home
  : Reports : Teacher Education





























home reports instruments plans
search

Teacher Education Embedded Report 1 (Progress)

Return to Teacher Education Reports

OCEPT Annual Report, 1998 (Year 1)

This evaluation report is embedded in a larger progress report prepared by Portland State University.

Table of Contents:

  1. Project Summary
    • Executive Summary
    1. Development of a Statewide Collaborative
    2. Course, Curriculum, and Program Development
    3. Faculty Professional Development
    4. Recruiting, Retaining and Supporting Future Teachers, and Increasing Teacher Workforce Diversity
    5. General Strategies for Change

  2. Annual Report

    (sections omitted)

    A7. Evaluation Activities and Formative Evaluation Results
    1. Organizing the OCEPT Evaluation and Research Team
      • Evaluation Overview: Stakeholder Involvement
    2. Developing the Evaluation Plan
      • Evaluation Overview: Evaluation Purposes, Stakeholder Involvement
    3. Summer Institute Evaluation
      • Evaluation Overview: Stakeholder Involvement
      • Results & Recommendations: Interpretations & Conclusions
    4. Pre-Award and 1997 CETP Data Reporting Process
      • Design: Data Collection Procedures & Schedule
    5. Entering Teacher Education Student Survey
      • Evaluation Overview: Evaluation Purposes, Stakeholder Involvement
      • Design: Methodological Approach, Information Sources & Scheduling, Instruments, Data Collection Procedures & Schedule, Meta-Evaluation,
      • Analysis Process: Quantitative Analysis
    6. Mid-Year Interviews with CO-PI's, Faculty Fellows and Mentor Team Members
      • Design: Information Sources & Sampling, Data Collection Procedures & Schedule,
      • Results & Recommendations: Stakeholder Review & Utilization
    A8. Changes in Evaluation Plans
    • Design: Methodological Approach, Meta-Evaluation
    • Evaluation Overview: Evaluation Purposes, Stakeholder Involvement

OCEPT Annual Report, 1998 (Year 1)

Return to Table of Contents

I. Project Summary

The Oregon Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (OCEPT) was created to improve the math and science preparation of future teachers in Oregon and increase the state's teacher workforce diversity. While these goals are consistent with those of the NSF CETP program in general, certain conditions in Oregon's educational system require different strategies for reaching these goals than is possible in many other states. Some of these are:

  • Most teacher education programs in Oregon are offered at the graduate level only. Students preparing to teach generally receive their bachelor's degree in another discipline (not education) and then enter a graduate teacher licensure program, often at another institution. Identifying students as prospective teachers while they are still undergraduates is problematic, particularly since they themselves may not yet be considering teaching as a career. Advising for these students at the undergraduate level is generally inadequate. As a result of this disconnect between liberal arts and education programs, many mathematics and science faculty do not see themselves as teacher educators.

  • To compound this situation, student mobility among institutions in Oregon is high. Students may begin at a community college, where they take their introductory math and science courses, before moving on to a four-year college, or they may move back and forth between two- and four-year schools or even be enrolled simultaneously. Community college faculty, while offering many excellent science and mathematics courses that are highly appropriate for future teachers, are even more disconnected from teacher education programs than four-year college faculty.

  • The organization that licenses teachers in Oregon, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC), does not require specific coursework for licensure, only passing scores on standardized tests. It is up to teacher education programs whether to require specific coursework in mathematics and science, and many do not, partly because of market pressures to attract students who might be deterred from applying if they lack the required math and science background. Prospective elementary teachers, if they have taken math or science, would have done so only as part of their general education requirements, which vary greatly from institution to institution and may not include either math or science.

  • While this may now be changing, there has not been a shortage of teachers in recent years. According to a TSPC report, in 1996 only half of newly licensed elementary teachers were employed in Oregon public elementary schools by September 30; between one-half and two-thirds of newly licensed secondary teachers in math and science had jobs in the fall. Where a shortage does exist is in the diversity of the teacher workforce; only 2-3% of teachers overall are from minority groups, and even less in math and science. This shortage is particularly evident in urban and rural areas where minority populations are concentrated.

