Third Annual Report to the Teacher
Education Accreditation Council
CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
Department of Teaching and Learning
82 Washington Square East, Suite 700
New York, NY 10003 | 212 998 5872 | 212 995 3636 fax
www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/crtl
Third Annual Report to the Teacher Education
Accreditation Council
Robert Tobias, Director
CRTL Program Evaluation Series
PE-0110-01
January 2010
Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
Department of Teaching and Learning
The Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development
New York University
© Copyright 2010 by the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
ABSTRACT
This is the third annual report submitted by NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture,
Education, and Human Development to the Teacher Education Accreditation Council
(TEAC). It includes (1) updates of most of the tables included in the results section of
the Inquiry Brief, (2) an update of Appendix E, the evidence that the program self study
relies upon, and (3) tables that describe the databases that contain the evidence. For the
DRSTOS-R ratings, the mean scores for all four domains and the total scale for both BS
and MA students all exceed 3.0, the value that indicates “Entry Level Proficiency” on the
four-point scale. Follow-Up Surveys show that eighty percent of the respondents were
teaching in their first year after graduation with 52% in NYC public schools, 5% in NYC
private schools, and 23% in schools outside of NYC. New York State Teacher
Certification Exam (NYSTCE) results show that the passing rates remain around 100%
for the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test and the Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written
(ATS-W) tests, though, the passing rates for the Content Specialty Tests (CSTs) during
the total period increased by 2.7 percentage points for BS students and 3.8 percentage
points for MA students For the End of Term Feedback Questionnaire, the total means
meet or exceed the criterion of 4.0 for both BS and MA students, while mean total GPAs
saw little variation from past years.
2
CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5
Evidence Base.............................................................................................................. 5
Updated Program Outcomes ......................................................................................... 8
DRSTOS-R .................................................................................................................. 8
Follow-Up Surveys ...................................................................................................... 9
New York State Teacher Certification Exam (NYSTCE) ...........................................12
Student Teacher End of Term Feedback Survey .........................................................14
Grade Point Averages ..................................................................................................16
Use of Data for Program Improvement ........................................................................17
Teacher Education Research Bibliography..................................................................19
3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Measures Cohorts and Subjects for Inquiry by Claim ......................... 7
Table 2. Mean Scores and Percents Meeting Standards on the Domain Referenced Student
Teacher Observation Scale-Revised (DRSTOS-R) for Late-Placement Teacher Education
Students ............................................................................................................................ 9
Table 3. Comparison of Self Perceptions of May 2007 Steinhardt Graduates and Levine Study
Sample as to How Well Their Teacher Education Program Prepared Them with Important Skills
and Knowledge for Teaching ............................................................................................... 11
Table 4. Mean Scaled Scores, Pass Rates, and Effect Sizes for Steinhardt Teacher Education
Graduates on the New York State Teacher Certification Exams: Classes of 2006-2009 ........... 13
Table 5. Mean Scores for Claim Scales on the End of Term Feedback Questionnaire Classes of
2006 and 2007 ................................................................................................................... 15
Table 6. Mean Total NYU GPA for BS and MA Graduates by Class (Classes of 2006September 2009) ................................................................................................................ 16
APPENDIX A (TEAC APPENDIX E) ............................................................................. 21
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................... 28
4
INTRODUCTION
Having received initial accreditation of our teacher education programs in January
2007, this is the third annual report submitted by NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture,
Education, and Human Development to the Teacher Education Accreditation Council
(TEAC). Prepared according to the specifications on TEAC’s web site, the report
includes (1) updates of most of the tables included in the results section of the Inquiry
Brief, (2) an update of Appendix E, the evidence that the program self study relies upon,
and (3) tables that describe the databases that contain the evidence. In addition, the
report describes changes in the measures that are being used in the ongoing self-study of
the effectiveness of Steinhardt’s teacher education programs, the most recent results from
the analyses of data, and ways in which the data have been used to improve the programs.
The report also includes a bibliography of papers and reports on the research that NYU
faculty and research centers have performed on NYU’s teacher education programs.
THE EVIDENCE BASE
There have been several changes to the evidence base since the initial inquiry
brief, which can be seen in the table that summarizes the measures and the data that are
being collected in the ongoing self study (see Table 1.) First, we have substantially
expanded the assessment of our student teachers developing pedagogical proficiency
using the Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale-Revised (DRSTOS-R).
