERENTIATE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR TRADITIONAL

AND NONTRADITIONAL PRESERVICE TEACHERS

Cynthia J. Schairer-Kessler

117 Pages August 2013

Much demand remains for teacher education programs to produce highly

qualified teachers. Current trends show that almost half of today’s preservice

teachers are considered nontraditional in terms of age and life experience. The

purpose of this study was to determine whether secondary education teacher

preparation programs should differentiate curriculum and instruction for

traditional and nontraditional preservice teachers. Research questions

incorporated four variables of professional demeanor, teaching and learning,

interpersonal skills, and time management. Data was collected through a

presurvey at the beginning of the student teaching semester and a postsurvey at

the end of the semester, as well as an analysis of student teachers’ Student

Teaching Assessments. Forty-three preservice student teachers responded to

the presurvey; of those forty three, twenty-two responded to the postsurvey. Of

those twenty-two respondents, fourteen allowed access to their Student

Teaching Assessments. About half of the respondents were considered

nontraditional according to their birthdates. Data was averaged and then

compared using a two-sample t-test. While the sample was very small,

differences between the two groups did emerge. The nontraditional group

performed better on the teaching and learning part of their evaluations than the

traditional group. In addition, the nontraditional group had less trouble with

classroom management than the traditional group. Interestingly, while the

nontraditional group managed their time better than the traditional group, they

underestimated the amount of time they would spend on student-teaching tasks

outside the school. Implications for future research include a retest to attempt a

larger sample size, a test of elementary preservice teachers, and a test at

another teacher education program. Additionally, the nontraditional group can be

investigated more closely to determine whether further differentiation would be

beneficial for preservice teachers who are parents or had served in the military.

SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS SHOULD

DIFFERENTIATE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR TRADITIONAL

AND NONTRADITIONAL PRESERVICE TEACHERS

CYNTHIA J. SCHAIRER-KESSLER

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Teaching and Learning

ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY

2013

SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS SHOULD

DIFFERENTIATE CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION FOR TRADITIONAL

AND NONTRADITIONAL PRESERVICE TEACHERS

CYNTHIA J. SCHAIRER-KESSLER

DISSERTATION APPROVED:

________________________

Date Nancy I. Latham, Chair

________________________

Date Douglas D. Hatch

________________________

Date Steven Mertens

________________________

Date Cynthia L. Wilson

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the scholars and mentors who helped me find my

way. This includes a special mention to Dr. Nancy Latham for graciously

agreeing to chair the committee, Dr. Steven Mertens for his methodology help,

Dr. Douglas Hatch for advising me to rethink my study, and Dr. Cynthia Wilson,

my mentor since my student-teaching days. In addition, Dr. Thomas Crumpler

and Dr. Thomas Haynes helped shape my thinking.

Too many to mention are the fine teachers I had at El Paso High School,

the University of Illinois, the University of Georgia, and Illinois State University.

Thanks to Lynn Steffen of the Cecilia B. Lauby Teacher Education Center, who

was not only the source of my data but also my junior high math teacher.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank the BBC and my GG for their cheers

and prayers; and Rachel and David Foster for childcare and statistics help.

This dissertation is dedicated to my love, Paul, who is the sole reason I

got the chance to pursue my doctorate; to my mother, Sandra, who instilled in me

a deep love of teaching and learning; and to my sons William and Joseph who

were created at the same time as this dissertation. Your infancy and early

childhood will forever be entwined with the production of my study.

And finally, this dissertation is presented in memory of my father, Wink,

who was lost to us two weeks before my first doctoral class. I know he is proud.

C.J.S.K.

CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

CONTENTS ii

TABLES v

CHAPTER

I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND 1

Statement of the Problem 1

Novice Teachers 2

Learning Theories 3

Time Management Theory 5

Teacher Preparation at Illinois State University 6

Purpose of the Study 7

Research Questions 8

Hypotheses 9

Definitions 10

Limitations of the Study 12

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13

Highly Qualified Teachers 14

Novice Teachers 15

Teacher Preparation Programs 17

Teacher Preparation Curriculum 18

Teacher Preparation Instruction 20

Alternative Certification 23

Preservice Teachers 24

iii

Traditional Students 25

Nontraditional Students 26

Student Teachers 29

Cooperating Teachers 30

University Supervisors 31

Field Experiences 31

Student Teaching 32

Time Management Theory 33

Conclusion 34

III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES 36

Research Design 36

Participants 37

Subjects 37

Human Subjects’ Consideration 38

Sample Selection 39

Power Analysis 40

Participation Rate 41

Variables 42

Instruments 43

RDI Student Teaching Assessment 43

Preservice Teacher Perception Survey 46

Validity and Reliability 51

Statistical Procedure 53

Limitations of the Study 56

Conclusion 57

IV. RESULTS 58

Participants 58

Research Questions 61

Research Question 1 62

Research Question 2 63

Research Question 3 64

Research Question 4 65

Research Question 5 68

Research Question 6 71

Limitations 75

Summary 76

V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 77

Research Questions 77

Research Question 1 77

Results 77

Implications 78

Research Question 2 79

Results 79

Implications 79

Research Question 3 80

Results 80

Implications 81

Research Question 4 81

Results 82

Implications 82

Research Question 5 83

Results 83

Implications 84

Research Question 6 84

Results 84

Implications 86

Conclusions 87

Recommendations for Future Research 88

REFERENCES 90

APPENDIX A: Realizing the Democratic Ideal

Student Teaching Assessment 100

APPENDIX B: Preservice Teacher Perception Survey 110

TABLES

Table Page

1. Professional Demeanor Constructs on the RDI

Student Teaching Assessment 44

2. Teaching and Learning Constructs on the RDI

Student Teaching Assessment 45

3. Interpersonal Skills Constructs on the RDI

Student Teaching Assessment 46

4. Professional Demeanor Constructs on the

Preservice Teacher Perception Survey 48

5. Teaching and Learning Constructs on the

Preservice Teacher Perception Survey 49

6. Interpersonal Skills Constructs on the

Preservice Teacher Perception Survey 50

7. Time Management Constructs on the

Preservice Teacher Perception Survey 51

8. Presurvey Respondent Demographics 59

9. Postsurvey Respondent Demographics 60

10. RDI Student Teaching Assessment Participants 61

11. Research Question 1 Results for Professional

Demeanor Evaluation 62

12. Research Question 2 Results for Teaching and

Learning Evaluation 63

13. Research Question 3 Results for Interpersonal

Skills Evaluation 64

14. Research Question 4 Results for Time

Management Presurvey 65

15. Research Question 4 Results for Time

Management Postsurvey 66

16. Research Question 4 Results for t-test, Time

Management 67

17. Research Question 5 Results for t-test, Professional

Demeanor 68

18. Research Question 5 Results for t-test, Teaching

and Learning 69

19. Research Question 5 Results for t-test, Interpersonal

Skills 70

20. Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Professional

Demeanor 71

21. Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Teaching

and Learning 72

22. Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Interpersonal

Skills 73

23. Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Time

Management 74

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Statement of the Problem

College populations have been changing over the last several decades;

instead of incoming freshmen being eighteen-year-olds arriving directly after

graduating from high school, known as traditional students, many incoming

freshmen are second-career older people, or Armed Forces veterans, or even

parents who reared children before going to college themselves, known as

nontraditional students (Paccion, McWhorter, & Richburg, 2000, Lee & Lamport,

2011, Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2012).Teacher

education programs are not immune to such population changes. While much

work has gone into the creation, improvement, modification, and enhancement of

the curriculum that sustains teacher education programs, it is not evident that

much concern has been given to addressing potential differences in the learning

needs of the two groups of teacher education students. Since the goal of

collegiate teacher education programs is to produce teachers who are qualified

to teach in their chosen field of expertise, such programs should assess how well

they are accomplishing this goal. Perhaps traditional student teachers require a

different kind of guidance than nontraditional student teachers, but they are not

getting a differentiated teacher education experience.

Novice Teachers

Year after year, as teachers retire or leave their positions for other

schools or interests, across the nation schools have teaching positions available.

In order to best serve their students and community, administrators at schools

want to hire teachers who are highly qualified, which usually requires experience

teaching (Kniseley, 2011). Novice teachers by their very definition do not have

much experience teaching (Lortie, 1975; Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005). Of course,

novice teachers are not all at the same level of life experience (Lee & Lamport,

2011). Some novice teachers are young and have entered a teacher preparation

program directly upon graduating from high school. Some novice teachers are

older and may have different college degrees, or careers, or other life

experiences between high school and their current teacher preparation

programs, perhaps including some experience substitute teaching (Novak &

Knowles, 1992).

Younger novice teachers are typically emotionally and socially less

mature than older novice teachers, which can impact their attitudes and

performance in the classroom (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Tyler, 2007; Oblinger,

2003). Older novice teachers likely have additional responsibilities outside their

teaching careers, which can also impact their attitudes and performance in the

classroom (Baumlein, 2004; Justice & Dornan, 2001). Finally, novice teachers

experience frustration with managing their time with both planned and unplanned

tasks (Wilcox & Samaras, 2009). Teacher education programs strive to produce

novice teachers who are prepared to teach, and so such programs place much

emphasis on crafting appropriate curriculum and instruction to best prepare

future novice teachers.

Learning Theories

Several theories regarding how students in teacher education programs

might learn can encapsulate the concepts of differentiating the learning process

for different types of students. To help describe the nontraditional college

student, the theory of andragogy lends a perspective. In 1968 Malcolm Knowles

published his definition of “andragogy; the art and science of helping adults

learn,” unlike pedagogy, which examines how children learn (Knowles, 1984, p.

6). Knowles developed five characteristics of the adult learner. These

characteristics are summarized as being self-directed, having life experiences

upon which to attach new learning, having learning needs based on societal

roles, being a problem-solver, and being internally motivated (Merriam, 2001).

However, as other scholars and Knowles himself acknowledged, children can

possess some of these characteristics while not all adults possess all of the

characteristics. Rather, the characteristics might be on a continuum, with

“teacher-directed learning,” or what is commonly known as “pedagogy” on one

end and “student-directed learning,” or what is commonly known as “andragogy”

on the other end. He also indicated that both types of learning can be

appropriate, regardless of the age of the learner, depending upon the learner’s

particular needs and the particular teaching situation (Merriam, 2001, p. 6).

Contrasted with the adult learners and the andragogy best used to

educate them are post-adolescent learners for whom pedagogy is the common

approach professors use to educate (Kugel, 1993). Such learners are optimistic,

cooperative, team players who accept authority and follow rules. They are

smarter than most people think they are, and they believe in the future, seeing

themselves as its cutting edge (Howe & Strauss, 2000, p. 7). These learners are

transitioning from children into adults, and so would be somewhere on the adult-

learning continuum, although more on the pedagogical end than the andragogical

end.

A second theory related to both andragogy and pedagogy is

constructivism, a learning theory currently taught by teacher educators to future

teachers. Based on Jean Piaget’s work, constructivism is a manner of building or

attaching new information or learning to old, learned knowledge. Students

“understand something when it has meaning for them or makes sense to them”

(Killen, 2007, p. 11). Educators refer to the attached, acquired knowledge as

“scaffolding” upon which new information is built. One could rationalize that

students with more life experiences would have more scaffolding upon which to

attach new information and knowledge than people with fewer life experiences

would. Just as teacher educators are teaching future teachers about the

implications of scaffolding, so might teacher educators consider the implications

of scaffolding for their own classes. Teacher educators might also consider that

their learners could be at various points on the pedagogy-andragogy continuum.

Twenty years ago, a secondary education teacher preparation program

might have had only a couple of nontradtional students enrolled. Today, at Illinois

State University, almost one third of the secondary education preservice teachers

are nontraditional. Therefore, most likely almost one third of secondary education

preservice teachers have more scaffolding upon which to attach new information

than the other two thirds of secondary education preservice teachers. Such

differences in life experiences and scaffolding can impact the way new

knowledge is acquired, the type of new knowledge acquired, and the amount of

new knowledge acquired. The scaffolding each student brings to the class

influences the learning of each student, and subsequently, the preparation of the

teacher educator.

Time Management Theory

Using time wisely as both a student and as a student teacher is important

and not explicitly taught by teacher preparation programs. Although students are

expected over the course of their undergraduate program to plan for their time

and get assignments turned in for grading on time, no required class in the

curriculum teaches them exactly how to do this. Yet planning the use of time is

instrumental in the art of teaching: planning the length and pace of lessons, the

time used to grade students’ work, and even planning a time to plan time.

Time for teachers can be described in two ways: didactic time, which is a

linear, chronological framework for applying and evaluating lessons; and time

capital, which is the objective value attached to a time-taking activity. Didactic

time is what “regulates the activity of the teacher” and time capital is the

worthiness of spending time on a particular pursuit (Assude, 2005, p. 185).

Research suggests that older adults, including older students, report more desire

to pursue work-related activities and less desire to pursue sleep than younger

adults, or younger students (Chen, Lee, Pethel, Gutowitz, & Kirk, 2012). The

desire to pursue work-related activities most likely translates to more time spent

pursuing work-related activities. Nontraditional students who spend more time

working on their student teaching, for example, might have better results and

more impact on student learning than traditional students who perhaps spend

less time on student-teaching activities.

Teacher Preparation at Illinois State University

Teacher preparation programs generate novice teachers, both traditional

and nontraditional, so therefore these programs attend to both groups before

they are novice teachers, at the student-teaching phase (Darling-Hammond &

Bransford, 2005). Preservice teachers seeking bachelor’s degrees in teaching

currently undertake the same curriculum and instruction regardless of their

traditional/nontraditional status.

Specifically, ISU prepares about four hundred secondary preservice

teachers each year. In 1997, the institution’s Council for Teacher Education

created the Realizing the Democratic Ideal as a conceptual framework for its

teacher education programming. The framework concludes that “in order to have

a truly democratic society, all individuals must have a voice and that education is

the key to helping individuals develop their voices” (Illinois State University,

2011). To that end, all curriculum and teacher preparation are guided by the

principles within this framework.

At ISU, student teachers’ culminating experiences are evaluated with a

rubric based on the Realizing the Democratic Ideal (RDI). Evaluators use this

rubric to rate a student teacher’s overall performance in the classroom. This

rubric is divided into three major categories: professional demeanor,

interpersonal skills, and teaching and learning. Scores are given on a continuum

from unacceptable, to satisfactory, to proficient, to exemplary, which is rarely

seen in student teaching. The rubric also has descriptive paragraphs for each

category and each scoring section (Appendix A). All student teachers must be

rated with the same rubric, regardless of age or experience.

In order to produce graduates, or novice teachers, who are highly

qualified to teach soon after graduation from teacher preparation programs,

teacher preparation programs should address the needs that these differences in

life experiences and age may require. Traditional preservice teachers (those who

are in their first bachelor degree program just after finishing high school),

particularly at the student-teaching stage, may require a different kind of

guidance as compared to nontraditional preservice teachers at the student-

teaching stage, but currently are not provided differentiated educational

experiences.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine whether secondary education

teacher preparation programs should differentiate curriculum and instruction for

traditional and nontraditional preservice teachers. Comparisons were made at

the end of their student teaching, and were explored and defined in order to

inform teacher educators as to possible programmatic changes to accommodate

better the two groups in their teacher preparation and student-teaching

experiences.

Research Questions

The following questions guided the research design, methodology, data

collection, and data analysis for this study. The questions incorporated the

dependent variables, which were the scores on the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment (Appendix A) and the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

(Appendix B). Specifically, the scores were grouped by the constructs defined by

the framework of the RDI Student Teaching Assessment, such as professional

demeanor, teaching and learning, and interpersonal skills, and an additional

construct, time management. The independent variables were the preservice

teachers’ status as either traditional or nontraditional. The independent variables

were defined only by date of birth, not by high school graduation date.

1. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the professional demeanor construct of the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment?

2. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the teaching and learning construct on the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment?

3. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the interpersonal skills construct on the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment?

4. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the time management construct on the Preservice Teacher Perception

Survey?

5. How did traditional preservice student teachers compare to

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their rates of

correlation between their perceptions of the constructs per their

Preservice Teacher Perception Surveys and their actual assessed

performance per their RDI Student Teaching Assessments?

6. How did both groups of preservice student teachers compare before

their student teaching experience to after their student teaching

experience?