  • Excellent programs to support students from underrepresented groups interested in pursuing higher education in general and science/mathematics in particular exist at both the precollege and college level, but these programs often do not communicate with one another, and many science/mathematics faculty do not know of them or know how to connect their students with them.

In spite of these challenges, Oregon also enjoys some real strengths which make this an ideal place and time to achieve OCEPT's goals:

  • Science and mathematics faculty at many institutions have a strong history of educational reform, including many federally- and privately-funded course and curriculum development projects. Nationally-recognized leaders in physics and biology reform are among OCEPT's leaders, and a strong network of collaboration among physics, biology, and mathematics faculty is already in place. Faculty in other disciplines also offer a wealth of knowledge and experience about college teaching and learning. The community colleges' personal, student-centered environment and their faculties' focus on teaching excellence provide particularly appropriate experiences for future teachers.

  • Systemic school reform is well underway in Oregon, including a move towards standards-based instruction using the Oregon Benchmarks, performance-based assessments at 4th, 8th, and 12th grade levels, Certificates of Mastery rather than traditional seat-time-based diplomas, and a new portfolio-based system of college admissions. Teachers at many pilot schools are receiving extensive professional development to help them learn to teach effectively in this environment, and are thoroughly involved in planning as well as implementing reforms. Initial statewide assessments in mathematics have shown a real need for educational improvement, and 1998's science assessment is likely to be even more telling.

  • New teacher licensure requirements have recently been instituted by TSPC, requiring students to be licensed in a combination of two grade levels: early childhood-elementary (age 3-grade 5); elementary-middle (grades K-8); and middle-secondary (grades 5-12). As a result, teacher education programs are in the midst of revising their programs, with particular attention to the preparation of middle-level teachers.

  • Oregon is enjoying strong economic growth, particularly in high-tech industries, so that the argument for a scientifically and mathematically skilled workforce is particularly persuasive.

In this context of advantages and challenges, OCEPT is employing four general strategies to achieve its goals: the development of a statewide collaborative network among mathematics, science, engineering, and technology (SME&T) and education faculty in two- and four-year, public and private colleges; the development of courses, curricula, and programs which will strengthen future teachers' preparation in mathematics and science; opportunities for faculty professional development and pedagogical learning; and programs to recruit, retain, and support excellent students from their undergraduate years to their first years of teaching, particularly those from underrepresented groups. The major achievements of OCEPT in its first six months in each of these areas is summarized below.

Return to Table of Contents

Development of a statewide collaborative

OCEPT will involve all 34 regionally-accredited institutions of higher education in Oregon, including the 17 institutions with teacher education programs. Involvement of all institutions is critical due to the high level of student mobility among institutions as mentioned earlier. At least two active OCEPT participants or supporters have been identified in all but three of the institutions: one small private college (which does not have a teacher education program) and three small community colleges. On most institutions, the OCEPT "team" now consists of around three to six faculty and administrators.

OCEPT's primary strategy for encouraging collaboration among these institutions are the Faculty Mentor Teams. In Year 1, eight Faculty Mentor Teams were established, in biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, integrated science (focusing on the preparation of secondary teachers in these areas of licensure), elementary/middle school science, elementary/middle school mathematics, and teacher education. The permanent (year-to-year) membership of each team consists of three faculty members, generally one from a state university, one from a private college, and one from a community college. These teams are meeting frequently and communicating regularly to develop ways of encouraging collaboration among faculty with teaching interests in these areas, and to collaborate across teams to achieve the overall goals of OCEPT. Team members have been traveling extensively, attending meetings and making presentations to support current participants and recruit additional participants to OCEPT.

The Mentor Teams were created to address the problem of the individual faculty member working in isolation from colleagues, often in an environment where teaching is not valued as a scholarly occupation. The teams provide other OCEPT participants with access to a network of colleagues in their own discipline, both within and outside their institution, which is providing the energy and support needed to sustain their teaching improvement efforts. In many cases, the teams are able to connect with strong professional organizations at the state and regional levels; in others, these organizations are themselves being strengthened.