We have trained more than 50 student teacher supervisors resulting in a more than fivefold increase in the number of student teachers assessed each semester, from 40 to about
220 student teachers. At the same time, DRSTOS-R data have been used to help guide
the training process through incorporation into the conversations between field
supervisors and student teachers concerning the latter’s progress. In addition, the data are
increasingly used by program directors to inform program planning. Finally, Steinhardt’s
Center for Research on Teaching and Learning (CRTL) has continued to do research on
the validity and reliability of DRSTOS-R data, including studies on its criterion validity
using student work samples and value-added standardized test scores. This report
presents data summarizing the results of the administration of DRSTOS-R to lateplacement student teachers, i.e. those who are approaching graduation, for the fall 2007 –
spring 2009 semesters (see Table 2).
Second, during 2009 CRTL developed a new dispositions survey to replace the
Educational Beliefs Questionnaire, which had been in use since 2004. The new survey,
entitled the Educational Beliefs and Multicultural Awareness Survey, measures four
constructs, adding multicultural awareness and personal teaching efficacy to the two
constructs that were measured by the EBQ, general teaching efficacy and caring/social
justice. EBMAS was pilot tested on 107 Fast Track program graduate teacher education
students in summer 2009 and first administered to all incoming undergraduates in fall
2009. Preliminary analysis of the psychometric properties of EBMAS showed that it had
stronger factorial validity and higher internal consistency reliability than the EBQ. These
5
data will be presented in a report which is currently being prepared. EBMAS data will be
reported in the fourth annual report and in the Inquiry Brief for continued accreditation.
Third, CRTL has expanded methods and procedures for following up cohorts of
NYU teacher education program graduates in efforts to assess their post-graduates
success in the profession. Students are surveyed at three points in time: an exit survey is
administered to all students at program completion; a one-year follow-up survey is
administered to all graduates from each BS and MA class; and a five-year follow-up
survey is currently being administered to graduates of the Class of 2005. The surveys ask
graduates about their employment as teachers , the extent to which their NYU education
provided them with the component skills and knowledge to succeed in teaching, the
specific aspects of the program that were most and least helpful to their development as
teachers, any honors or promotions they had earned, and their plans for the future. In
order to provide normative data, many of the survey questions were drawn from Arthur
Levine’s study of schools of education and the responses of NYU graduates are
compared to the frequency distributions of responses of graduates in the Levine study.
This report presents some of these results from the one-year follow-up survey of
graduates from the Class of 2007 (See Table 3.) Graduates are also tracked by data
matches to the human resources personnel files of the New York City and New York
State Departments of Education. These matches are used to determine the numbers and
percentages of graduates who teach in New York City and New York State public
schools, the subjects that they teach, the demographic characteristics of the student
bodies, and the graduates’ rates of retention, attrition, and school and district transfer.
These data on employment in New York are supplemented with data on graduates
teaching out of state that are obtained through the graduate surveys mentioned above.
Finally, the effectiveness of graduates who teach in New York City is being
assessed through the impact they have on their pupils’ standardized NYS achievement
test score data that CRTL is obtaining from the NYC Department of Education. Valueadded modeling statistical methods are being used to determine the extent to which the
scores of the graduates’ pupils exceed or fall short of expected performance scores that
are based on the demographic characteristics and previous test score performance of the
pupils. The results for NYU graduates are compared to those for other NYC teachers
with similar years of teaching experience, teaching the same subjects and grades. These
data will be reported in the fourth annual report and the next Inquiry Brief.
CRTL continues to collect, analyze, and report data on self-study measures,
including scores on the New York State Teacher Certification Exams (see Table 4),
student teacher self reports of the contributions of their field supervisors and cooperating
teachers to their professional growth (see Table 5), and the grade point averages of
graduates (see Table 6). All of these data are being used by program directors to inform
the continuous improvement of the programs. Overall, these data indicate that NYU
continues to meet its program claims with substantial improvements in outcomes for
some of the measures. These results are described in the next section.