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses informed the choice of one of the data

collection instruments, the RDI Student Teaching Assessment, and the design of

the other data collection instrument, the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey.

The null hypothesis is a prediction of no difference between the two groups.

1. There is no difference between the perceptions of predicted

performance of traditional preservice student teachers and

nontraditional preservice student teachers.

2. Both traditional preservice student teachers and nontraditional

preservice student teachers will show the same amount of growth in a

performance-based assessment from the beginning of their student

teaching experience to the end of their student teaching experience.

These null hypotheses were the basis for future extrapolation of

predictive preservice teacher performance. If the hypotheses proved not true,

that could imply that teacher preparation programs do need to differentiate

curriculum and instruction for the two different groups of preservice teachers. If

the hypotheses proved null, then no changes would be indicated.

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the following terms were used. The first two

terms were defined from a compilation of several studies and reports, including

from the Illinois State University Teacher Education Center as well as United

States of America government reports.

1. Traditional preservice student teacher – a college student who has

passed all relevant coursework, is in the final semester of teacher

training, and entered the teacher education program immediately upon

graduating from high school, and is in his/her early twenties (Paccion,

McWhorter, & Richburg, 2000, Lee & Lamport, 2011, Advisory

Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2012).

2. Nontraditional preservice student teacher – a college student who has

passed all relevant coursework, is in the final semester of teacher

training, and entered the teacher education program after first

obtaining a different college degree or after spending more than one

year in one or more careers other than teaching, and is older than

early twenties (Paccion, McWhorter, & Richburg, 2000, Lee &

Lamport, 2011, Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance,

2012).

3. Student teaching – the culminating field experience in which preservice

teachers teach students under the supervision of cooperating

classroom teachers and university supervisors. Student teaching is the

capstone of the teacher education process and occurs after clinical

experiences when all major course requirements have been met.

During student teaching, students steadily increase classroom

responsibilities and demonstrate competency in planning, assessment,

instruction, and other professional tasks (Illinois State University

College of Education Teacher Education Center, 2013).

4. Cooperating classroom teacher – a teacher who has enough

experience teaching to be trusted to guide and assess a preservice

teacher. Cooperating teachers play a vital role in the preparation of

their future colleagues. They help to transition preservice teachers

from students to professional adults. To be a cooperating teacher,

Illinois School Code mandates that applicants be licensed and

qualified to teach in the same area as the student teacher, have

three years of teaching experience in a public school or an Illinois

State Recognized nonpublic school, have received a proficient or

above performance rating in their most recent evaluation, and are

directly engaged in teaching subject matter or conducting learning

activities in the area of student teaching (Illinois State University

College of Education Teacher Education Center, 2013).

5. University supervisor – a university employee who is a liaison

between the college and the high school in which the preservice

teacher is student-teaching; will assess the preservice teacher.

University supervisors act as the intermediary between the university

and the host school to ensure the best environment for practice

teaching (Illinois State University College of Education Teacher

Education Center, 2013).

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited by its number of participants and by the

characteristics of its participants. For the purposes of narrowing the data

collection procedure, only secondary preservice teachers were studied; no

elementary or special education preservice teachers were invited to participate.

In addition, only preservice teachers at one university, Illinois State University,

were invited to participate.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The goal of teacher preparation programs is to create novice teachers

who are highly qualified to teach. Teacher preparation programs enroll, generally,

two types of students: the traditional student who enters college immediately

after graduating from high school while in his or her late teenage years, and the

nontraditional student who may already have a bachelor’s degree or higher, may

have already had a career different from teaching, and is already in his or her

mid-twenties or later. Both of these types of students will eventually become

preservice student teachers, and perhaps each type requires different treatment

from teacher preparation programs leading up to and during the student teaching

phase of their teacher preparation.

In order to create a study that compared the experience of traditional and

nontraditional preservice teachers in teacher education programs, it is crucial to

understand what previous research has discovered and illuminated. Concepts

and topics that inform this study include research related to highly qualified

teachers, novice teachers, teacher preparation programs, preservice teachers

including traditional students and nontraditional students, cooperating teachers,

university supervisors, field experiences, student-teaching experiences and time

management. An exhaustive review of the literature follows which examines and

connects those concepts and topics to this study, but reveals a dearth of

information about traditional and nontraditional preservice teachers.

Highly Qualified Teachers

In January of 2002, in a strident effort to improve unilaterally all aspects of

public education, then-President George W. Bush signed the “No Child Left

Behind Act,” also known as Public Law 107-110, which had several lofty goals.

One such goal included teachers being “highly qualified.” In the NCLB act, “highly

qualified” is defined as a teacher who “has a bachelor’s degree, meets full state

licensure, and demonstrates subject area knowledge for each core subject” he or

she teaches (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2008). States vary in their

licensure requirements for secondary teachers, with some states accepting

teachers who majored in their subject area expertise, some states accepting

teachers who minored in their subject area expertise, some states accepting

teachers who both majored or minored and passed a subject area content exam,

and some states accepting teachers who merely passed a subject area content

exam (Brown, 2004).

In the State of Illinois, to qualify to teach Language Arts in a high school,

teachers must have a major or minor in English or a related subject, pass a

subject area content test administered by the State of Illinois, and pass an

“Assessment of Professional Teaching” test (Illinois State Board of Education,

2013). The tests are pass/fail; a higher score on a test does not indicate a

legitimate designation as a more highly qualified teacher (Pearson Education

Inc., 2013). So as far as federal law is concerned, even novice teachers can be

considered highly qualified teachers if they have achieved the basic

requirements. There is no evidence to suggest that traditional preservice

teachers should take a different test that nontraditional preservice teachers; it is

assumed that all preservice teachers should be able to perform equally well on

the test. Regardless of how “highly qualified” they may be according to state

requirements, teachers with no classroom experience are novices.

Novice Teachers

Novice teachers are by definition new to the practice of teaching; they are

not necessarily new to the practice of working for a living. Novice teachers who

obtain their first teaching jobs in school districts that pay close attention to their

attrition rates fare better than those who find themselves in districts that do not

support novices enough through induction and mentoring programs. These

districts are indeed very powerful in shaping teachers through the “tasks they

assign, resources they provide, learning environments they create, assignments

they design, and conversations they provide” (Grossman & Thompson, 2004, p.

298). The research on these districts did not supply any information regarding the

status, traditional or nontraditional, of the recent graduates who were hired to

become novice teachers.

Another study examined novice teachers’ performances in professional

aspects. The participants, all novice teachers, wrote examples of dilemmas

which most perplexed them in their teaching. These dilemmas seemed to

indicate to the researchers that novice teachers are more likely than student

teachers to utilize other school personnel to solve a problem. In addition,

teachers needed more professional development to learn how to communicate

well with parents and to educate teachers about “culturally relevant” classroom

management techniques (Mastrilli & Sardo-Brown, 2002, p. 61). There was no

suggestion about the age of the novice teachers and whether they were

traditional or nontraditional graduates of the teacher education programs.

The dispositions of preservice and novice teachers have also been

examined as to who were more confident and competent and therefore more

likely to motivate their students, have more impact on student achievement, and

remain in the profession longer than teachers who were not confident and

competent (Knobloch & Whittington, 2002). While this study did describe older

novice teachers in the demographics, it did not compare or contrast these

teachers with younger novice teachers. Instead, all teachers were considered to

be the same sample of the population.

In Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Lortie, 1975), a theme common

through cases presented is that teachers teach how they were taught, thus

continuing a cycle of teaching regardless of the possible theories that were

taught to them during their teacher preparation. Preservice teachers glean more

information from the manner in which they receive their teacher training than

from the content of the teacher training. Two recent studies referred to this

concept and point to a disconnect between the research-based theory that

teacher candidates are learning in their teacher education coursework and the

instinctive practice that they rely upon when they are actually teaching (Moore,

2003). Additionally, the researchers here called the easing into the first years of

teaching “occupational socialization.” Current school and student expectations

contributed to the slow abandonment of preservice theoretical practice in favor of

more teacher-directed and teacher-centered classroom activities. Cooperation

and collaboration with colleagues also played a big part in whether these novice

teachers continued to utilize their theoretical practice or shelved it in favor of “old

school” principles (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005, p. 3). Noticeably missing is a

direct comparison of the performance of the older novices, whose elementary

and secondary educational preparation would be vastly different from the

elementary and secondary educational preparation of younger novices.

The research on novice teachers shows that their success in their

classrooms depends upon the support of their current employer, the awareness

of the need both to ask questions and to grow professionally, and the foundation

of student-teaching experience upon which they can build in their practice. The

research also reveals that novice teachers are likely to ease away from the

theoretical foundations provided by their teacher preparation schools and slip into

teaching not only the way they themselves were taught, but also the way their

more experienced colleagues are teaching.

However, there is no quantitative research to measure the degree of

professional readiness and preparedness for novices based on their status as

either traditional or nontraditional.

Teacher Preparation Programs

Common issues or struggles for novice teachers could indicate issues with

their college teacher-training or some components of their teacher education

preparation. “Colleges of education have increasingly become concerned about

what constitutes compelling evidence that graduates indeed have a significant

and positive impact on the achievement of their students” (Singer-Gabella, et al.,

2007, p. 115). Preservice teachers’ progress toward beginning teacher

competence both before full-time teaching and after graduates began full-time

teaching has been examined (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999). The researchers

acknowledge the discrepancies that exist about what knowledge and skills

beginning teachers should have, which of course would lead to the determination

of what criteria a teacher preparatory curriculum should include.

Teacher Preparation Curriculum

For example, teacher educators emphasize knowledge of subject matter

as well as pedagogical strategies for beginning teachers, while also fostering

caring, committed, and autonomous decision-makers (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).

But Singer-Gabella points out that recent federal regulations emphasize the

delivery of content matter and the ability to manage a classroom. This dichotomy

is also expressed by student teachers, whose questions and confidence evolved

around whether they know enough of the content and can effectively manage the

students.

Lee Shulman has long advocated three types of knowledge: subject

matter, such as grammar or American literature; pedagogical knowledge, which

is understanding how to explain and teach grammar or American literature so

that someone else can learn it; and within the pedagogical knowledge, the most

useful forms to present the ideas being taught and understood (Shulman, 1986).

Another way to describe this is “school knowledge, which is the transposition

from subject matter to pedagogical knowledge” (Banks, Leach, & Moon, 2005, p.

335).

A summary of existing research on teacher preparation reveals that

current studies seemed to indicate a necessary “pedagogical content knowledge”

for teachers to be effective with their students. In fact, while future teachers have

mastered the basics in their content area, they “lack the deeper conceptual

understanding necessary when responding to student questions and extending

lessons beyond the basics” (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002, p. 192). No

research “directly assesses what teachers learn in their pedagogical preparation

and then evaluates the relationship of that pedagogical knowledge to student

learning or teacher behavior” (p. 193). “Common sense decrees that both content

knowledge and professional knowledge are essential to a teacher’s education.

What is not obvious is how we should conceptualize them, how we should help

beginning teachers to acquire them, or what we should expect of beginning and

more experienced teachers” (Sosniak, 1999, p. 196). Wilson, et. al. then looked

at “What policies improve the quality of pre-service teacher education?” (p. 197).

They found no rigorous studies that “focused directly on the relationship between

policies and teacher preparation quality” (p. 198).

Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn

and Be Able To Do, edited by Linda Darling-Hammond and John Bransford

(2005), examines teacher preparatory curricula, with issues ranging from learning

theories to developmentally appropriate goals to teaching subject matter,

teaching to diverse learners, assessing student learning, managing the

classroom, and implementing curriculum change in teacher education programs.

One possible problem pointed out in this text is the manner and style in which

courses are taught. Developmentally, college students might need more

scaffolding with their education and content area classes in order to best access

this information later when they are teaching in their own classrooms. So, just as

teacher candidates are learning to “use children’s experiences strategically in

encouraging their further development,” teacher educators should use preservice

teachers’ experiences strategically to encourage their further development

(Horowitz, Darling-Hammond, Bransford, Comer, Rosebrock, & Austin, 2005).

This would require teacher educators to understand their learners and perhaps

even to differentiate their instruction based upon their learners’ status as

traditional or nontraditional.

Teacher Preparation Instruction

How teacher preparation programs teach their students is as important as

what they teach their students. The constructivist movement in education has

been evolving since its inception by Jean Piaget in the middle of the twentieth

century, and while educators for the most part agree that scaffolding and building

upon prior knowledge is a good way to teach children, teacher educators do not

use this concept when it comes to their own teaching of their students, preservice

teachers. A study by Goubeaud and Yan (2004) reveals that while the authors

admit that it remains unclear whether teacher educators’ strategies,

assessments, and grading methods impact student outcomes, they still claim that

teacher candidates who learn in programs that incorporate constructivism into

instruction will become teachers who incorporate constructivism into their own

teaching. Darling-Hammond believes that “teachers need to understand subject

matter in ways that allow them to organize it so that students can create useful

cognitive maps of the terrain under study” (1999, p. 223). Further, “understanding

subject matter in this way provides a foundation for pedagogical content

knowledge, which enables teachers to represent ideas so that they are

accessible to others” (1999, p. 224). Preservice teachers recognize these two

different types of knowledge, and fear “they will never know enough to teach.

Two fears are collapsed into one: knowing how to teach and knowing everything

there is to know about the material” (Britzman, 2003). Griffin reports that “helping

prospective teachers to think like teachers while also attending to what it is like to

be a student with that teacher is difficult …work for a teacher educator, but it

should be the central focus of teacher education programs” (Griffin, 1999, p. 15).

Some teacher education programs are trying new approaches to clinical

experience. “Campus-based teacher education has been criticized for its lack of

a theoretical base, irrelevance to schools and children, superficial nature, and

lack of unity and integration of campus and field… field experiences merely

socialize the novice teachers in the existing school environment” (Byrd &

McIntyre, 1996, p. xiv). One such attempt paired preservice teachers together to

team-teach in their student-teaching experiences. The researchers then followed

these participants into their first teaching assignments to see what impact, if any,

the peer-teaching experience had on their first year of teaching. Overall, the

novice teachers perceived their peer student teaching as a valuable experience

that prepared them well for their current jobs. The principals agreed with them,

and found that these novice teachers had better interpersonal skills than most

beginners, not only with their students but also with other faculty as well as

parents. Next, the novice teachers were better able to reflect upon their teaching,

receive and give feedback about teaching, and collaborate with other teachers

(Birrell & Bullough, 2005).

In addition, Massengill, Mahlios, and Barry (2005) examined teacher

candidates’ metaphors for themselves and how metaphors are related to how

they acquire and come to know concepts. Interestingly, these five cases revealed

that their metaphors for life, childhood, and teaching did not change over the two

years of this study. Also interesting, in the interviews, the teachers realized that

their own teaching failed to measure up to their idealized metaphors. The

implications for this study are that teacher educators need to pay closer attention

to these metaphors in order to scaffold new concepts about teaching to prior

concepts.

Technology plays an ever increasing role in education, and teacher

educators need to keep that in mind for their own classes. According to a study

by Swain, preservice teachers have a good knowledge base of technology,

particularly computers, and there is a significant need for teacher educators to

build upon that knowledge base. Unfortunately, preservice teachers picture

themselves using technology, but not in any innovative way other than the ways

to which they have been exposed (Swain, 2006).

To fully describe a concept, sometimes it is helpful to describe its

opposite, or what it is not. In addition to learning how to teach, it is perhaps a

good idea to know what it means to be a bad teacher. Another study claims that

while there is a huge knowledge base for what defines and exemplifies good

teaching, not a lot exists that defines bad teaching. Yet, sometimes it is helpful to

know what not to do, in addition to knowing what to do. Such characteristics

include “lacking subject knowledge, having poor classroom control, acting

unprofessionally, the inability to diagnose learning problems, an obsession with

method, focusing on the wrong goals or having no goals at all” (Foote, Vermette,

Wisniewski, Agnello, & Pagano, 2000, p. 129). Both student teachers and

cooperating teachers should be aware of these characteristics and work toward

avoiding the listed traits and habits. Such issues can apply to both traditional and

nontraditional new teachers.