Each team leader is also a co-principle investigator at an institution where it makes sense to target OCEPT influence and support, primarily those institutions which enroll the majority of teacher education students. The co-PIs are thus facilitating inter-departmental collaboration and change on their own campuses as well. In the case of the two largest research universities, faculty from the sciences, mathematics, and engineering, and faculty from education, are meeting and collaborating in ways they rarely have before. The development of a statewide collaborative is what will break down barriers between SME&T and education faculty, provide support and recognition for teaching improvement, and make the changes initiated by OCEPT sustainable over the long term.

Return to Table of Contents

Course, curriculum, and program development

OCEPT funds Faculty Fellowships for faculty to develop courses, curricula, and programs intended to strengthen the math and science preparation of future teachers. Faculty Fellows join the Mentor Team in the appropriate discipline, which provides support and resources for their course and program development projects. Twenty-one Faculty Fellowships were awarded in Year 1, and thirty-two have already been awarded in Year 2, with two to three more to be added. Most Fellows' projects in Year 1 involved revising an undergraduate science or mathematics course. In Fall term 1997 (the first academic term of the project), a total of twenty-two courses were either revised or newly developed, enrolling almost 700 students. Other Year 1 projects are being completed in winter/spring 1998. Many Faculty Fellows have made significant revisions in other courses they teach as well, not just the one they were funded by OCEPT to revise. As the teams receive progress reports, however, it has become evident that while these are generally highly effective improvements, the connection to teacher preparation is often weak. In recruiting Fellows for Year 2, we created more specific requirements for Fellowship applicants to clearly identify their project's impact on future teachers, and the Mentor Teams will continue to emphasize this as they work with the Fellows.

More Fellows' projects in Year 2 also address extracurricular programs especially designed for future teachers, such as early field experiences, teaching seminars, and "emerging scholars" programs on the Treisman model. Some Faculty Mentors and co-PIs are also facilitating the development of these programs on their campuses.

OCEPT does not prescribe any particular approach to revising courses or developing programs, so at first glance the Fellows' and Mentors' projects may seem like an eclectic mix. Developing a truly effective course or program requires more than just release time or other funding; it requires the personal and professional commitment of the developer. OCEPT participants feel strongly about their projects, and are developing them as potential models for others to adapt. The collaborative networks and opportunities for professional development offered by OCEPT will help project developers navigate the fine line between "reinventing the wheel," and creating something to which they are committed but which incorporates good ideas developed by others.

Return to Table of Contents

Faculty professional development

The OCEPT leadership has agreed that any model for professional development within OCEPT cannot be prescriptive or hierarchically determined. Our institutions, programs, and faculty are too diverse to attempt to prescribe any one set of methods of teaching or assessment. For professional development to be truly "professional," faculty need to make their own decisions about teaching and how they determine its effectiveness, within a context of collaboration, dissemination, and peer review. Faculty Fellows are all expected to make these decisions about their own course/program development projects and share their results in a scholarly arena, with the continuing support of their Mentor Team. The fact that so many Fellows in Year 1 made more changes in their teaching than those specifically outlined in their project plan, supports the effectiveness of OCEPT's focus on faculty change rather than course change. Faculty who modify their beliefs about teaching and learning will modify their teaching practice in all their courses and other interactions with students, and can serve as catalysts of change for their colleagues. Attempting to make courses "teacher-proof" so that they can be taught by anyone, if the original developer leaves or changes his/her teaching assignment, is unrealistic, since the teacher's beliefs about teaching and learning will impact his/her practice in ways that cannot be prescribed by a syllabus or laboratory handbook.

One of OCEPT's major strategies for increasing the recognition and reward faculty receive for their teaching scholarship is to encourage the dissemination of participants' work in scholarly ways, such as conference presentations and publications. Three current Faculty Fellows, along with other team members, presented progress reports on their projects at the Oregon Academy of Sciences meeting in February 1997, and others will present at regional professional meetings later this spring. A mid-year Assessment Retreat was held in Bend this March, and was attended by 15 Fellows and Mentors. We discussed options for scholarly publication beyond conference presentations, such as an edited volume of case study reports, and solidified the Fellow's plans for collecting and analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data on their course's effectiveness in ways that would be effective in such a publication.