6
Table 1
Summary of Measures, Cohorts, and Subjects for Inquiry by Claim
(Updated January 2010 for 2012 Inquiry Brief)
Claims
Measures
Cohort
Subjects
Classes of 2007 – 11
Claim 1:
Subject
Matter
Knowledge
DRSTOS-R: Planning & Preparation
Score and Total Score
NYSTCE Exam Scores: Content
Specialty Tests
Student Teacher ETFQ
Classes of 2006 – 11
Most program
graduates
All tested students
Classes of 2006 – 11
All respondents
Content Core GPA; undergrad major
GPA
1 & 5 year Follow-Up Surveys
Program Exit Survey*
Classes of 2006 – 11
All BS graduates; all
incoming MA students
All respondents
All program graduates
Claim 2:
Pedagogical
Knowledge
DRSTOS-R: Instruction and Classroom
Environment Scores and Total Score
NYSTCE Exam Scores:
--ATS-W Exam Score
Student Teacher ETFQ
EBMAS Scales 1 & 2: Personal &
General Teaching Efficacy**
Pedagogical Core GPA
1 & 5 year Follow-Up Surveys
Program Exit Survey*
Claim 3:
Teaching
Skill/
Caring
DRSTOS-R: Professional
Responsibilities & Classroom
Environment Domain Scores and Total
Score
Student Teacher ETFQ
EBMAS Scale 3: Caring/Social
Justice**
Student Teaching GPA
1 & 5 year Follow-Up Surveys
Program Exit Survey*
Pupils’ value-added standardized
test scores***
Liberal Arts
Cross-Cutting
Themes
Multicultural
Awareness
Classes of 2007 – 11
Classes of 2006, 2008 –
11
Classes of 2007 – 11
Most program
graduates
Classes of 2006 – 11
All tested students
Classes of 2006 – 11
All respondents
Class of 2010 – 11
All respondents
Classes of 2006 – 11
Classes of 2007 – 11
Classes of 2006, 2008 –
11
Class of 2007 – 11
All program graduates
All respondents
All respondents
Most program
graduates
Classes of 2006 – 11
Classes of 2010 – 11
All respondents
All respondents
Classes of 2006 – 11
Class of 2007 – 11
Classes of 2006,, 2008 –
11
Classes of 2004 – 2010
All program graduates
All respondents
All program graduates
DRSTOS-R: Total Score
Class of ‘05
NYSTCE Exam Scores:
--Liberal Arts & Sciences
Classes of ’04 & ‘05
All program graduates
teaching grades 4 – 8 in
NYC public schools
Most program
graduates
All tested students
Liberal Arts Core GPA; Total undergrad
GPA
Classes of ’04 & ‘05
All BS graduates; all
incoming MA students
EBMAS: Scale 4: Multicultural
awareness
Classes of 2010 – 11
All program graduates
Note: Bold type signifies new measures that were not included in the original
Inquiry Brief.
* Replaces the Fast Track End of Program Questionnaire (FTEPQ)
** Replaces the Educational Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ)
*** Also used as a measure of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge
7
UPDATED PROGRAM OUTCOMES
DRSTOS-R
Table 2 presents DRSTOS-R ratings for students in their final student teaching
placement for the two-year period fall 2007 thru spring 2009 for 58 BS students and 208
MA students. Similar data were reported in the first Inquiry Brief. The mean scores for
all four domains and the total scale for both BS and MA students all exceed 3.0, the value
that indicates “Entry Level Proficiency” on the four-point scale. All of the means exceed
those reported in the first Inquiry Brief by .10 - .35 proficiency-scale points. The gains
are especially noteworthy for the MA students. The first Inquiry Report highlighted the
need for improved performance on DRSTOS-R by MA students, since their performance
was below the program target criterion of at least 80% attaining a mean score of 3.0 in all
four domains and the total scale score. As seen in Table 2, the gains by the new cohort of
MA students enabled them to meet the program criterion for all five scores. Score trends
for BS students are more ambiguous. Although they show higher mean scores than they
the Inquiry Brief cohort, they met the program criterion on only one of the five scores,
Professional Responsibilities, compared to four out of five in the first Inquiry Brief.
The improved performance of the MA students can be linked to the strengthening
of the programs through a three-year partnership with the NYC Department of Education
and the City University of New York that was designed to upgrade the MA programs
through improved field experiences and enhanced course curricula. Disaggregations of
the data by program show support this inference, since the greatest gains occurred in the
programs that were targeted by the partnership initiative—science, mathematics, and
teaching English as a second language.
8
Table 2
Mean Scores and Percents Meeting Standards on the Domain Referenced Student Teacher
Observation Scale-Revised (DRSTOS-R) for Late-Placement Teacher Education Students
Number
of Items
Years
Claims
Scale Domain
Fall 07/
Spring 09
1
3
2
3
1,2,3
Crosscutting
Theme
Planning and Preparation
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Professional Responsibilities
6
7
5
3
Total Score
21
Mean Score
(Scale: 1-4)
Standard
Deviation
% Meeting
Standards
(Mean=>3.0)
58
58
58
57
3.27
3.31
3.23
3.46
.66
.61
.64
.68
77.6%
74.1%
75.9%
87.7%
58
3.30
.61
75.9%
Number of
Students
BS Students
MA Students
Fall 07/
Spring 09
1
3
2
3
1,2,3
Crosscutting
theme
Planning and Preparation
Classroom Environment
Instruction
Professional Responsibilities
6
7
5
3
208
208
208
208
3.31
3.36
3.30
3.57
.48
.46
.46
.50
84.1%
82.2%
79.8%
90.9%
Total Score
21
208
3.36
.43
80.3%
Notes. Nominal scale values are as follows: (1) Not Yet Proficient; (2) Partially Proficient; (3) Entry Level
Proficient; (4) Proficient. The standard for program graduates is Entry Level Proficient (3).