Alternative Certification

Alternative certification usually requires that its participants have already

earned a bachelor’s degree, which would imply that most, if not all, alternative

certification students would be classified as “nontraditional.” In the State of

Illinois, those seeking alternative certification must “have graduated from an

accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree, have passed the basic

skills and subject matter tests, and successfully complete the first phase of the

Alternative Certification program” which is “the course of study offered on an

intensive basis in education theory, instructional methods, and practice teaching”

(Illinois State Board of Education, 2012). While comparing traditional teacher

education programs to alternative certification programs, one study discovered

that the traditional teacher education programs prepare teachers much more

thoroughly and effectively than the alternative certification programs. These

findings are significant because they correlate strongly to “teachers’ sense of

efficacy and their confidence about their ability to achieve teaching goals.” In

addition, accreditation used for quality control has improved teacher education

programs and therefore the teachers they produce (Darling-Hammond, Chung, &

Frelow, 2002, p. 296). In fact, Illinois State University no longer offers an

Alternative Certification program. Regardless of baccalaureate degree or only

certification, teacher education programs share a common goal, that of preparing

future teachers.

Preservice Teachers

Preservice teachers have completed their classroom coursework and are

ready for their student teaching. The student-teaching experience is a

culmination and application of the concepts studied in content-area classes and

education classes including theories of teaching and learning, pedagogical

concepts, and methodology. Preservice teachers also worry about themselves.

“They often believe that teaching is merely transmitting information and

enthusiastically encouraging students, rather than assess student learning to

guide purposefully organized learning experiences with carefully staged

supports” (The National Academy of Education, Committee on Teacher

Education, 2005, p. 33). Preservice teachers are comprised of mainly two types

of students: traditional and nontraditional.

Traditional Students

For the purposes of this study, the term “traditional” indicates the

preservice teacher who entered the university immediately upon graduating from

high school and is at the time of student teaching approximately between twenty-

one and twenty three years of age. For most reports, the definition of “traditional”

is implied as being the opposite of “nontraditional,” and the term “nontraditional”

is explicitly detailed. Traditional is seen as “recent high school graduates” while

nontraditional is “students who tended to delay entry to college from high school”

(Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2012, p.2).

On Knowles’s continuum of learner characteristics, traditional students

would tend more toward the “teacher-directed” side than the “learner-directed”

side. Instructors of traditional students tend to use more pedagogy than

andragogy (Merriam, 2001, p. 6).

The current literature, such as a textbook for nursing instructors, Nursing

Education: Foundations for Practice Excellence, (Moyer & Wittmann-Price,

2008), refers to the “millennial” student, born after 1980. Such learners are

“optimistic, cooperative team players who accept authority and follow rules; are

smarter than most people think and believe in the future and see themselves as

its cutting edge” (Howe & Strauss, 2000, p. 7). Millennials are “techno-savvy,

adept at global and diversity issues, team-oriented, multi-taskers….who lack

discretion, independence, realistic expectations, patience, work ethics, and soft

skills and the basics, such as grammar” (Tyler, 2007, p. 42). Another interesting

find is that for millennials, “computers aren’t technology, it is an assumed way of

life; doing is more important than knowing, and multi-tasking is a way of life”

(Oblinger, 2003, p. 40).

Millennials are considered “digital natives.” “These individuals have spent

their entire lives immersed in a digital culture, to the extent that it has

fundamentally changed the way in which they process information; so much so,

they possess distinct learning styles and preferences never before seen” (Nasah,

et. al., n.d., p. 532; Prensky, M. 2001).

Teacher educators must be able to understand millennials in order to get

millennials to understand the art and science of teaching while negotiating

dependably in the student-teaching setting. In light of their presumed relative

immaturity, traditional preservice teachers may have a tendency to be more

willing to claim credit for their successful experiences than they were to accept

responsibility for their unsuccessful experiences (Killen, 1994). These students

perhaps work differently with their educators and mentors compared to

nontraditional students.

Nontraditional Students

For the purpose of this study, the term “nontraditional” indicates the

preservice teacher who is in a second bachelor’s program after completing a first

bachelor’s in an area other than education, or has served in the Armed Forces

between high school graduation and university, or has had at least one different

career and has entered the university to obtain a degree in education. These

students are also known as “career switchers” or “career changers,” and many of

them have multiple roles including spouse, parent, and employee.

The counterpart to the millennial learner is the adult learner, who is more

“self-directed, possessing years of experience and a wealth of information, being

internally or intrinsically motivated; approaching learning with a desire to apply

information to solve problems, and relating new knowledge to previously learned

information and experiences” (Baumlein, 2004. p. 435). In addition, “years of

employment in the content areas allow [non-traditional teacher candidates] to

integrate school-to-work principles and practices into their content area

specializations…making the curriculum relevant and meaningful for secondary

students” (Paccion, McWhorter, & Richburg, 2000).

On Knowles’s continuum of learner characteristics, nontraditional students

would tend more toward the “learner-directed” side than the “teacher-directed”

side. Instructors of nontraditional students tend to use more andragogy than

pedagogy (Merriam, 2001, p. 6). These students would also be considered

“digital immigrants,” as they have not spent their lives immersed in a digital

culture.

In 2007, adult learners who were age twenty-four or older “currently

comprise about 44 percent of U. S. postsecondary students” (Kazis, Callahan, &

Davidson, 2007, p. 2).

A recent study of 95 college students, 58 traditional and 27 nontraditional,

found that while both groups self-reported similar levels of motivation and study

behaviors, nontraditional students used higher cognitive strategies. This led the

researchers to declare that for nontraditional students, “the ability to provide

appropriate academic experiences will depend on an understanding of the

factors that affect their learning” (Justice & Dornan, 2001, p. 248). As for

nontraditional preservice teachers, “There is a need for more research on this

population of non-traditional entrants to the teaching profession, especially those

who have had prior professional careers” (Lee & Lamport, 2011, p. 1).

Some research suggests that nontraditional preservice teachers, while

possessing skills acquired in other careers and/or having experience with raising

children, could feel inadequately prepared to student teach. They are perhaps

accustomed to complete autonomy and one-on-one working relationships with

adults, which renders them unsuited to deal with school bureaucracy and the

challenges of handling twenty or more students in a room at a time (Novak &

Knowles, 1992).

Lee and Lamport suggest that teacher educators offer realistic programs

and problem-solving coursework to accommodate nontraditional preservice

teachers and better prepare them for their student teaching and beyond (Lee &

Lamport, 2011). While those descriptions aid instructors in understanding their

learners, they do not extend so far as to inform how the learners will respond

after the content and pedagogy classes have taken place and the student-

teaching experience is their current challenge.

A case study of four “career-switcher” novice teachers, (those who had

previously had a different career from teaching) using analyzed journals, guided

discussions, various kinds of input from mentors, supervisors’ evaluations, self-

evaluations, and researchers’ observations, found that the novice teachers had

more trouble balancing teaching, family, and outside obligations than they had

anticipated. Not many demographic details were revealed in the study, so it is

unknown whether the career-switchers (who would be considered nontraditional

by the definitions in this study) had spouses or families (Wilcox & Samaras,

2009).

Student Teachers

Regardless of traditional or nontraditional status, preservice teachers take

the same required classes. All the preparation of the classes may not apply

directly to how preservice teachers rate their own performances in student

teaching. A study of nineteen language arts student teachers, both traditional and

nontraditional, found that “the four factors most affecting their feeling of success

were learning, relationships, confidence and respect.” In addition, “they defined

‘success in student teaching’ in terms of student learning, their own learning,

positive relationships with other adults in the context, especially cooperating

teachers; feedback from students and cooperating teachers; feeling respected in

the teacher role; and confidence that they know what they are doing” (Wilson C.

L., 2000, p. 218).

Many student teachers worry about developing classroom management

techniques. “Implicitly, both teachers and students understand two rules

governing the cultural tensions of life in compulsory education: unless the

teacher establishes control, there will be no learning; and, if the teacher does not

control the students, the students will control the teacher” (Britzman, 2003, p.

224). Student teachers get to practice and hone their classroom management

skills when student learning really counts, the student-teaching phase of teacher

education. These studies uncover important aspects of student teachers and

their experiences, but they do not illuminate any differences between traditional

and nontraditional preservice teachers and their perceptions. And neither study

examined the cooperating teachers’ perspectives of traditional and nontraditional

preservice student teachers.

Cooperating Teachers

A cooperating teacher is one who has been teaching long enough to be

entrusted with guiding a preservice teacher through a field experience. The

cooperating teacher allows a preservice teacher to practice teaching in his/her

classroom but is ultimately responsible for the learning his/her students achieve.

Thus, the stakes are high for the cooperating teacher, just as they are for the

preservice teacher. A cooperating teacher is expected to be a guide, helper,

listener, role model, instructor of classroom management, friend, and academic

example (Rajuan, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007, p. 141).

More than merely “transferring authority to the student teacher,” a good

cooperating teacher must also be transparent about decision-making and

planning so that preservice teachers have a better grasp of how to think and act

while practicing in the classroom (Feiman-Nemser & Beasley, 2007).

Furthermore, “superior teachers make decisions about the instructional process,

including what to teach and what questions to ask. It is the distinction between

‘know how’ and ‘know why’ that separates the professional educator from the

novice teacher” (Henry & Weber, 2010, p. 8).The cooperating teacher will

evaluate the preservice teacher’s performance in the classroom, along with the

other third of the student-teaching triad, the university supervisor.

University Supervisors

The university supervisor can be a professor, a graduate student, or a

university employee charged with ultimately grading the preservice teacher’s

teaching performance and therefore allowing the preservice teacher to pass or

fail the student teaching course. The duties of the supervisor include observing

the preservice teacher’s lessons; reviewing the preservice teacher’s

responsibilities, requirements, and time lines; evaluating lesson plans; providing

a direct link to the university; providing support to the cooperating teacher; and

determining instructional and management styles of cooperating teachers to

serve preservice teachers (Enz, Freeman, & Wallin, 1996). University

supervisors link the teacher education and preparation program to the practice

teaching.

Field Experiences

Prior to the student teaching experience, teacher preparation programs

require extensive hours of observation and discussion in actual secondary school

settings with actual high school students. At Illinois State University, preservice

teachers who are not yet student teaching need to spend 20-30 hours observing

in and outside of their discipline, 3 hours of teaching, 12 hours of planning, 5

hours of aiding teachers, and 5-10 hours conferencing with their cooperating

teacher. This takes place at University High School in Normal, Illinois; it is

considered a laboratory school and its faculty works closely with the teacher

education faculty to better teach and serve both college students and high school

students. A recent study of these preservice teachers found that their

cooperating teachers rated them highly in regard to their professionalism,

interactions with their high school students, and rapport with the cooperating

teachers themselves, but that they needed better preparation in classroom

management (Al-Bataineh, 2009). This study yielded no discussion about the

status of the preservice teachers as either traditional or nontraditional.

Student Teaching

Also known as a clinical experience or a field experience, student teaching

is the hallmark of most teacher education programs. To participate, preservice

teachers will have completed their coursework, passed any applicable

competency exams, and successfully navigated the various gate-keeping

requirements demanded of their universities and state laws. At Illinois State

University, secondary education majors undergo a sixteen-week student teaching

experience (Student teaching for secondary and K-12 majors, 2011). Preservice

teachers gradually increase their responsibility for student learning throughout

the experience, with the guidance of their cooperating teacher and university

supervisor. The evaluation form that is completed by both the university

supervisor and the cooperating teacher is the defining factor whether the student

teacher passes the student-teaching course and thus can go on to being certified

as a teacher, or doesn’t pass the student-teaching course and therefore must

look to another option. Both traditional and nontraditional student teachers are

held to the same standard and evaluated in the same way.

It is argued that student-teaching experience cannot possible fully prepare

preservice teachers to become perfect practicing teachers. “Preservice training is

not designed to warn prospective teachers of all they might encounter. It’s meant

to lay a foundation for a reflective educator to build on or reference from time to

time. Student teaching is an invaluable step to becoming a real teacher, but it

can’t anticipate all one will need to know” (Pauly, 2002, p. 286). While the student

teaching experience is itself a frame of reference, the life experiences each

student teacher brings to it will impact his or her response, reaction, and

reflection.

Time Management Theory

Using time wisely as both a student and as a student teacher is both

important and not explicitly taught by teacher preparation programs. Although

students are expected over the course of their time in college to plan for their

time and get assignments turned in for grading on time, no required class in the

curriculum teaches them exactly how to do this. Yet planning the use of time is

instrumental in the art of teaching: planning the length and pace of lessons, the

time used to grade students’ work, and even planning a time to plan time. Time

for teachers can be described in two ways: didactic time, which is a linear,

chronological framework for applying and evaluating lessons; and time capital,

which is the objective value attached to a time-taking activity. Didactic time is

what “regulates the activity of the teacher” and time capital is the worthiness of

spending time on a particular pursuit (Assude, 2005, p. 185).

Research suggests that older adults, including older students, report

more desire to pursue work-related activities and less desire to pursue sleep than

younger adults, or younger students (Chen, Lee, Pethel, Gutowitz, & Kirk, 2012).

The desire to pursue work-related activities most likely translates to more time

spent pursuing work-related activities. Nontraditional students who spend more

time working on their student teaching might have better results and more impact

on student learning than traditional students who perhaps spend less time on

their student-teaching activities.

Conclusion

The review of the literature reveals that while many teacher education

programs are adopting best practices in their program design, field and clinical

experiences, and teacher competency exams, the information on how preservice

teachers are taught and whether traditional and nontraditional preservice

teachers require the same approaches from teacher educators reflects a lot of

inconsistency. Teacher educators teach their students, who are future teachers,

to know their learners and know what their learners know and build or scaffold

upon that knowledge.

The preservice teacher population is currently comprised of more

nontraditional students than ever before, and nontraditional students have

different prior knowledge than traditional students. Teacher educators may have

to apply that concept of scaffolding to their preservice teachers and may have to

discover more about the needs of preservice teachers in order to develop the

most truly highly qualified novice teachers possible. Teacher educators may

need to differentiate instruction based upon the needs of their own learners.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

This chapter provides information about the methodology used in this

study. The purpose of this study was to determine whether Illinois State

University’s secondary education teacher preparation program should

differentiate instruction for its two groups of students, traditional and

nontraditional, based on four constructs of professional demeanor, interpersonal

skills, teaching and learning, and time management. Topics in this chapter

include the research design, participants, variables, instruments, and statistical

procedures.

Research Design

This study incorporated a quasi-experimental design because two existing

groups were compared and therefore the population cannot be randomized

(Creswell, 2005). The two groups were comprised of traditional preservice

student teachers and nontraditional preservice student teachers.

The possible subjects were invited to participate. First they responded to a

presurvey, given at the beginning of the student-teaching semester. Then, they

were invited to respond to a postsurvey, given at the end of the student-teaching

semester. After that, they were asked to grant permission for the researcher to

obtain their scores from their RDI Student Teaching Assessment.

For this study, quantitative methods provided the data, specifically

evaluations from two general groups: preservice teachers and the team of

cooperating teachers and university supervisors. The results from the

instruments were compared in several ways. First, each Preservice Teacher

Perception presurvey was compared to its correlating Preservice Teacher

Perception postsurvey, item by item. Then, the items in each respondent’s

postsurvey was compared to the correlating items in the respondent’s RDI

Student Teaching Assessment filled out by both cooperating teacher and

supervising teacher. This helped to measure the accuracy with which the

preservice teachers judge themselves. Each variable was compared within the

four constructs of professional demeanor, interpersonal skills, teaching and

learning, and time management. Finally, the traditional preservice teacher group

was compared to the nontraditional preservice teacher group to reveal any

differences in either internal perceptions or external evaluations, using means

and t-tests.

Participants

Subjects

Two groups were invited to participate in this study. Both groups were

enrolled in the secondary education program at Illinois State University. One

group, traditional student teachers, was comprised of those who attended a

college immediately upon graduating high school. They may have attended a

community college before transferring to ISU, or they may have attended a

different university before transferring to ISU. Regardless, they were enrolled in

some type of college since high school, without taking any time off. They also

completed their college degree in four consecutive years, determined using birth

dates. Birthdates from autumn 1990 and later placed participants into the

“traditional student teacher” category.

The second group, nontraditional students, includes students with

birthdates prior to summer 1990. These students did not immediately enroll at

ISU upon high school graduation. This group of nontraditional students might

include veterans of the Armed Forces, career switchers, or perhaps parents who

now have time to concentrate on getting their own education. In order to obtain

birthdates a general overview of the study sample’s demographic characteristics,

variables such as gender and major were also included.