Most faculty also need to explore new models of teaching and assessment, learn about the research on teaching and learning in their discipline, and experience first-hand how new approaches are likely to affect their students. OCEPT faculty also need to learn more about issues of teacher preparation and licensure and how their teaching can affect future teachers. These are the objectives of the three-week OCEPT Summer Institute, attended by the majority of OCEPT Fellows, Mentors, and co-PIs. The first Summer Institute was held in July-August 1997; a complete evaluation report is presented in Appendix D. The next Institute is planned for 20-31 July at Central Oregon Community College in Bend, and from 10-14 August in Portland. Two co-PIs are chairing the planning committee, and Institute leaders will be drawn almost solely from within the OCEPT group. The major change in this year's program from last year's is that assessment and "teaching as scholarship" will play a much more central role.

OCEPT was able to fund the hiring of two Teachers-in-Residence at Portland State University and Eastern Oregon University in Year 1, who have been able to work with faculty on developing courses and programs appropriate for prospective teachers, and to help all OCEPT participants (through their participation in the Summer Institute and the Mentor Teams) understand the needs of future teachers. We are exploring additional means of involving K-12 teachers in OCEPT, in order to give faculty the benefit of their pedagogical expertise and first-hand knowledge of the changing needs of teachers in this state.

Return to Table of Contents

Recruiting, retaining, and supporting future teachers, and increasing teacher workforce diversity

OCEPT is designed to recruit and support future teachers at all levels, from their undergraduate and graduate programs, through licensure and into their first years of teaching. In Year 1, we have begun development of the Early Career Teacher Mentor Program, which will provide mentors (master K-12 teachers in an appropriate discipline and level) for teachers in their first three years of their career. The teacher mentors will take part in a summer institute which will provide guidance and training in mentorship, and they will also be encouraged to participate with the Faculty Mentor Teams in working with Faculty Fellows. The two Teachers-in-Residence have taken the lead on developing and implementing this program, modeled after the highly successful program of the Montana Collaborative, which they were able to visit last fall.

Making sure the best mathematics and science students seriously consider a career in teaching has become a new priority for OCEPT faculty. Once their experiences in OCEPT helped them see the need for college science/mathematics faculty and departments to take responsibility for teacher recruitment and preparation, they began working on means of identifying and supporting students interested in teaching, including teaching seminars, early field experiences, and "emerging scholars" programs for students in introductory mathematics and science courses.

Many of these programs also address the need to attract students from underrepresented groups into teaching. In addition, we have developed and are updating a list of contacts in programs specifically designed to support minority students, and have held several meetings to gain their input into OCEPT strategies for increasing diversity. One such meeting concentrated on the development of our proposal for the NSF Teaching Scholars program, for $100,000 per year in scholarships to recruit outstanding mathematics and science students into teaching, particularly those from underrepresented groups. Finally, we have recruited two Faculty Fellows to work specifically on the diversity issue, who will help to gather and synthesize information on programs that work, how to develop better connections between precollege and college-level programs, and provide this information to OCEPT participants.

Return to Table of Contents

General strategies for change

In addition to these accomplishments, OCEPT has established the Oregon Science Education Council as an overall strategy for promoting policy change in the state. OSEC will support science education reform in the way that the Oregon Mathematics Education Council has supported mathematics education reform for the past 20 years. OSEC and OMEC, both of which involve OCEPT participants as leaders, will review the current state of science education in Oregon, make recommendations for change, and communicate those recommendations to appropriate constituencies.