Human Subjects’ Consideration

Permission to contact participants was obtained through the Illinois State

University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office. The data was labeled

“confidential,” as subjects were identified in order to match surveys to

evaluations, but their identities were kept secret. Risks were disclosed as

minimal and unlikely, but subjects might have felt anxious about questions

regarding their student teaching performance. Possible benefits to the

participants included time and method with which to reflect upon their student-

teaching experience, as reflective activities have been known to prompt more

thoughtful, deliberate actions, which could possibly have improved participants’

student teaching.

A copy of the informed consent letter is attached with the survey

(Appendix B.) The protocol number granted by the IRB is 2012-0122.

Modifications were granted in December 2012 in order to change the name of the

primary investigator and to obtain spring 2013 participants’ ULIDs (University

Logon Identification, also known as email addresses) for request for participation

in the study.

Sample Selection

To obtain potential participants, the researcher asked the ISU College of

Education Assistant Director of Certification and Data to provide ULIDs of the

preservice teachers. A request for participation was sent via ISU email to the

preservice teacher population, of whom there were 292 actively student teaching.

Of the 292 preservice teachers, 168 were considered nontraditional preservice

teachers, with 124 traditional preservice teachers. This assumes that the 168

started kindergarten at the age of five and did not repeat any grades.

Within the nontraditional group, 103 preservice teachers had birthdates

from the summer of 1990 to the autumn of 1989. This group could have been

placed in kindergarten a year later than the usual age five, or could have been

held back a year in school, or could have taken longer than four years to

graduate from college with a bachelor’s degree. However, for the purpose of this

study, the 103 in this gray area are still older and are presumed to be more

mature and have more life experiences than the traditional group whose

birthdates are autumn 1990 and earlier.

Power Analysis

For a valid study, four factors must be considered: significance level,

statistical power, analysis strategy, and effect size (Olejnik, 1984). This study,

like most social science studies, utilized a .05 level of significance in order to

avoid committing a Type I error of concluding that a relationship exists between

variables when it does not. To avoid the error of not observing a relationship that

does in fact exist, statistical power must be considered (Vogt, 2007). Obviously,

for more statistical power, more subjects would be required. However, this study

was limited to 292 total participants, of whom 168 are nontraditional. In addition,

it was a voluntary study, and only 43 of the 292 total population, or 15%,

participated in answering the presurvey.

The statistical analysis strategy compared two groups based on just one

independent variable, that of traditional or nontraditional status. This requires

fewer subjects than if more independent variables were compared, or if it were a

qualitative design (Olejnik, 1984). Finally, the last consideration was effect size,

or how many should be included in the sample to ensure that the degree to which

the null hypothesis can be determined false is small. However, “the exact answer

to the sample size question can be given only when the specific parameters of

the problem are provided and power curve such as those provided in advanced

statistics textbook or sample size tables are consulted” (Olejnik, 1984, p. 44).

While there is no exact “n” for a perfect sample size, it is reasonable to expect a

bigger sample would be a better predictor of overall population.

The timing of the survey was crucial here, because the data was

captured toward the end of the student teaching experience in order to allow the

respondents to be able to reflect upon more time spent student teaching.

However, it was assumed that they had not yet had their final evaluation, so they

did not yet know what their rating was. This is important because perhaps if

some potential respondents had low evaluations, they would not want to expose

them to a researcher.

Participation Rate

The presurvey was emailed to all 292 active student teachers in January,

2013. A reminder was sent to them ten days later. Only 43 of the 292 (15%)

provided valid responses to the survey. It is unclear whether the low response

rate was due to computer problems, inability to find time to complete the five-

minute survey, or apathy, or any and all of the above. Of those 43 who

responded, 23 were in the “traditional” student teacher category and 20 were in

the “nontraditional” student teacher category.

In April 2013, the original participants received an email inviting them to

respond to a postsurvey that was nearly identical to the presurvey they had

already answered. Of those original 43 who responded to the presurvey, only 22

(51%) responded to the postsurvey. Of the 22 who responded to the postsurvey,

15 were traditional and seven were nontraditional. Finally, of the 22 who

answered both the presurvey and the postsurvey, only 14 (64%) gave permission

for the researcher to collect data from their student teaching evaluations, the RDI

Student Teaching Assessment. Of those 14, 10 were traditional and four were

nontraditional.

Variables

In this study, the independent variables were the status of the

participants, either traditional or nontraditional. To measure differences between

the two groups, four dependent variables were used. These variables were

professional demeanor, teaching and learning, interpersonal skills, and time

management. These dependent variables were chosen because all of the

participants culminate their teacher education experience with one evaluative

tool, the Realizing the Democratic Ideal (RDI) Student Teaching Assessment.

The constructs of professional demeanor, teaching and learning, and

interpersonal skills are provided by the basis of the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment. Realizing the Democratic Ideal was designed in 1997 by the

Council for Teacher Education as the conceptual framework for all forty of its

teacher education programs in five colleges (Illinois State University, 2011). The

RDI Student Teaching Assessment uses the components professional

demeanor, teaching and learning, and interpersonal skills as categories for

evaluating student teachers (Appendix A).

According to the ISU College of Education’s Assistant Director of

Certification and Data, “The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education (NCATE) mandated in 2000 that teacher education programs needed

to derive unit standards from conceptual framework and assess these standards”

(L. A. Steffen, personal communication, August 7, 2013). This assessment has

been designed and revised by the teacher education professors at Illinois State

University and has been in use since the fall semester of 2002.

The assessment utilizes a rubric design which guides the evaluators, who

are university supervisors and cooperating teachers, in rating preservice student

teachers. The scores on the rubric range from 1 (unacceptable) to 2

(satisfactory...novice teacher) to 3 (proficient…novice teacher) to 4

(exemplary…experienced teacher, rare to be seen in student teaching)

(Appendix A). It includes fifteen questions, of which only thirteen will be used in

order to simplify the survey, thereby rendering it easier for student teachers to

complete. Because the majority of the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

questions originated from the RDI Student Teaching Assessment, two items were

eliminated to streamline the survey.

The last variable, time management, is not included in the RDI Student

Teaching Assessment but it is included in the Preservice Teacher Perception

Survey (Appendix B). This construct is a hallmark of nontraditional students, as

they may be more likely to manage their time better and more constructively than

traditional students.

The dependent variables for this study were the scores from the specific

questions delineated above on the RDI Student Teaching Assessment at the end

of student teaching, and the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey, at both pre-

student teaching and post-student teaching points. These variables were further

analyzed by comparing the scores on the specific questions.

Instruments

RDI Student Teaching Assessment

The instruments that were used in this study include the RDI Student

Teaching Assessment. It was included because it is an assessment used to rate

all Illinois State University secondary preservice teachers at the end of the

student-teaching semester, regardless of major. Cooperating teachers and

university supervisors work together to assess the performance of each

preservice teacher.

Professional demeanor is rated in questions one, two, and three of the

RDI Student Teaching Assessment. These questions examine specialized

content knowledge for teaching, communicating effectively, and using effective

classroom management skills.

Table 1

Professional Demeanor Constructs on the RDI Student Teaching Assessment

Variable

Description

Professional Demeanor 1

Demonstrates specialized content

knowledge for teaching.

Professional Demeanor 2

Communicates effectively (written, verbal,

and nonverbal).

Professional Demeanor 3

Uses effective classroom management skills

to maintain safe and positive learning

environments.

Questions four and five, which examine demonstrating professional

practice consistent with an appropriate philosophy of education and seeking

appropriate opportunities for professional development, were omitted from this

study in order to streamline the survey. These two questions were selected

because they are less observable and more esoteric than the other questions.

Teaching and learning is rated in questions six through twelve of the RDI

Student Teaching Assessment. These questions examine planning and

developing lessons to meet instructional goals and serve diverse learners,

differentiating instruction, appropriately integrating instructional resources, using

multiple assessment strategies, using reflection to improve instruction,

demonstrating persistence in helping all students learn, and using assessment to

demonstrate positive impact on student learning.

Table 2

Teaching and Learning Constructs on the RDI Student Teaching Assessment

Variable

Description

Teaching and Learning 1

Plans and develops lessons to meet

instructional goals and serve diverse learners.

Teaching and Learning 2

Differentiates instruction.

Teaching and Learning 3

Appropriately integrates instructional

resources, including technology, into the

curriculum to support student learning.

Teaching and Learning 4

Uses multiple assessment strategies.

Teaching and Learning 5

Uses reflection to improve instruction.

Teaching and Learning 6

Demonstrates persistence in helping all

students learn.

Teaching and Learning 7

Uses assessment to demonstrate positive

impact on student learning.

Interpersonal skills are evaluated in questions thirteen, fourteen, and

fifteen in the RDI Student Teaching Assessment. These questions examine

whether the student teacher demonstrates respect for all students, develops

positive working relationships with others involved in the educational setting, and

includes families in the education process.

Table 3

Interpersonal Skills Constructs on RDI Student Teaching Assessment

Variable

Description

Interpersonal Skills 1

Demonstrates respect for all students.

Interpersonal Skills 2

Develops positive working relationships with

others involved in the educational setting.

Interpersonal Skills 3

Includes families in the education process.

Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

The other instrument that was used in this study is the Preservice

Teacher Perception Survey, designed by the researcher. Its basis is the RDI

Student Teaching Assessment with additional questions that exemplify in

concrete terms some of the concepts of the assessment. These questions ask

survey participants to rate their predictions of their student-teaching performance,

using a Likert-type scale. Scores range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 2 (disagree)

to 3 (agree) and to 4 (strongly agree).

To encourage participants to respond more thoughtfully to the survey,

some questions were included which require almost opposite answers. For

example, in the professional demeanor section, one question reads, “I can’t wait

to get my own classroom so I can teach my way,” while another question is “I am

apprehensive about being in my own classroom.” These seemingly opposite

questions are meant to inspire respondents to choose different values for their

answers (Creswell, 2005).

The questions on the survey were in the same order as the items on the

RDI Student Teaching Assessment, for both the presurvey and the postsurvey.

The survey was designed to be administered at the beginning of the student-

teaching experience, as a presurvey, and again at the end of the student-

teaching experience, as a postsurvey. Accordingly, the presurvey consisted of

future verb tense, such as “I will demonstrate” and “I will create,” while the

postsurvey used past verb tense, such as “I demonstrated” and “I created.” To

simplify, only the postsurvey descriptors with past verb tense are included in the

tables below.

Table 4

Professional Demeanor Constructs on the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

Variable

Description

Professional Demeanor 1

I demonstrated specialized content knowledge

for teaching.

Professional Demeanor 2

I communicated effectively (written, verbal,

nonverbal).

Professional Demeanor 3

I used effective classroom management skills

to maintain safe and positive learning

environments.

Researcher Question

I felt like a “real teacher” during my student

teaching.

Researcher Question

I can’t wait to get my own classroom so I can

teach my way.

Researcher Question

I am apprehensive about being in my own

classroom.

The survey questions for the construct teaching and learning had a

similar format, with similar extra questions to encourage thoughtful responses

and gain more information about what preservice teachers thought about what

might happen in their student teaching.

Table 5

Teaching and Learning Constructs on the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

Variable

Description

Teaching and Learning 1

I planned and developed lessons to meet

instructional goals and serve diverse learners.

Teaching and Learning 2

I differentiated instruction.

Teaching and Learning 3

I appropriately integrated instructional

resources, including technology, into the

curriculum to support student learning.

Teaching and Learning 4

I used multiple assessment strategies.

Teaching and Learning 5

I used reflection to improve instruction.

Teaching and Learning 6

I demonstrated persistence in helping all

students learn.

Teaching and Learning 7

I demonstrated a positive impact on student

learning.

Researcher Question

I created my own lessons.

Researcher Question

I used someone else’s lessons but reworked

them to fit my needs.

Researcher Question

I used someone else’s lessons as they were.

The survey questions for the construct interpersonal skills, likewise,

incorporated similar extra questions to encourage thoughtful responses and gain

more information about what preservice teachers predicted their performance in

the classroom.

Table 6

Interpersonal Skills Constructs on the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

Variable

Description

Interpersonal Skills 1

I demonstrated respect for all students.

Interpersonal Skills 2

I developed positive working relationships with

others involved in the educational setting.

Interpersonal Skills 3

I included families in the education process.

Researcher Question

I found it difficult to fit in with other teachers.

Researcher Question

I found it easy to work with other teachers.

Researcher Question

My cooperating teacher helped me

immensely.

In addition, a section on time management was included, based on

research which indicates that nontraditional students utilize their time better than

traditional students do. Time management in this study refers to the preservice

teacher’s ability to effectively plan for and use time wisely in order to accomplish

necessary tasks, accommodate unexpected events, and maintain balance in a

student teacher’s academic and personal life.

The survey was designed to capture an estimation of time spent on

various student teaching tasks. The first two questions utilized the same Likert

scale as the rest of the survey and asked participants to predict their ability to

manage their time both at school and outside school, and to gauge the number of

hours they spent planning their instruction, assessing student progress, and

performing other educational tasks related to student teaching. The last three

items asked participants to fill in the number of hours in response to the question.

Table 7

Time Management Constructs on the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

Variable

Description

Time Management 1

I was able to manage my time at the school

effectively.

Time Management 2

I was about to manage my time outside the

school effectively.

Time Management 3

Hours outside school spent planning

instruction per week (fill in number).

Time Management 4

Hours outside school spent assessing student

progress per week (fill in number).

Time Management 5

Hours spent outside school performing other

educational tasks related to student-teaching

(fill in number).

Validity and Reliability

To ensure instrument validity, the proposed survey was based upon an

approved evaluative tool already in use at ISU (L. A. Steffen, personal

communication, August 7, 2013). Since the RDI Student Teaching Assessment

was developed and is used by ISU as a student teaching gateway criterion, this

instrument is valid both in content and criterion according to the standards of the

RDI. ISU is accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education, and so meets rigorous standards by using accepted assessment

procedures. The Preservice Teacher Perception Survey was built around the

concepts in the RDI Student Teaching Assessment, particularly the categories of

professional demeanor, teaching and learning, and interpersonal skills. The

scores from this study will be used only with each other, not with any other

scores in any other study, which lends to its construct validity (Creswell, 2005;

Vogt, 2007). Respondents’ answers to the surveys will be paired only with their

own corresponding answers and evaluations.

This survey was piloted in a basic form in the spring of 2012. It was

administered only at the end of the student teaching semester. It required

participants to answer 10 demographic questions in addition to the questions

regarding the four variables. Based on the low response rate, the demographic

questions were eliminated and the researcher obtained permission from the

Institutional Review Board to acquire certain demographic details via the Illinois

State University mainframe. These demographic details include major and birth

date. The piloted survey also prompted a change to the research design to

incorporate a presurvey, in order to capture a measurement of growth of

preservice teachers’ perceptions from the beginning of the semester to the end of

the semester.

The survey was available online through the Select Survey website, for

which ISU provides support to its users. The Preservice Teacher Perception

Survey was given to respondents twice. The first time, it was offered through an

invitational email from the researcher to all 292 preservice teachers at the

beginning of the semester, January 2013. At the end of the semester, April 2013,

it was sent online to the actual respondents only; only preservice teachers who

responded to the presurvey were invited to participate in the postsurvey. These

surveys were identical except for verb tense. The presurvey used future verb

tense to indicate anticipatory responses, and the postsurvey used past tense to

indicate reflective responses.

Statistical Procedure

All online survey scores and evaluation scores were entered into an

Excel spreadsheet. First all the scores from the participants’ presurveys were put

into an Excel spreadsheet, and then all the scores from the participants’

postsurveys. Finally the scores from the RDI Student Teaching Assessment were

entered into the spreadsheet.

The presurvey questions were compared, item by item, to the postsurvey

questions using a simple subtraction formula to get differences between each

individual participant’s answers on the postsurvey and on the presurvey. Then

means were calculated for each group, traditional and nontraditional, based on

each individual item. For example, Participant 1001’s answer to the presurvey

question one in the Professional Demeanor category was subtracted by the

answer to the postsurvey question one in the Professional Demeanor category;

then all of the traditional participants’ answers to the presurvey question one in

the Professional Demeanor category were averaged, as were all of the

nontraditional participants’ answers.

After the averages were computed, Excel ran a two-sample two-tailed t-

test. This statistical test was chosen because the focus was on the difference

between participants’ scores on the presurvey and on the postsurvey;

participants were surveyed more than once; there are two groups, traditional and

nontraditional. This leads to the t-test for dependent means. A two-tailed t-test

was chosen rather than a one-tailed t-test because the distribution of the scores

could go in either direction of a typical bell curve (Salkind, 2004).

To analyze the data, the scores were compared within each of the four

constructs: professional demeanor, teaching and learning, interpersonal skills,

and time management. A group means was calculated, for each group,

traditional and nontraditional. The data was organized by with its corresponding

research question.

1. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the professional demeanor construct of the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment?

Scores were averaged to compare the traditional and nontraditional

groups.

2. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the teaching and learning construct on the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment?

Scores were averaged to compare the traditional and nontraditional

groups.

3. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the interpersonal skills construct on the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment?

Scores were averaged to compare the traditional and nontraditional

groups.

4. How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on

the time management construct on the Preservice Teacher Perception

Survey?

First, average scores were run for the presurvey responses, and then

average scores were run for postsurvey responses. The traditional group was

compared to the nontraditional group with the two-sample two-tailed t-test. The

traditional preservice teacher group was compared to the nontraditional

preservice teacher group to reveal any differences in either internal perceptions

or external evaluations using a two-sample t-test that compares two population

proportions. The two-sample t-test is useful when comparing two populations,

such as traditional preservice student teachers to nontraditional preservice

student teachers. The two-sample t-test can be used when the respondents’

group sizes are different, which was the case in this study. To interpret the

results of the two-sample t-tests, the data was analyzed using a standard normal

distribution, with a p-value that will determine whether the differences between

the traditional preservice teacher and the nontraditional preservice teacher are

significant enough to merit further study (Creswell, 2005).

5. How did traditional preservice student teachers compare to

nontraditional preservice student teachers in terms of their rates of

correlation between their perceptions of the constructs per their

Preservice Teacher Perception Postsurveys and their actual assessed

performance per their RDI Student Teaching Assessments?

Each postsurvey was compared to its correlating RDI Student Teaching

Assessment filled out by both cooperating teacher and supervising teacher,

again using a t-test for dependent samples. The t-test for dependent samples is

useful because the same group of preservice teachers is being tested twice.

6. How did both groups of preservice student teachers compare before

their student teaching experience to after their student teaching

experience?

A t-test for dependent samples was run to compare the results of the

Preservice Teacher Perception Presurvey to its correlating Postsurvey.

Limitations of the Study

This study is limited by its number of participants and by the

characteristics of its participants. For the purposes of narrowing the data

collection procedure, only secondary preservice teachers were studied; no

elementary or middle-level preservice teachers were invited to participate. In

addition, only preservice teachers at one university, Illinois State University, were

invited to participate.

Participants were not offered any external reward for participation, but

may have gleaned internal rewards such as satisfaction for helping another

student, or positive feelings after reflecting upon their student teaching

experience.

Conclusion

This study was conducted during the spring of 2013 semester. The

results were analyzed during the summer and discussed in August 2013.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter provides information about the data and its analysis used in

this study. The purpose of this study was to determine whether Illinois State

University’s secondary education teacher preparation program should

differentiate instruction for its two groups of students, traditional and

nontraditional, based on four constructs of professional demeanor, interpersonal

skills, teaching and learning, and time management. Topics in this chapter

include the participants, research questions, and the analysis for each statistical

test.

Participants

To obtain the potential participants, the researcher asked the ISU College

of Education Assistant Director of Certification and Data to provide ULIDs

(University Login Identification, also known as email addresses) of the preservice

teachers. A request for participation was sent via ISU email to the preservice

teacher population, of whom there were 292 actively student teaching. Of those

292 preservice teachers, 168 (58%) of them would be considered nontraditional

preservice teachers, with 124 (42%) traditional preservice teachers.

Of the 43 who responded to the presurvey, two majored in biology, two in

business, 11 in English, three in family and consumer science, five in social

science/history, 12 in mathematics, two in music, one in physical education, one

in physics, two in Spanish, and two in technology.

Table 8

Presurvey Respondent Demographics

Major

Traditional

Nontraditional

Biology

Business

English

16%

Family and Consumer Science

Social Science/History

Mathematics

23%

Music

Physical Education

Physics

Spanish

Technology

Totals

52%

47%

Of the 22 who responded to the postsurvey, one majored in biology, one

in business, one in English, three in family and consumer science, one in history,

nine in mathematics, one in Spanish, and one in technology.

Table 9

Postsurvey Respondent Demographics

Major

Traditional

Nontraditional

Biology

4.5%

Business

4.5%

English

13.5%

Family and Consumer Science

4.5%

History

4.5%

Mathematics

36%

4.5%

Spanish

4.5%

Technology

4.5%

Totals

67.5%

31.5%

Of the 14 who agreed to release their evaluations to the researcher, one

majored in biology, one in business, four in English, two in family and consumer

science, five in mathematics, and one in technology.

Table 10

RDI Student Teaching Assessment Participants

Major

Traditional

Nontraditional

Biology

Business

English

14%

Family and Consumer Science

Mathematics

36%

Technology

Totals

71%

28%

Research Questions

The following questions guided the research design, methodology, data

collection, and data analysis for this study. The questions incorporated the

dependent variables, which are the scores on the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment (Appendix A) and the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey

(Appendix B). Specifically, the scores were grouped by construct, such as

teaching and learning, professional demeanor, interpersonal skills, and time

management. The independent variables are the preservice teachers’ status in

school, as either traditional or nontraditional. The independent variables are

defined only by date of birth.

Research Question 1

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the professional

demeanor construct of the RDI Student Teaching Assessment?

Table 11

Research Question 1 Results for Professional Demeanor Evaluation

Status of respondent

PD1- eval

PD2-eval

PD3-eval

Traditional 1007

1008

1012

1019

1034

1038

1039

1040

1042

1032

Nontraditional 1006

1010

1021

1043

Mean (traditional)

3.20

3.00

2.90

Mean (nontraditional)

3.25

2.75

3.25

Note: Raw scores are 1 = unacceptable, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = proficient, 4=exemplary

Mean scores were calculated for each group. The sample size was very

small, and the means yielded almost no statistically significant difference

between traditional and nontraditional preservice teachers. The biggest

difference was in PD3 (used effective classroom management skills to maintain

safe and positive learning environments). The nontraditional group scored higher

than the traditional group.

Research Question 2

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the teaching and

learning construct on the RDI Student Teaching Assessment?

Table 12

Research Question 2 Results for Teaching and Learning Evaluation

Status of respondent

TL1-

eva

TL2-

eva

TL3-

eva

TL4-

eva

TL5-

eva

TL6-

eva

TL7-

eva

Traditional 1007

1008

1012

1019

1034

1038

1039

1040

1042

1032

Nontraditional 1006

1010

1021

1043

Mean (traditional)

2.90

3.10

3.00

Mean (nontraditional)

3.25

2.75

3.25

3.75

3.25

Note: Raw scores are 1 = unacceptable, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = proficient, 4=exemplary

Mean scores were calculated for each group. The sample size was very

small, and the means yielded almost no statistically significant difference

between traditional and nontraditional preservice teachers. However, the average

score for nontraditional preservice teacher was higher in every Teaching and

Learning question except for TL3, which is “Appropriately integrates instructional

resources, including technology, into the curriculum to support student learning.”

Research Question 3

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the interpersonal

skills construct on the RDI Student Teaching Assessment?

Table 13

Research Question 3 Results for Interpersonal Skills Evaluation

Status of respondent

IS1-eva

IS2-eva

IS3-eva

Traditional 1007

1008

1012

1019

1034

1038

1039

1040

1042

1032

Nontraditional 1006

1010

1021

1043

Mean (Traditional)

3.20

3.10

2.90

Mean (Nontraditional)

3.50

3.25

2.75

Note: Raw scores are 1 = unacceptable, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = proficient, 4=exemplary

Mean scores were calculated for each group. The sample size was very

small, and the means yielded almost no statistically significant difference

between traditional and nontraditional preservice teachers. However, the average

score for nontraditional preservice teacher was higher in every Interpersonal

Skills question except for IS3, which is “Includes families in the education

process.”

Research Question 4

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the time

management construct on the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey?

Table 14

Research Question 4 Results for Time Management Presurvey

Status of Respondent

TM1-pre

TM2-pre

TM3-pre

TM4-pre

TM5-pre

Traditional 1002

1007

1008

1009

1012

1014

1018

1019

1027

1034

1038

1039

1040

1042

1032

Nontraditional 1006

1010

1011

1013

1021

1029

1043

Mean (Traditional)

3.47

3.33

16.13

8.20

7.33

Mean (Nontraditional)

3.86

3.71

11.71

7.57

7.00

Note: Raw scores are 1 = unacceptable, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = proficient, 4=exemplary

The first two items are scores on a Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest

(strongly disagree) and 4 being the highest (strongly agree.) The next three

scores are estimates of how much time preservice teachers anticipate spending

outside school “planning instruction per week” (TM3), “assessing student

progress per week” (TM4), and “performing other educational tasks related to

student teaching” (TM5). The first two Likert-score means show that

nontraditional preservice teachers anticipated being able to manage their time

effectively both at school and outside school with more confidence that traditional

preservice teachers. In addition, traditional preservice teachers anticipated

spending more time outside school working on various student-teaching tasks.

Table 15

Research Question 4 Results for Time Management Postsurvey

Status of Respondent

TM1-post

TM2-post

TM3-post

TM4-post

TM5-post

Traditional 1002

1007

1008

1009

1012

1014

1018

1019

1027

1034

1038

1039

1040

1042

1032

Nontraditional 1006

1010

1011

1013

1021

1029

1043

Mean (Traditional)

3.33

3.40

19.40

7.87

Mean (Nontraditional)

4.00

3.86

20.71

13.00

14.14

Note: Raw scores are 1 = unacceptable, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = proficient, 4=exemplary

The first two items are scores on a Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest

(strongly disagree) and 4 being the highest (strongly agree.) The next three

scores are estimates of how much time preservice teachers anticipate spending

outside school “planning instruction per week” (TM3), “assessing student

progress per week” (TM4), and “performing other educational tasks related to

student teaching” (TM5). The first two Likert-score means show that

nontraditional preservice teachers felt that they had managed their time at the

school and outside the school effectively than the traditional preservice teachers

felt.

The next three scores reveal that nontraditional preservice teachers

spent much more time outside school doing student-teaching tasks than

traditional preservice teachers.

Table 16

Research Question 4 Results for t-test, Time Management

Status of Respondent

TM1

TM2

TM3

TM4

TM5t

Traditional 1002

-10

1007

-2

-3

1008

-3

1009

-9

-4

-5

1012

-1

-15

1014

-2

-1

1018

-5

1019

1027

1034

1038

-15

-3

-8

1039

-5

1040

-3

1042

1032

-1

-5

Nontraditional 1006

1010

1011

1013

-2

1021

1029

1043

t-test

0.32

0.44

0.27

0.10

0.35

Mean (Traditional)

-0.13

0.07

3.27

-0.33

0.53

Mean Nontraditional)

0.14

9.00

5.43

7.14

Note: Numbers reveal the presurvey scores subtracted from the postsurvey scores.

The traditional group was compared to the nontraditional group with the

2-sample two-tailed t-test. This means the averages were computed first for

presurvey and postsurvey. Then the average scores for the traditional group

were compared to the average scores for the nontraditional group. While the

statistics reveal nothing of significance as the p-values are too large, the data

suggests that nontraditional preservice teachers spent quite a bit more time on

student-teaching activities outside the school than did traditional student

teachers.

Research Question 5

How did traditional preservice student teachers compare to nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their rates of correlation between

their perceptions of the constructs per their Preservice Teacher

Perception Surveys and their actual assessed performance per their RDI

Student Teaching Assessments?

Table 17

Research Question 5 Results for t-test, Professional Demeanor

Status of Respondent

PD1

PD2

PD3

Traditional 1007

-1

1008

-1

1012

-1

1019

-1

1034

1038

-1

1039

-1

1040

-1

1042

-1

1032

-1

Nontraditional 1006

-1

1010

-1

1021

-1

1043

-1

-2

t-test

0.30

0.42

0.33

Mean(traditional)

-0.30

-0.60

-0.50

Mean(nontraditional)

-0.50

-1.00

-0.75

Note: Numbers reveal the postsurvey scores subtracted from the evaluation scores.

None of the p-values were found to be statistically significant; however

observation of the tabulated scores reveals that the nontraditional group rated

their performance higher than their evaluators, which included their cooperating

teachers and university supervisors, rated them. The traditional group was a little

more accurate about assessing their performance.

Table 18

Research Question 5 Results for t-test, Teaching and Learning

Status of Respondent

TL1

TL2

TL3

TL4

TL5

TL6

TL7

Traditional 1007

1008

-1

1012

-1

1019

-1

1034

-1

1038

-1

1039

-1

1040

-1

1042

-1

1032

-1

Nontraditional 1006

-1

1010

-1

1021

-1

1043

-1

-2

-1

-2

-1

t-test

0.43

0.50

0..26

0.32

0.14

0.46

0.44

Mean(traditional)

-0.80

-0.50

-0.70

-0.60

-0.70

Mean(nontraditional)

-0.75

-0.50

-1.00

-0.75

-0.25

-0.75

Note: Numbers reveal the postsurvey scores subtracted from the evaluation scores.

None of the p-values were found to be statistically significant; however

observation of the tabulated scores reveals that the both groups rated their actual

teaching and learning performance higher than their evaluators rated them.

Table 19

Research Question 5 Results for t-test, Interpersonal Skills

Status of Respondent

IS1

IS2

IS3

Traditional 1007

1008

-1

1012

-1

1019

-1

1034

-1

1038

-1

1039

-1

1040

1042

-1

1032

-1

Nontraditional 1006

-1

1010

-1

1021

1043

-1

-2

t-test

0.29

0.47

0.14

Mean(traditional)

-0.70

-0.10

Mean(nontraditional)

-0.50

-0.75

Note: Numbers reveal the postsurvey scores subtracted from the evaluation scores.

The t-test did not have a significant enough p-value for these numbers to

be significant. The sample size is very small. Again, the groups both rated their

own performance on the interpersonal skills section to be higher than their

evaluators rated their performance.

Research Question 6

How did both groups of preservice student teachers compare before

their student teaching experience to after their student teaching

experience?

Table 20

Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Professional Demeanor

Status of Respondent

PD1

PD2

PD3

PD4

PD5

PD6

Traditional 1002

-1

1007

-1

1008

-1

1009

1012

-1

1014

-1

1018

-1

1019

1027

1034

1038

-1

1039

1040

1042

1032

-2

-1

Nontraditional 1006

1010

-1

1011

1013

-1

1021

-1

1029

1043

t-test

0.07

0.15

0.03

0.04

0.02

0.01

Mean(traditional)

-0.10

-0.20

-0.40

0.10

0.00

0.30

Mean(nontraditional)

0.29

0.00

0.14

0.57

0.43

-0.43

Note: Numbers reveal the presurvey scores subtracted from the postsurvey scores.

The t-test shows a statistical significance in four of the items, PD3 (using

effective classroom management skills), PD4 (felt like a “real teacher”), PD5

(can’t wait to get own classroom so can teach “my way”), and PD6 (apprehensive

about being in own classroom). Traditional preservice teachers under-anticipated

their perceived effectiveness at classroom management skills; they gave

themselves a higher number for that item on the presurvey than they did on the

postsurvey. Nontraditional preservice teachers felt more strongly at the end of

the semester about being eager to be in their own classrooms, teaching their

own way. And nontraditional preservice teachers were also less apprehensive at

the end of the semester than they were at the beginning of the semester, while

traditional preservice teachers were more apprehensive.