Return to Table of Contents

II. Annual Report

(sections omitted)

A7. Evaluation Activities and Formative Evaluation Results

This summary is organized into six sections to reflect the work to date related to OCEPT evaluation activities and results:

  1. Organizing the OCEPT Evaluation and Research Team
  2. Development of the Evaluation Plan
  3. Summer Institute Evaluation
  4. Pre-Award and 1997 CETP Data Reporting Process
  5. Entering Teacher Education Student Survey
  6. Mid-Year Interviews with Co-PIs, Faculty Fellows and Mentor Team Members

Return to Table of Contents

Organizing the OCEPT Evaluation and Research Team

The PI, Project Coordinator and Evaluation Coordinator identified individuals early on, before OCEPT received the award, who had background in evaluation and research and who we thought would be interested in serving on the Team. A series of meetings took place between February 1997 and Fall 1997 to develop the Evaluation Plan framework and proposed activities. By late Fall, membership on the Team had stabilized at ten individuals, and includes: the PI, Project Coordinator, Evaluation Coordinator, the Science Specialist for the Oregon Department of Education, four Mentor Team members, a Faculty Fellow and the director of a Teaching and Learning Center at a local community college. The backgrounds represented include two- and four year, private and public institutions; and math, science and teacher education.

At its February 1998 meeting, the Team began to organize itself into several sub-groups:

  • students
  • Faculty Fellow and Mentor Team development, and change in teaching practice
  • Collaborative development, including institutional change
  • diversity

The group will continue to meet quarterly for half-days but will conduct more of its work in sub-groups both at these meetings and between meetings. The sub-groups may choose to recruit others to work with their sub-groups. These sub-groups will also recommend to the Team how a particular evaluation activity should be carried out and which special research studies should receive priority for funding from grant evaluation funds.

An on-going concern of the Team is the scope of work proposed and the feasibility of completing all of it within current evaluation resources. The Team will continue to review the scope of work and in consultation with the Management Team, make needed adjustments.

Return to Table of Contents

Developing the Evaluation Plan

Development of the Plan has occupied a great deal of the Team's time. The latest version, included in Appendix I, will be reviewed by the Management Team in the Spring. A concern throughout many of the discussions has been over what we believe OCEPT can reasonably be expected to affect over the life of the grant; and what will take a longer period of time. OCEPT is a very large Collaborative, involving thirty-four different colleges and universities in the State. Seventeen different institutions offer Teacher Education programs, all organized a bit differently; some only at the undergraduate level and others only at the post-baccalaureate level. Student mobility is considerable, with many teacher education programs serving students who have completed some or most of their undergraduate math and science course work at other in-state or out-of-state institutions.

The Cooperative Agreement spells out a number of outcomes that should be achievable. The Plan reflects the belief that over the next 4 years OCEPT can have an impact on faculty, their students and their colleagues; on Mentor Teams and the development of more extended professional communities; on the recruitment and retention of individuals currently underrepresented as teachers of K-12 math and science; and on the collaboration process itself, involving more communication across institutions and disciplines. As the project continues to develop, the Team will need to develop more specific ways to assess more specific impacts or changes influenced by OCEPT.

In particular, we need to develop better ways to document and assess change in our future teachers. Such change might manifest itself as becoming interested in teaching because of the encouragement of a particular faculty member; a change in attitude about teaching math and science; a change in the amount of math and science courses of particular kinds taken by pre-service elementary students and secondary math and science students; and a change in actual classroom or field-experience practices.

Return to Table of Contents

Summer Institute Evaluation

The Summer Institute Evaluation was completed in September 1997 and is part of the OCEPT formative evaluation. Several Team members who attended the Institute were instrumental in helping to develop the survey instrument used. Several Co-PIs and Mentor Team members also contributed ideas and reviewed survey drafts. The Project Coordinator summarized the statistical results and the Evaluation Coordinator summarized the qualitative responses.

Overall, responses indicated that participants were very positive about their Institute experience. Given the short timeframe for planning and the fact that the Institute was held before OCEPT was notified it would be funded (and before it received any funds), this outcome is notable. Several staff members were working for no pay during this period of time.

The report includes a series of recommendations for those planning the 1998 Summer Institute.