Table 21

Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Teaching and Learning

Status of Respondent

TL1

TL2

TL3

TL4

TL5

TL6

TL7

TL8

TL9

TL10

Traditional 1002

-1

1007

1008

-1

1009

-1

1012

-2

1014

-1

1018

-1

-2

-1

1019

1027

-1

1034

-1

1038

1039

1040

-1

1042

-1

1032

-3

Nontraditional 1006

1010

-1

-2

-1

1011

-1

1013

-1

1021

1029

-1

1043

t-test

0.02

0.10

0.25

0.01

0.03

0.05

0.15

0.20

0.13

0.08

Mean(traditional)

-0.13

0.00

-0.13

-0.07

-0.53

0.00

Mean(nontraditional)

0.43

0.14

0.00

0.57

0.29

0.14

0.00

-0.29

0.43

Note: Numbers reveal the presurvey scores subtracted from the postsurvey scores.

The t-test shows a statistical significance in four items: TL1 (planned and

developed lessons to meet instructional goals and serve diverse learners), TL4

(used multiple assessment strategies), TL5 (used reflection to improve

instruction) and TL6 (demonstrated persistence in helping all students learn.) For

TL1, the traditional group anticipated at the beginning of the semester that they

would do better at developing and planning lessons than they felt they did at the

end. For TL4, again the traditional group thought they would use multiple

assessment strategies at the beginning of the semester, but at the end of the

semester they felt less strongly. The same result is for TL5 and TL6; the

traditional group gave higher anticipatory scores than actual self-evaluative

scores.

Table 22

Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Interpersonal Skills

Status of Respondent

IS1

IS2

IS3

IS4

IS5

IS6

Traditional 1002

-1

1007

-1

1008

-2

1009

-1

1012

-1

1014

-1

-2

1018

-1

1019

-1

1027

1034

-1

1038

-1

1039

1040

-1

1042

-1

1032

-2

-1

Nontraditional 1006

-1

1010

-1

1011

-1

1013

1021

1029

1043

-1

t-test

0.11

0.06

0.01

0.20

0.11

0.10

Mean(traditional)

0.00

-0.07

-0.87

0.13

-0.07

0.13

Mean(nontraditional)

0.14

-0.14

0.00

0.14

-0.14

Note: Numbers reveal the presurvey scores subtracted from the postsurvey scores.

The t-test shows significance in only one of the items, IS3 (included

families in the education process). Both groups of preservice teachers

anticipated including families in the education process at a higher score than they

self-evaluated, but the traditional group had a more dramatic difference in their

results than nontraditional group.

Table 23

Research Question 6 Results for t-test, Time Management

Status of Respondent

TM1

TM2

TM3

TM4

TM5

Traditional 1002

-10

1007

-2

-3

1008

-3

1009

-9

-4

-5

1012

-1

-15

1014

-2

-1

1018

-5

1019

1027

1034

1038

-15

-3

-8

1039

-5

1040

-3

1042

1032

-1

-5

Nontraditional 1006

1010

1011

1013

-2

1021

1029

1043

t-test

0.07

0.19

0.08

0.01

0.03

Mean(traditional)

-0.13

0.07

3.27

-0.33

0.53

Mean(nontraditional)

0.14

9.00

5.43

7.14

Note: Numbers reveal the presurvey scores subtracted from the postsurvey scores.

The t-test shows significance in two of the items, TM4 (hours outside

school assessing student progress per week) and TM5 (hours outside school

performing other educational tasks related to student-teaching). The traditional

group reported spending fewer hours per week on assessing student progress

than they had planned, while the nontraditional group reported spending more

hours than they had planned. Both groups reported spending more hours

performing other educational tasks related to student-teaching than they had

anticipated, but the nontraditional group had more of a difference between the

amount of time they anticipated spending, and the amount of time they actually

spent.

Limitations

All five of the mathematics preservice teachers had identical evaluations,

with straight “threes” for every item. So for every item on their evaluation, their

evaluators (team of cooperating teacher and university supervisor) rated them as

“proficient (novice teacher).” While five mathematics teachers out of a possible

44 mathematics preservice teachers who student-taught this semester is a very

small sample, it prompted an inquiry from the researcher to the Assistant Director

of Certification and Data at the College of Education Clinical Experiences and

Certification Processes. The Assistant Director indicated via email that such

scoring might be an indication of a difference in the math department’s

philosophy of grading (L. A. Steffen, personal communication, June 17, 2013).

Summary

While the number of participants was too small to make sweeping

generalizations about the nature of traditional and nontraditional preservice

student teachers, the data reveals enough of a difference between traditional and

nontraditional preservice student teachers to merit further discussion and to

generate both implications and suggestions.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter provides a summary of the analysis of this study. The

purpose of this study was to determine whether Illinois State University’s

secondary education teacher preparation program should differentiate instruction

for its two groups of students, traditional and nontraditional, based on four

constructs of professional demeanor, interpersonal skills, teaching and learning,

and time management. Topics in this chapter include the research questions with

their results and implications; limitations; and recommendations for further

research.

Research Questions

Research Question 1

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the professional

demeanor construct of the RDI Student Teaching Assessment?

Results. The biggest difference was in PD3 (used effective classroom

management skills to maintain safe and positive learning environments). The

nontraditional group scored higher than the traditional group. This is unsurprising,

as nontraditional preservice teachers are older than preservice teachers and

therefore have more years between their students and themselves. This can

certainly make gaining students’ respect for their authority easier for the more

mature preservice teachers. Also, it is likely that the nontraditional group has had

more experience and practice than the traditional group managing people, in

previous employment or even with their own children.

Implications. Teaching preservice teachers about classroom

management remains a common and constant issue. Teacher preparation

programs might consider providing better clinical experiences specifically for

classroom management. For example, perhaps preservice teachers could be

assigned to conduct a guided observation with classroom management as the

sole focus. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on understanding the

learners’ needs in the classroom to which one is assigned to student teach.

Assuming nontraditional preservice teachers look as if they are older than

traditional preservice teachers, the nontraditional group might have that slight

advantage when it comes to classroom management. Proper attire and mature

poise might also enable traditional preservice teachers to garner students’

respect and obedience. Teacher preparation programs can provide instruction for

effective nonverbal methods of communicating with students, giving preservice

teachers yet another way to establish authority.

Finally, teacher preparation programs might consider requiring or

suggesting that their preservice teacher spend their summers doing internships

at summer camps. This type of immersion into the adolescent world might teach

them about their future learners, about their own capability of managing these

learners, and even whether they want to continue to pursue teaching as a career.

Research Question 2

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the teaching and learning

construct on the RDI Student Teaching Assessment?

Results. The average score for nontraditional preservice teachers was

higher in every teaching and learning question except for TL3, which is

“Appropriately integrates instructional resources, including technology, into the

curriculum to support student learning.” This is interesting because it harkens

back to the notion of teachers teach how they were taught. Traditional preservice

teachers, current millennials, are digital natives who most likely went to schools

where their teachers incorporated technology. They are probably familiar with

several technological methods of helping their students understand concepts and

may reach for technology naturally to enhance their lessons, whereas

nontraditional preservice teachers are less familiar with technology in schools

and may tend to force or add technology as an afterthought. It may not come as

naturally to them as it does to traditional preservice teachers.

Otherwise, the nontraditional group on average scored higher on the

other six items of the teaching and learning section of the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment. These items capture the essence of student teaching: the planning

and implementing of lessons, and assessing whether the students learned the

lessons.

Implications. Teacher preparation programs should think about requiring

more preparation regarding technology, particularly for their digital immigrants.

While an entire semester’s course might not be necessary, perhaps providing

workshops with hands-on activities could enable preservice teachers to practice

using the technology that they will most likely be required to use.

At some point in the future, this will become less necessary, as the digital

natives become more prevalent and the digital immigrants become less

apparent.

Research Question 3

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the interpersonal skills

construct on the RDI Student Teaching Assessment?

Results. The average score for nontraditional preservice teacher was

higher in every interpersonal skills question except for IS3, which is “Includes

families in the education process.” This could indicate a disconnect between the

philosophy of the ISU College of Education and the real-world experience of

teaching. The RDI Student Teaching Assessment lists this as one of its fifteen

topics on which preservice teachers are rated, but it may prove to be more

ambiguous and less necessary than its original intent. Nontraditional preservice

teachers may have found it artificial to include families in the learning process.

Perhaps they have children in school and as parents are not included in the

learning process of their own children. By the time students are in secondary

schools, their families may be less easily defined after marriages, deaths,

divorces, remarriages, etc. In addition, parents who stayed home while their

children were younger may have rejoined the work force as their children

became more independent. Knowing that student learners are mostly, at the

secondary level, responsible for their own learning may be a reason that

nontraditional preservice teachers may have focused more on getting their

students to learn than on incorporating their families into the learning process.

Implications. This particular item on the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment seems the farthest from the control of the preservice student

teacher. While it is important for teachers to know their learners in order to best

help them attach new learning to their own life experiences, it may be very

difficult for someone who is just learning to teach to accomplish within such a

short period of time. Secondary students are generally a busy group of people,

with extracurricular activities and jobs in addition to their hours of homework.

Additionally, at this point in their adolescence, they are taking more responsibility

for their own learning and relying less on assistance with homework from their

parents.

Perhaps this RDI item should be reconsidered and either reworked or

removed entirely from the Student Teaching Assessment. If not, then the teacher

education program could make a stronger attempt to instill its importance and

show its relevance to nontraditional preservice teachers.

Research Question 4

How did traditional preservice student teachers differ from nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their scores on the time management

construct on the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey?

Results. Although the data was not statistically significant, some

assumptions can be made. Nontraditional preservice teachers anticipated being

able to manage their time effectively both at school and outside school with more

confidence than traditional preservice teachers anticipated for themselves.

Postsurvey scores show that the same nontraditional group felt that they had

indeed managed their time more effectively than the traditional group felt about

their own time management. In addition, traditional preservice teachers

anticipated spending more time outside school working on various student-

teaching tasks, but in fact nontraditional preservice teachers spent much more

time outside school doing student-teaching tasks than traditional preservice

teachers.

This shows that the older, more mature group with more life experiences

was better able to manage their time effectively than the less mature group.

Interestingly, though, the nontraditional group underestimated at the beginning

how much time would be required for completing student-teaching activities

outside the school setting. It is as if the more time exists between being a student

in high school and between student teaching in a high school, the less likely a

preservice teacher will remember how much work there is for a teacher to do.

Implications. Teacher preparation programs might consider providing

better clinical experiences specifically for time management. For example,

perhaps preservice teachers could be assigned to conduct a guided observation

with time management as the sole focus. In the semesters before student

teaching, in addition to observing classes, they could observe a planning session

composed of a teacher team or even just one teacher. They could observe

classroom set-up procedures before students arrive, watch departmental goal-

setting meetings, attend curriculum writings. Also, cooperating teachers can help

by revealing and demonstrating their own uses of didactic time and time capital.

They could be more intentional about revealing how they plan for lessons and

how they structure their daily, weekly, quarterly, and yearly work.

Finally, teacher preparation programs should consider conducting

workshops, not necessarily classes, about time management. Several ways to

think about time and plan for time should be presented at these workshops,

along with some ideas about implementation that preservice teachers can use

immediately. It might also be beneficial to discuss with preservice teachers, as

part of their coursework, the amount of time to anticipate spending on various

student-teaching tasks.

Research Question 5

How did traditional preservice student teachers compare to nontraditional

preservice student teachers in terms of their rates of correlation between their

perceptions of the constructs per their Preservice Teacher Perception Surveys

and their actual assessed performance per their RDI Student Teaching

Assessments?

Results. The sample size was too small to make comparisons between

how preservice teachers rated themselves and how their university supervisors

and cooperating teachers rated them. For the most part, the preservice teachers

gave themselves higher ratings than their supervisors did, with very little

difference between the two groups.

Implications. Because the sample size was so small and the differences

between the two groups so insignificant, generalizations at this point would be

difficult to make. However, because across the board most preservice teachers

had inflated perceptions of their performance as student teachers, the

cooperating teachers and university supervisors could be more transparent about

their evaluation process. When cooperating teachers discuss with their

preservice teachers how the preservice teachers are doing in the classroom, they

could model their discussions using the terms of the RDI Student Teaching

Assessment. Both cooperating teachers and their student teachers could keep

reflective logs, structured using the RDI guidelines, with anecdotal notes to

provide a springboard for weekly discussions about the student-teaching

process.

Research Question 6

How did both groups of preservice student teachers compare before their

student teaching experience to after their student teaching experience?

Results. In the construct of professional demeanor, traditional preservice

teachers under-anticipated their perceived effectiveness at classroom

management skills; they gave themselves a higher number for that item on the

presurvey than they did on the postsurvey. Nontraditional preservice teachers felt

more strongly at the end of the semester than at the beginning of the semester

about being eager to be in their own classroom, teaching their own way. And

nontraditional preservice teachers were also less apprehensive at the end of the

semester than they were at the beginning of the semester, while the opposite

held true for the traditional preservice teachers.

For the variable teaching and learning, the traditional group anticipated at

the beginning of the semester that they would do better at developing and

planning lessons than they felt they did at the end of the semester. Also, the

traditional group thought they would use multiple assessment strategies at the

beginning of the semester, but at the end they felt less strongly. This held true for

the items about using reflection to improve instruction and demonstrating

persistence in helping all students learn. In all four of these items, the

nontraditional group under-anticipated their performance at the beginning, then

evaluated themselves higher at the end.

As for interpersonal skills, both groups of preservice teachers anticipated

including families in the education process at a higher score than they self-

evaluated at the end of the semester, but the traditional group had a more

dramatic difference in their results than the nontraditional group.

Finally, in the construct time management, the traditional group reported

spending fewer hours per week on assessing student progress than they had

planned, while the nontraditional group reported spending more hours than

planned. Both groups reported spending more hours performing other

educational tasks related to student teaching than they had anticipated, but the

nontraditional group had more of a difference between the amount of time they

anticipated spending, and the amount of time they actually spent.

Implications. The differences indicate a need for more differentiation

between traditional preservice teachers and nontraditional preservice teachers.

Because the very nature of the nontraditional preservice teacher indicates both

more maturity and more life experiences upon which to attach new learning,

nontraditional preservice teachers present as a different type of student than

traditional preservice teachers. This may call for two different types of classes,

with a “Teaching 101a” class for traditional preservice teachers and a “Teaching

101b” class for nontraditional preservice teachers. Then instructors should pay

attention to the levels of pedagogy and andragogy they incorporate into their

lessons.

Perhaps the use of more workshops throughout the teacher education

program could achieve the same purpose, providing extra guidance for

nontraditional preservice teachers to use and incorporate technology into their

classrooms, and extra guidance for traditional preservice teachers to manage

their time, both didactic and time capital.

It might be beneficial as well to discuss with student teachers the amount

of time they will have to devote to their student teaching. Nontraditional students

might not have planned to spend as much time as they actually did, and this may

have led to other conflicts in aspects that are unique to nontraditional students,

such as family obligations or possibly even work obligations.

Conclusions

While more research is indicated, some implications of the findings point

to better and differentiated preparation for the two groups of student teachers,

the traditional and the nontraditional. The results of this study show that

traditional student teachers had higher expectations and likely higher confidence

going into their student-teaching experience than they had at the end of their

experience. Perhaps teacher educators can focus more on realistic expectations

for this group so they are not overly confident at the beginning or overly

disappointed at the end of student teaching. Conversely, nontraditional student

teachers had lower expectations and likely lower confidence going into their

student-teaching experience. Perhaps teacher educators can focus more on

getting nontraditional student teachers to draw upon their own life experience to

inspire confidence at the beginning of the student-teaching experience.

Nontraditional students know more than they think they do.

Also, all five of the mathematics preservice teachers had identical

evaluations, with straight “threes” for every item. So for every item on their

evaluation, their evaluators (team of cooperating teacher and university

supervisor) rated them as “proficient (novice teacher).” While five mathematics

teachers out of a possible forty-four mathematics preservice teachers who

student-taught this semester is a very small sample, it prompted an inquiry from

the researcher to the Assistant Director of Certification and Data at the College of

Education Clinical Experiences and Certification Processes. The Assistant

Director indicated via email that such scoring might be an indication of a

difference in the math department’s philosophy of grading. If further investigation

into this apparent difference in evaluating student teachers yields a difference in

the math department’s philosophy of grading, the next step might be a discussion

of departmental differences in the interest of fairness to students.