Return to Table of Contents

Pre-Award and 1997 CETP Data Reporting Process

One of the major challenges in completing both the pre-award and the more recently due annual CETP data set has been identifying key contact individuals for gathering student data at each of the 34 institutions in the Collaborative. These contacts were not adequately in place during the collection of the pre-award data. We now have identified the "right" individuals on each campus who can help us collect the needed student demographic information. Also, while many were appreciative of the ability to enter the data electronically, many others did not have access to a current version of Netscape or Explorer. Still others experienced considerable time delays in calling up their file and then in moving from one reporting form to another. Some of this delay may have to do with the particular way in which the Website is organized, though some of it is due to local communication systems.

We also did not have adequate support systems in place for Faculty Fellows to gather required data on students in their courses. At this summer's Institute, Fellows will each get a packet with clear guidelines on the data needed and tools they can use in gathering it, such as the brief Student Information Survey, along with other resources for planning and assessment.

Return to Table of Contents

Entering Teacher Education Student Survey

With assistance from project staff and some Research and Evaluation Team members, a Teacher Education Student Survey was developed during Summer 1997 and administered to students at 14 of the 16 OCEPT institutions with teacher education programs. An effort was made to identify and review instruments designed for a similar purpose from other CETP Collaboratives. Information was received from the Rocky Mountain Collaborative which was adapted for use on our survey.

The primary purpose of the survey was to collect information from students entering teacher education programs about their experiences in undergraduate math and science courses. The survey was also designed to collect information about how much undergraduate math and science courses these students had taken, their attitudes about teaching math and science, and how they assessed their science literacy skills.

We estimate that we have surveyed at least one-third of the students who had recently entered (Summer or Fall 1997) a teacher education program. We are still in the process of entering the information from the 330+ surveys received and expect to have a report available in May 1998. Before this, however, we expect to have descriptive summary reports available for each of the participating institutions.

The information gained from the survey will serve both as baseline OCEPT information about the math and science course experiences of students who enter teacher education programs. Also, we hope the information will serve to heighten and extend local and statewide conversations about the math and science preparation of our future teachers. What do they think about the results? How do they interpret them? as "good"? "troubling"? What do the OCEPT Management Team and the teacher education leaders in the State think of the results?

Based on our experiences with the survey this first year, some modifications in both the survey itself and in the way it is administered are needed. More individuals from teacher education programs at OCEPT institutions need to be involved in helping to shape these modifications. The intention is to administer the survey every year.

The survey administration process itself was very time consuming and difficult. Local contacts had to be established at each institution. An important by-product of this initial survey experience has been to establish contact with the key teacher education faculty at each of the institutions. We now have a network with whom to communicate about the future survey and the administration process. Also, individual faculty had to be willing to take 25 minutes of class time to administer the survey; and few had had any involvement in its development. Even though the Human Subjects Committee at Portland State University had reviewed the survey and the administration and analysis plan and approved it, several other campuses had to send the proposal through their own local committee, thus delaying survey administration. Also, we thought we might need student social security numbers for later follow-up purposes. Students in several classes refused to participate in the study because such information was called for. Although we indicated to local contacts that having students participate was the priority and to abandon asking for SSNs if necessary, some students still would not participate. In the future, SSNs will not be called for. A future instrument needs to require less time to administer. And students and faculty have to understand better the reasons for the survey and what they may gain from participation. In the rush to collect some data from students early in the life of OCEPT, we failed to develop sufficient understanding about the survey and OCEPT and developed insufficient ownership in the survey process.

Even given the problems encountered, we are still optimistic that the data set will provide added impetus for thoughtful conversations about the preparation of our teacher educators in math and science. We expect to develop an improved instrument for use next year, with some carry-over of survey items.

Finally, we are analyzing a small data set to gauge instrument stability over a two week period of time between a first and second administration to the same group (n=14). Despite the small number, the preliminary results look positive.

Return to Table of Contents

Mid-Year Interviews

Interviews were conducted in February with all Co-Principal Investigators and a sample of Faculty Fellows and Mentor Team Members. A total of 25 individuals were interviewed by phone by the Evaluation Coordinator. These 15-minute mid-year interviews were designed to learn more about how Mentor Teams were functioning, what was working especially well and where improvements were needed; about how Fellows felt about the quality of support they're receiving for their local projects; and about how Co-PIs perceive the collaborative itself to be developing.