Recommendations for Future Research

The number of participants in this study was disappointingly small. While

the results definitely show that differences do exist between the traditional and

nontraditional preservice teacher, the results do not show much specifically in

each of the constructs of professional demeanor, teaching and learning,

interpersonal skills, and time management. One recommendation is to conduct

this same study again next year, attempting to get more participants. A couple of

ways to do that might be a personal plea in the classroom before the student

teachers go into the field and are away from the direct influence of their teacher

educators. Another way might be to offer some sort of incentive, such as gift

cards. A second recommendation is to conduct a qualitative approach to this

data, by conducting case studies of some traditional preservice teachers and

nontraditional preservice teachers. In addition to verifying what the data from this

study suggests, other details could be obtained such as why a participant gives a

certain response, rather than just the response itself.

The nontraditional preservice teacher group could be further divided and

investigated as to status of parenthood and military service. These two

subgroups have specific scaffolding from life experiences and may have

characteristics that could cause teacher educators to differentiate their

instruction.

It might also be valuable to look at the evaluation process at Illinois State

University by department. If discrepancies in grading philosophies exist, this

might merit further review.

This study was conducted at only one level of teaching, secondary, and

at only one teacher education program, Illinois State University. The study could

easily be replicated at the elementary level or at any other teacher education

program, by modifying the Preservice Teacher Perception Survey to correlate

with the appropriate student teaching assessment.

REFERENCES

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2012). Pathways to

success: integrating learning with life and work to increase national

college completion. U.S. Congress and Secretary of Education.

Washington, D.C.: Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance.

Al-Bataineh, A. (2009). An examination of pre-service teacher preparedness: a

cooperating teacher perspective. The International Journal of Learning, 16

(5), 231-246.

Assude, T. (2005). Time management in the work economy of a class, a case

study: integration of Cabri in primary school mathematics teaching.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59 (1-3), 183-203.

Baloche, L., Hynes, J., & Berger, H. (1996). Moving toward the integration of

professional and general education. Action in Teacher Education, 18, 1-9.

Banks, F., Leach, J., & Moon, B. (2005). Extract from new understandings of

teachers' pedagogic knowledge. Curriculum Journal, 16 (3), 331-340.

Baumlein, G. (2004). The cyberstudent. In L. C. Englemann (Ed.), Teaching

Nursing: The Art and Science (pp. 434-446). Glen Ellyn, Illinois: College of

DuPage Press.

Birrell, J. R., & Bullough, R. V. (2005). Teaching with a peer: a follow-up study of

the 1st year of teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 27 (1), 72-81.

Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: a critical study of learning to

teach. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. Can teacher education make a difference?

American Educational Research Journa , 42 (1), 153-224.

Brown, S. D. (2004). State Certification Requirements for History Teachers

(Report No. EDO-SO-2003-14. (D. Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (ED) Washington, Ed.) ERIC Digest.

Byrd, D. M., & McIntyre, D. J. (1996). Introduction: using research to strengthen

field experiences. In D. J. McIntyre, & D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Preparing

tomorrow's teachers: the field experience (p. xiv). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press, Inc.

Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with

understanding. In E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics

classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19-320). Mahwah, New

Jersey: Erlbaum.

Chen, Y., Lee, Y.-T., Pethel, O. L., Gutowitz, M. S., & Kirk, R. M. (2012). Age

differences in goal concordance, time use, and well-being. Educational

Gerontology, 38 (11), 742-752.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating Teachers for the next century:

Rethinking practice and policy. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of

teachers (pp. 221-256). Chicago: National Society for the Study of

Education.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing Teachers for a

Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able To Do. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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 (4), 286-302.

Enz, B. J., Freeman, D. J., & Wallin, M. B. (1996). Roles and responsibilities of

the student teacher supervisor: matches and mismatches in perception. In

D. J. McIntyre & D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Preparing tomorrow's teachers: the

field experience (pp. 131-150). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press,

Inc.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: designing a contiuum

to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103 (6),

1033-55.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Beasley, K. (2007). Discovering and sharing knowledge.

In D. Carroll, H. Featherstone, J. Featherstone, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D.

Roosevelt (Eds.), Transforming Teacher Education (pp. 139-160).

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.

Foote, C., Vermette, P., Wisniewski, S., Agnello, A., & Pagano, C. (2000). The

characteristics of bad high school teachers reveal avoidable behaviors for

new teachers. Education, 121 (1), 128-135.

Goubeaud, K., & Yan, W. (2004). Teacher educators' teaching methods,

assessment, and grading: a comparison of higher education faculty's

instructional practices. Teacher Educator, 40 (1), 1-16.

Griffin, G. A. (1999). Changes in teacher education: looking to the future.. In G.

A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers (p. 15). Chicago: National

Society for the Study of Education.

Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A

lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26

(4), 281-301.

Henry, M. A., & Weber, A. (2010). Supervising student teachers the professional

way (Seventh ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Horowitz, F. D., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Comer, J., Rosebrock, K., &

Austin, K. (2005). Eduating teachers for developmentally appropriate

practice. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing

teachers for a changing world (p. 107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation.

New York: Vintage.

Illinois State Board of Education. (2012). Alternative teacher certification.

Retrieved from Educator Certification:

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/profprep/PDFs/sec21-5b.pdf

Illinois State Board of Education. (2013, July). Steps to obtaining an educator

license in Illinois. Retrieved July 2103, from Educator Licensure:

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/licensure/pdf/ed-lic-steps1212.pdf

Illinois State University College of Education Teacher Education Center. (2013).

Clinical Experiences and Student Teaching. Retrieved July 19, 2013, from

Illinois State University College of Education Cecilia J. Lauby Teacher

Education Center: http://education.illinoisstate.edu/teacher_education

/clinical/

Illinois State University College of Education Teacher Education Center. (2013).

Cooperating Teachers. Retrieved July 19, 2013, from Illinois State

University College of Education Cecilia J. Lauby Teacher Education

Center: http://education.illinoisstate.edu/teacher_education/cooperating/

Illinois State University College of Education Teacher Education Center. (2013).

University Supervisors. Retrieved July 19, 2013, from Illinois State

University College of Education Cecilia J. Lauby Teacher Education

Center: http://education.illinoisstate.edu/teacher_education/supervisors/

Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between

traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education

Quarterly, 5 (3), p236-249.

Kazis, R., Callahan, A., & Davidson, C. (2007). Adult learners in higher

education: barriers to success and strategies to improve results,

employment, and training administration. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration.

Killen, R. (2007). Effective teaching strategies: lessons from research and

practice. South Melbourne: Thomson Social Science Press.

Killen, R. (1994). Student teachers' perceptions of successful and unsuccessful

events during practice teaching. ERIC.

Kniseley, M. (2011, May). Win a teaching job. Retrieved April 19, 2012, from

winateachingjob.com: http://www.winateachingjob.com/2011/05/applying-

for-jobs-understanding.html

Knobloch, N. A., & Whittington, M. S. (2002). Novice teachers' perceptions of

support, teacher preparation quality, and student teaching experience

related to teacher efficacy. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 27,

331-41.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Kugel, P. (1993, January). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in

Higher Education, 18 (3).

Lee, D., & Lamport, M. A. (2011). Non-traditional entrants to the profession of

teaching: motivations and experiences of second-career teachers.

Christian Perspectives in Education, 4 (2).

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press.

Massengill, D., Mahlios, M., & Barry, A. (2005). Metaphors and sense of

teaching: how these constructs influence novice teachers. Teaching

Education, 16 (3), 213-229.

Mastrilli, T., & Sardo-Brown, D. (2002). Novice Teachers' Cases: A vehicle for

reflective practice. Education, 123 (1), 56 - 63.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: pillars of adult

learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (80),

3-13.

Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers.

Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (1), 31-42.

Moyer, B. A., & Wittmann-Price, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). Nursing education:

foundations for practice excellence. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (n.d.). The digital literacy debate:

an investigation of digital propensity and information and communicative

technology. Etr&D – Educational Technology Research and Development,

58(5), 531-555.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).

Novak, D., & Knowles, J. G. (1992). Life histories and the transition to teaching

as a second career. American Education Research Association. San

Francisco, CA: ERIC.

Oblinger, D. (2003, July/August). Boomers, gen-xers, & millennials:

understanding the new students. Educause , 38 (4), pp. 36-47.

Olejnik, S. F. (1984). Planning educational research: determining the necessary

sample size. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, p. 40-48.

Paccion, A. V., McWhorter, B. A., & Richburg, R. W. (2000). Ten years on the

fast track. In D. J. Mcintyre, & D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Research on Effective

Models for Teacher Education (pp. 218-234). Thousand Oaks, California:

Corwin Press, Inc.

Pauly, E. (2002). Nobody told me about May. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 46 (4), 284.

Pearson Education Incorporated. (Retrieved October 11, 2011). Illinois

Certification Testing System. http://www.icts.nesinc.com/IL16_

passingrequirements.asp. (2001).

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1-6.)

Rajuan, M., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The role of the cooperating

teacher: bridging the gap between the expectations of cooperating

teachers and student teachers. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in

Learning ,15 (3), 223-242.

Salkind, N. J. (2004). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics

(Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

Singer-Gabella, M., Iddings, C., Paulsen, K., Smithey, M., Hardenbrook, M.,

Palmeri, A., et al. (2007). From teacher education to P-12 learning

outcomes: the new burden of proof. Teaching & Learning, 21 (2/3), 115-

138.

Sosniak, L. A. (1998). Professional and subject matter knowledge for teacher

education. Yearbook (National Society for the Study of Education), 98 (1),

185-204.

Student teaching for secondary and K-12 majors. (2011). Retrieved December 2,

2011, from Teacher Education at Illinois State University:

http//teacheredcenter.illinoisstate.edu/clinicalexpstudentteaching/

secondary/studentteaching.html.

Swain, C. (2006). Preservice teachers self-assessment using technology:

determining what is worthwhile and looking for changes in daily teaching

and learning practices. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 14

(1), 29-59.

Teacher Certification. (2011). Retrieved October 10, 2011. Illinois State

University, Office of the University Registrar. Normal, IL:

http://www.registrar.ilstu.edu/teacher_certification/.

The National Academy of Education, Committee on Teacher Education. (2005).

A good teacher in every classroom: preparing the highly qualified teachers

our children deserve. (L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Baratz-Snowden, Eds.)

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tyler, K. (2007, May). The tethered generation. HR Magazine, 52 (5), pp. 40-46.

Vogt, W. P. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston,

MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wilcox, D. R., & Samaras, A. P. (2009). Examining our career switching teachers'

first year of teaching: implications for alternative teacher education

program design. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36 (4), 173-191.

Wilson, C. L. (2000). English student teachers' perceptions of successful student

teaching (Vol. Ed.D. dissertation). Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation

research: an insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher

Education, 53 (3), 190-204.

100

APPENDIX A

REALIZING THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL STUDENT TEACHING ASSESSMENT

This rubric presents elements of student teaching performance that are (1) broadly applicable to

the variety of programs at Illinois State University and (2) aligned with the Ethical and

Intellectual Commitments (codes noted in brackets, full text at the end of this document )

associated with Realizing the Democratic Ideal, the University’s conceptual framework for

teacher education. This assessment is not a grading scale.

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable (1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to

be seen in

student

teaching

Examples of

Possible Evidence

Regarding professional demeanor

Demonstrates

specialized

content

knowledge for

teaching.

[IC1:

knowledge]

Lacks mastery of

the content. If

content errors

are made, the

candidate

frequently

neither

acknowledges

nor rectifies the

error.

Shows mastery

of most content

taught. When

content errors

are made, the

errors are

usually

acknowledged

and rectified in

an appropriate

and timely

manner.

Shows mastery

of virtually all

content taught.

When content

errors are made,

the errors are

acknowledged

and rectified in

an appropriate

and timely

manner. Draws

on connected

knowledge to

enrich learning

experiences.

Shows mastery

of the content

needed for

teaching. When

content errors

are made, the

errors are

acknowledged

and rectified in

an appropriate

and timely

manner. The

candidate

integrates

understanding

of specific

content,

pedagogy,

issues that

impact student

learning, and

assessment.

Lesson/Unit/Curr.

Plans

Bulletin boards

Student work

samples

Goal statements

Enhancement

Activities

101

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable (1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to

be seen in

student

teaching

Examples of

Possible Evidence

Communicates

effectively

(written,

verbal, and

nonverbal).

[IC5:

enthusiasm]

Communicates in

ways that do not

promote a

positive effect on

learning.

Communications

are poorly

organized,

inappropriate,

and/or are error-

ridden.

Communicates in

ways that are

effective,

respectful of the

audience,

accurate, and

meaningful.

Consistently

communicates in

ways that are

effective,

respectful of the

audience,

accurate, and

meaningful and

that contribute

to a positive

learning

environment.

Consistently

communicates

in ways that are

effective,

respectful of

the audience,

accurate, and

meaningful and

that contribute

to a positive

learning

environment.

The candidate

identifies

barriers to

effective

communication

and uses

appropriate

strategies to

overcome

them.

Bulletin boards

Lesson Videos

Letters to parents

Notes to students

Candidate-made

materials

102

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable (1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to

be seen in

student

teaching

Examples of

Possible Evidence

3. Uses

effective

classroom

management

skills to

maintain safe

and positive

learning

environments.

[EC4: respect

for learners;

EC3: regard for

learning]

Does not

attempt to

establish a

positive,

developmentally

appropriate

learning

environment.

The candidate

does not address

inappropriate

student

behavior. Safety

issues are not

addressed

appropriately.

Plans for a

positive,

developmentally

appropriate

learning

environment.

When student

behavior

concerns arise

the candidate

makes an

attempt to

address the

inappropriate

behavior. The

candidate

recognizes and

rectifies

potential safety

hazards.

Implements and

adapts plans for

the learning

environment to

meet emerging

needs (students,

curricula, etc.).

The candidate

employs multiple

strategies to

effectively

manage

behavior

concerns. The

candidate

conscientiously

scans the

environment for

potential safety

hazards and

rectifies them

promptly.

Creates a

learning

community

based on trust,

respect, and

reciprocity. The

candidate

analyzes

behavior

concerns and

anticipates

alternative

influences to

more effectively

redirect student

behavior. The

candidate

maintains a safe

learning

environment

and raises

students’

awareness of

safety concerns.

Supervisor

Reports

Video of lesson

Reflections

103

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable (1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to

be seen in

student

teaching

Examples of

Possible Evidence

Demonstrates

professional

practice

consistent with

an appropriate

philosophy of

education.

[EC3: regard

for learning]

Makes

instructional

choices that are

inconsistent with

one’s philosophy

of education or

has an

inappropriate

philosophy of

education.

Attempts to align

learning

activities with

one’s philosophy

of education.

Aligns

educational

practice (e.g.,

planning,

implementation,

interactions with

students) with

one’s philosophy

of education.

Adapts one’s

philosophy of

education

through

reflection on

experience and

deeper

understanding

of teaching and

learning. The

philosophy is

reflected widely

in activities and

interactions

with children,

families, and

other education

professionals.

Portfolio

including essay

(position paper)

Reflections

Supervisor

Reports

Lesson Plans

5. Seeks

appropriate

opportunities

for

professional

development.

[IC4:

resourceful;

IC5:

enthusiasm]

Participates in no

supplemental

opportunities for

professional

development.

Participates in

appropriate

professional

development

activities,

beyond those

required by the

school or district

(more than

internet

research).

Applies insights

(knowledge,

skills, etc.)

gained from

professional

development to

practice.

Provides

professional

development

for others (e.g.,

by sharing

insights gained

or organizing

professional

development

opportunities).

Reflections on

attendance at

professional

conferences

Membership in

professional

organization

104

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable

(1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to be

seen in student

teaching

Possible

Evidence

Regarding teaching and learning

6. Plans and

develops

lessons to meet

instructional

goals and serve

diverse

learners.

[IC3:

understand

learning; EC3:

regard for

learning; IC2:

diversity among

learners; EC1:

sensitivity—

diversity]

Does not plan

well or plans do

not connect to

instructional

goals.

Plans lessons

that align with

stated

instructional

goals and may

reflect some

consideration of

the needs of

diverse learners.

Plans engaging

lessons that

align with

stated

instructional

goals and

explicitly

address the

needs of

diverse

learners.