A preliminary summary of some of the findings were reported to Co-PIs and some Mentors who attended a recent all day OCEPT Management Team retreat to help develop next year's strategic plan. A final summary report will be made available to the Management Team in April, 1998.

Return to Table of Contents

A8. Changes in Evaluation Plans

Beginning in February 1997, a series of meetings were held with individuals with an expressed interest in OCEPT evaluation and research activities. Those attending included some Co-Principal Investigators, some Mentor Team Members, several representatives of the Oregon Department of Education, the Principal Investigator, the Project Coordinator and the Evaluation Coordinator. By early Fall 1997 the group had developed and reviewed a draft Evaluation Plan for OCEPT. Copies of the draft were circulated to all OCEPT Management Team members for their review and comment. The draft was informed by the OCEPT grant proposal as well as the Cooperative Agreement. The Research and Evaluation Team then further scrutinized the draft for feasibility, given the current resources available, and determined what should receive priority. The Plan attached to the annual report will undergo an additional review and discussion with the Management Team at one of their Spring meetings.

Updates to the Plan may continue to be made in response to any changes in focus or emphasis in OCEPT activities, as determined by the Management Team. The overall evaluation framework and major activities, however, are expected to remain in place.

The Evaluation Plan describes both formative and summative evaluation activities that address the major OCEPT goals. The OCEPT Evaluation Plan places early emphasis on identifying and describing how the project is contributing to faculty development, Mentor Team development, early career teacher development and the development of the Collaborative itself. These are the major interventions intended over the longer term to contribute to an improvement in the preparation of teachers of math and science in elementary, middle and secondary schools.

During this first year, however, we have collected some baseline information about the undergraduate math and science course experiences of students entering our teacher education programs in Oregon. These data will be used to promote wider discussion of how we are currently preparing our future teachers in math and science and to assess changes over time in this preparation. The initial Evaluation Plan called for the development and administration of a survey of students exiting our teacher education programs and a study over time of the actual classroom practices of our graduates. Given an assessment of where OCEPT might be expected to have the greatest influence over the next five years, coupled with limited evaluation resources and the variety of ways current teacher education programs assess and follow-up with their own exiting students, these two initiatives are on hold for now. More conversations are needed with teacher education program leaders in the State about both the initial instrument used this past Fall for the first time to survey entering teacher education students as well as how we might together begin to understand more about the math and science preparation of students at the time they exit our programs and the actual practices in classrooms of our former students who have experienced OCEPT-influenced faculty, classrooms and field-related experiences. These studies need to be shaped by the teacher education community in the State and have their endorsement and buy-in.

As mentioned previously, increased emphasis will be given to how Faculty Fellows, Mentor Teams and the Collaborative as a whole develop and extend their influence over the life of the grant. More effort will be given to documenting Faculty Fellow initiatives and the impact of their projects and other OCEPT related experiences on the Fellows themselves, their students, their colleagues and their institutions. Included in evaluation activities related to the Fellows will be attention to the connection these Fellows make between their role and identity as faculty members and identifying, encouraging and preparing future K-12 teachers.

The eight OCEPT Mentor Teams are one of the major ways the project has organized itself to accomplish its objectives. The development of these Teams over time will receive increased formative evaluation attention. In addition, more attention will be given to understanding how the Collaborative itself is developing. Members of the Management Team will participate in a special session this Spring designed to describe how OCEPT defines collaboration and the specific forms of collaboration that OCEPT values and is trying to promote (for instance, intra-institutional collaboration; collaboration between faculty in a discipline and those in colleges of education; inter-institutional collaboration within the discipline; and collaboration on behalf of the development of new kinds of professional communities; etc.).

To document an "improvement", in a truly profound way, in how we prepare future K-12 teachers of math and science in Oregon, more than five years will be needed. While some evidence of change that affects students will be possible over the life of the grant, more time will be needed before we expect to observe the kind of change that is the most important: change in actual practices in K-12 classrooms. As a result, the evaluation will attempt to document and assess OCEPT's efforts to develop as a collaborative such that it can sustain such efforts when the grant ends.

Return to Table of Contents