Plans creative,

robust and

engaging lessons

that align with

inter-related

instructional goals

(e.g., grade level

curriculum, state

learning standards,

school-level

initiatives and

personal

development) to

address the needs

of diverse learners

appropriately.

Goal

statements

Individual

lessons plans

Unit plans

Teacher work

sample

Teacher-made

materials

IEP

Differentiates

instruction.

[IC3:

understand

learning; IC2:

diversity among

learners]

Uses a single

method to teach

students and

cannot adapt

instruction to

help students

learn.

Uses a few

different

methods and

shows some

evidence of

adapting

instruction to

help students

learn.

Uses multiple

methods to

teach students

(in presenting

content,

engaging

students, or

assessing

learning). The

candidate

adapts

instruction to

help students

learn.

Consistently uses

multiple means of

presenting content,

engaging students,

and assessing

progress in order

to teach all

students in

developmentally

appropriate ways.

Lesson Plans

Assessments

Reflections

Curriculum

plans.

Observation

plans.

105

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable

(1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to be

seen in student

teaching

Possible

Evidence

Appropriately

integrates

instructional

resources,

including

technology, into

the curriculum

to support

student

learning.

[IC4:

resourceful]

Does not

integrate

resources,

including

technology, into

the curriculum

or does so in a

manner that

does not

support student

learning.

Effectively

integrates a

variety of

appropriate

instructional

resources,

including

available

technology, into

the curriculum.

Uses a variety

of instructional

resources,

including

technology, on

a regular basis,

to enhance the

delivery of the

content and

make the

content

accessible to all

students.

Uses a wide variety

of instructional

resources,

including

technology,

consistently and

effectively in

designing,

implementing, and

assessing

meaningful

learning activities.

Computer

programs

Essays,

Interviews

Individual plans

Observation

reports

Journals,

Pictures

Lesson plans

9. Uses

multiple

assessment

strategies.

[EC3: regard for

learning]

Uses limited

materials, media

and strategies to

assess individual

and group

achievement.

Uses a variety of

materials, media

and strategies to

assess individual

and group

achievement.

Uses a variety

of materials,

media, and

strategies to

assess student

learning and

uses reflection

on assessment

findings to

guide future

instruction, i.e.,

practices data-

driven decision-

making.

Uses a variety of

materials, media,

and strategies to

continually assess

student learning

and uses findings

to guide decisions

for short- and long-

term planning, i.e.,

practices data-

driven decision-

making.

Portfolio

Assessments

Projects

Bulletin boards

Student work

samples

Teacher-made

materials

106

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable

(1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to be

seen in student

teaching

Possible

Evidence

10. Uses

reflection to

improve

instruction.

[IC5:

enthusiasm;

EC3: regard for

learning]

Does not reflect

and write action

statements

showing intent

to improve

learning

experiences

based on

information

gained from

previous lessons

and supervisor

feedback.

Reflects and

writes action

statements

showing intent

to improve

learning

experiences

based on

information

gained from

previous lessons

and supervisor

feedback.

Reflects and

writes action

statements

showing intent

to improve

learning

experiences

based on

information

gained from

lessons and

supervisor

feedback and

implements

those changes

in subsequent

lessons.

Reflects and writes

action statements

showing intent to

improve learning

experiences and

implements those

changes in

subsequent

lessons. The

candidate also

makes appropriate

changes while

teaching based on

student response.

Lesson plans

Videos,

Reflective

Essays

Cooperating

Teacher and

University

Supervisor’s

feedback

11.

Demonstrates

persistence in

helping all

students learn.

[EC3: regard for

learning; IC5:

enthusiasm;

EC4: respect for

learners]

Gives up after

one attempt

and/or

attributes

inadequate

student

achievement to

external factors

(e.g., family,

social context,

students won’t

try).

Seeks additional

approaches and

strategies with

the intent to

help all students

learn.

Is persistent in

using a variety

of approaches

and strategies

to help all

students learn

and provides

remediation as

suggested by

assessment.

Persistently uses a

variety of

approaches,

including

remediation, and

draws upon both

internal and

external resources

to support and

sustain student

learning whenever

appropriate.

Reflections

Lesson Plans

IEPs

Referrals

Supervisor

Reports

107

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in a

professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable

(1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to be

seen in student

teaching

Possible

Evidence

12. Uses

assessment to

demonstrate

positive impact

on student

learning.

[EC3: regard for

learning; EC4:

respect for

learners]

Selects activities

that do not

promote

progress with

respect to

intended

learning

outcomes

and/or does not

know how to

determine

whether

students are

progressing.

Assesses

sporadically but

does not

consistently

incorporate

results into

subsequent

instructional

planning.

Routinely uses

multiple

sources of

evidence to

demonstrate

progress with

respect to

intended

learning

outcomes and

considers

results in

planning.

Uses both

formative and

summative

measures to assess

for positive impact.

The candidate

systematically

plans for pre- and

post- assessments,

analyzes for

evidence of

progress with

respect to intended

learning outcomes,

and modifies

instruction as

needed.

Observations,

Journal writing

Pre-test/ Post-

test

Teacher Work

Samples

Student Work

Samples

108

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in

a professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable (1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to

be seen in

student teaching

Possible

Evidence

Regarding interpersonal skills

13.

Demonstrates

respect for all

students.

[EC4: respect

for learners;

EC1:

sensitivity—

diversity]

Displays

disparaging or

offensive

attitudes and

perceptions

toward students

and/or families.

Engages

developmentally

inappropriate

expectations and

practices such as

disrespectful or

insensitive

interactions,

humiliation or

unjust

treatment.

Values students

as individuals by

fostering an

environment

based on

developmentally

appropriate

expectations and

respectful

interactions.

Values students

as individuals

and as members

of the learning

community by

fostering an

inclusive

environment

based on

developmentally

appropriate

expectations,

respectful

interaction, and

justice.

Values students

as individuals

and as partners

in the learning

community by

fostering an

inclusive

environment

based on

developmentally

appropriate

expectations,

respectful

interaction,

justice,

cooperation,

responsibility,

and team work.

Reflective

journals

Lesson Plans

Video of lessons

Supervisor’s

Report

14. Develops

positive

working

relationships

with others

involved in the

educational

setting.

[EC2:

collaboration]

Has limited

positive

interaction with

others and/or

interpersonal

conduct hinders

professional

relationships to

serve students

effectively.

Interacts and

cooperates with

other teachers

courteously and

respectfully to

promote

professional

relationships.

Cultivates

positive

interactions that

extend to

support staff,

school

volunteers, other

specialists,

and/or

community

professionals to

serve students

more effectively.

Collaborates

regularly with a

variety of

individuals to

enhance practice

and serve

students

effectively.

Involvement in

team or other

Professional

meetings

Cooperating

Teacher reports

University

Supervisor

reports

Written

communications

Peer critique

Team developed

and taught

lesson plans

109

Indicator

The teacher

candidate, in

a professional

and ethical

manner,:

Unacceptable (1)

Satisfactory (2)

Novice Teacher

Proficient (3)

Novice Teacher

Exemplary (4)

Experienced

Teacher, rare to

be seen in

student teaching

Possible

Evidence

15. Includes

families in the

education

process.

[EC2:

collaboration;

IC4:

resourceful]

Shows no

evidence of

interaction with

families.

Engages in some

outreach

attempts, (e.g.,

parent/teacher

conferences,

written

communications,

phone

conversations).

Implements a

plan to include

families in the

educational

process (e.g.,

web-based,

schedule of

conference

opportunities,

variety of

activities).

Diligently seeks

opportunities to

interact with

families with the

intent of

incorporating

them into the

educational

process.

Attendance at

PTO meetings or

other family

school functions

Phone Logs

Newsletters

110

APPENDIX B

PRESERVICE TEACHER PERCEPTION SURVEY

Pre-Survey – Before beginning student-teaching experience

You are invited to participate in a small study to discover whether

differences exist between traditional preservice teachers (those who entered

college immediately after graduating from high school) and non-traditional

preservice teachers (those who are returning to college to pursue a new degree

in teaching). The results of this study may impact future design of teacher

education programs. A direct benefit to you is the opportunity to reflect upon your

preservice teaching so far. The risk is minimal, as the only imaginable possible

discomfort might be some anxiety surfacing as a result of reflecting on your

preservice teaching. The survey consists of 27 questions with simple choices and

a Likert scale. The questions are related to preservice teaching and correlate

directly to the Realizing the Democratic Ideal. The survey should take less than

10 minutes of your time.

This survey is about your anticipations and expectations of your student-

teaching experience. At the end of the semester, you will be asked to take

another short survey with exactly the same questions in exactly the same order,

to see to what degree your concluding perceptions aligned with your

expectations about your student-teaching experience.

Another piece of this study includes matching participants’ survey answers

to their preservice evaluations provided by their university supervisors and their

cooperating teachers. ULIDs will be necessary to match surveys to evaluations,

but immediately after the match, all identifiers will be destroyed and replaced with

random numbers. You will be given the opportunity to participate with a separate

form of consent at the end of the semester.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me,

Cynthia Schairer-Kessler, at [email protected], or my doctoral committee chair,

Dr. Nancy Latham at [email protected]. In addition, for questions about research

participants’ rights and/or a research related injury or adverse effects, notify the

Research Ethics & Compliance Office at (309) 438-2529 and/or [email protected].

111

Your participation is greatly appreciated and completely voluntary. You

can recuse yourself from participating at any time with absolutely no risk or

penalty.

Thank you for your cooperation, and sincere best wishes for your student-

teaching experience.

112

Pre-Survey – before beginning student-teaching experience

Directions for Professional Demeanor section: Please choose the option that best

describes you.

Professional Demeanor

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

1. I will demonstrate specialized content knowledge for teaching

2. I will communicate effectively (written, verbal, nonverbal)

3. I will use effective classroom management skills to maintain safe and

positive learning environments

4. I will feel like a “real teacher” during my student teaching

5. I can’t wait to get my own classroom so I can teach my way

6. I am apprehensive about being in my own classroom

Directions for Teaching and Learning section: Please choose the option that best

describes you.

Teaching and Learning

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

7. I will plan and develop lessons to meet instructional goals and serve

diverse learners

8. I will differentiate instruction

9. I will appropriately integrate instructional resources, including technology,

into the curriculum to support student learning

10. I will use multiple assessment strategies

11. I will use reflection to improve instruction

12. I will demonstrate persistence in helping all students learn

13. I will demonstrate a positive impact on student learning

14. I will create my own lessons

15. I will use someone else’s lessons but rework them to fit my needs

16. I will use someone else’s lessons as they are

113

Directions for Interpersonal Skills section: Please choose the option that best

describes you.

Interpersonal Skills

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

17. I will demonstrate respect for all students

18. I will develop positive working relationships with others involved in the

educational setting

19. I will include families in the education process

20. I will find it difficult to fit in with the other teachers

21. I will find it easy to work with other teachers

22. My cooperating teacher will help me immensely

Directions for Time-Management Skills section: Please choose the option that

best describes you.

Time-Management Skills

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

23. I will be able to manage my time at the school effectively

24. I will be able to manage my time outside the school effectively

25. Hours outside school I anticipate I will spend planning instruction per week

fill in number

26. Hours outside school I anticipate I will spend assessing student progress

per week fill in number

27. Hours outside school I anticipate I will spend performing other educational

tasks related to student-teaching fill in number

114

Post-Survey – After completing student-teaching experience

You chose to participate in a small study to discover whether differences

exist between traditional preservice teachers (those who entered college

immediately after graduating from high school) and non-traditional preservice

teachers (those who are returning to college to pursue a new degree in

teaching). The results of this study may impact future design of teacher

education programs. A direct benefit to you is the opportunity to reflect upon your

preservice teaching so far. The risk is minimal, as the only imaginable possible

discomfort might be some anxiety surfacing as a result of reflecting on your

preservice teaching. The survey consists of 2 questions with simple choices and

a Likert scale. The questions are related to preservice teaching and correlate

directly to the Realizing the Democratic Ideal. The survey should take about less

than 10 minutes of your time.

This survey is about your perceptions of your student-teaching

experience. At the beginning of the semester, you already took a brief survey

with exactly the same questions in exactly the same order. Today’s survey will

illuminate the degree to which your concluding perceptions align with your

beginning expectations about your student-teaching experience.

Another piece of this study includes matching participants’ survey answers

to their preservice evaluations provided by their university supervisors and their

cooperating teachers. ULIDs will be necessary to match surveys to evaluations,

but immediately after the match, all identifiers will be destroyed and replaced with

random numbers. You will be given the opportunity to participate with a separate

form of consent at the end of the semester.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me,

Cynthia Schairer-Kessler, at [email protected], or my doctoral committee chair,

Dr. Nancy Latham at [email protected]. In addition, for questions about research

participants’ rights and/or a research related injury or adverse effects, notify the

Research Ethics & Compliance Office at (309) 438-2529 and/or [email protected].

Your participation is greatly appreciated and completely voluntary. You

can recuse yourself from participating at any time with absolutely no risk or

penalty.

Thank you for your cooperation, and sincere best wishes for your teaching

career.

115

Post-Survey – After completing the student-teaching experience

Directions for Professional Demeanor section: Please choose the option that best

describes you.

Professional Demeanor

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

1. I demonstrated specialized content knowledge for teaching

2. I communicated effectively (written, verbal, nonverbal)

3. I used effective classroom management skills to maintain safe and

positive learning environments

4. I felt like a “real teacher” during my student teaching

5. I can’t wait to get my own classroom so I can teach my way

6. I am apprehensive about being in my own classroom

Directions for Teaching and Learning section: Please choose the option that best

describes you.

Teaching and Learning

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

7. I planned and developed lessons to meet instructional goals and serve

diverse learners

8. I differentiated instruction

9. I appropriately integrated instructional resources, including technology,

into the curriculum to support student learning

10. I used multiple assessment strategies

11. I used reflection to improve instruction

12. I demonstrated persistence in helping all students learn

13. I demonstrated a positive impact on student learning

14. I created my own lessons

15. I used someone else’s lessons but reworked them to fit my needs

16. I used someone else’s lessons as they were

116

Directions for Interpersonal Skills section: Please choose the option that best

describes you.

Interpersonal Skills

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

17. I demonstrated respect for all students

18. I developed positive working relationships with others involved in the

educational setting

19. I included families in the education process

20. I found it difficult to fit in with the other teachers

21. I found it easy to work with other teachers

22. My cooperating teacher helped me immensely

Directions for Time-Management Skills section: Please choose the option that

best describes you.

Time-Management Skills

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly Agree

23. I was able to manage my time at the school effectively

24. I was able to manage my time outside the school effectively

25. Hours outside school spent planning instruction per week

fill in number

26. Hours outside school spent assessing student progress per week

fill in number

27. Hours outside school spent performing other educational tasks related to

student-teaching fill in number

117

Preservice Teacher Study

You are invited to participate in a small study to discover whether

differences exist between traditional preservice teachers (those who entered

college immediately after graduating from high school) and non-traditional

preservice teachers (those who are returning to college to pursue a new degree

in teaching). The results of this study may impact future design of teacher

education programs. A direct benefit to you is the opportunity to reflect upon your

preservice teaching so far. The risk is minimal, as the only imaginable possible

discomfort might be some anxiety surfacing as a result of sharing your student-

teaching evaluations with the researcher.

You have already completed two brief surveys, one before beginning your

student teaching and one after completing it.

The final piece of this study includes matching participants’ survey

answers to their preservice evaluations provided by their university supervisors

and their cooperating teachers. ULIDs will be necessary to match surveys to

evaluations, but immediately after the match, all identifiers will be destroyed and

replaced with random numbers.

Choosing the “I Agree” option will indicate your consent to the access of

your preservice evaluation. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel

free to contact me, Cynthia Schairer-Kessler, at [email protected], or my doctoral

committee chair, Dr. Nancy Latham at [email protected]. In addition, for

questions about research participants’ rights and/or a research related injury or

adverse effects, notify the Research Ethics & Compliance Office at (309) 438-

2529 and/or [email protected].

Your participation is greatly appreciated and completely voluntary. You

can recuse yourself from participating at any time with absolutely no risk or

penalty.

Thank you for your cooperation, and sincere best wishes for your teaching

career.

1. I Agree -- to allow the researcher access to my student-teaching

evaluation

2. I Do Not Agree – to allow the researcher access to my student-teaching

evaluation