Follow-Up Surveys
In spring 2008, 95 (30%) of May 2007 graduates responded to an on-line survey
constructed by CRTL in consultation with faculty from teaching and learning and applied
psychology and representatives from the NYC Department of Education. The response
rate is typical for on-line surveys and the respondents were closely representative of the
total population of graduates by degree and certification program. Eighty percent of the
respondents were teaching in their first year after graduation with 52% in NYC public
schools (the same statistic obtained through CRTL electronic tracking studies using NYC
human resources files), 5% in NYC private schools, and 23% in schools outside of NYC.
Table 3 compares respondents’ perceptions of how well NYU teacher education
programs prepared them for teaching in 11 important skills and knowledge areas to the
responses of a national sample of teacher education graduates from Art Levine’s 2006
study of schools of education. (The table also shows results for four items that were not
included in Levine’s study.) The pattern of responses for the NYU graduates closely
tracks that for Levine’s sample. However, higher percentages of NYU graduates reported
feeling Very Well to Moderately Well prepared in nine of the 11 areas, with differences
9
that were statistically significant in four areas: Maintain order and discipline; address
needs of ELLs; address needs of students from diverse cultures; and integrate technology
into subject and grade level taught. The programs received especially high ratings in
specific teaching skills and knowledge, including understanding how students learn,
using different pedagogical approaches, and impacting students’ (i.e., pupils’) ability to
learn. Graduates felt they were less prepared to work with parents, participate as a
stakeholder in the communities in which they teach, and to address the needs of students
with limited English proficiency, even though they felt significantly better prepared in the
latter than Levine’s sample. These results further indicate the need to continue to forge
partnerships with schools in order to strengthen the field experience by promoting the
inclusion of student teachers in the school community. Indeed, respondents perceived
student teaching to be the most valuable component of the teacher education program and
commented that Inquiries, methods courses, and student teaching seminars were the most
helpful courses in preparing them for teaching. They also evinced a strong need for
mentoring to assist them with induction into the profession. Only about one-third were
receiving mentoring from their schools/districts and nearly two-thirds welcomed the offer
of additional support from NYU. This has important implications for planning program
extensions that include continued training beyond graduation.
10
Table 3
Comparison of Self Perceptions of May 2007 Steinhardt Graduates and Levine Study Sample as to How Well
Their Teacher Education Programs Prepared Them with Important Skills and Knowledge for Teaching
1
2
3
Somewhat
Well
17
17.9
20
21.1
20
21.1
14
14.7
19
20
28
29.5
18
18.9
25
26.3
34
4
Not
Well
at
All
2
2.1
7
7.4
7
7.4
2
2.1
3
3.2
8
8.4
13
13.7
14
14.7
25
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
Very
Well
33
34.7
29
30.5
29
30.5
39
41.1
33
34.7
31
32.6
31
32.6
21
22.1
15
Moderately
Well
43
45.3
39
41.1
39
41.1
40
42.1
40
42.1
28
29.5
33
34.7
35
36.8
21
NYU
grads
76
80.0
68
71.6
68
71.6
79
83.2
73
76.8
59
62.1
64
67.3
56
58.9
36
Levine
sample
Z
difference
Sig.
74.0
1.33
NS
73.0
-0.31
NS
57.0
2.87
<.01
81.0
0.55
NS
NA
NA
60.0
0.42
NS
67.0
0.06
NS
60.0
-0.22
NS
%
N
%
N
%
N
15.8
39
41.1
18
18.9
29
22.1
31
32.6
24
25.3
36
35.8
16
16.8
28
29.5
21
26.3
9
9.5
25
26.3
9
37.9
70
73.7
42
44.2
65
27.0
2.39
<.01
52.0
4.23
<.01
43.0
0.24
NS
%
N
30.5
19
37.9
35
22.1
23
9.5
18
68.4
54
NA
NA
%
N
20.0
14
36.8
26
24.2
32
18.9
23
56.8
40
NA
NA
%
N
%
14.7
23
24.2
27.4
30
31.6
33.7
22
23.2
24.2
20
21.1
42.1
53
55.8
NA
NA
41.0
2.93
Did your program prepare you to:
Use different pedagogical
approaches
Have a mastery of your
subject area
Maintain order & discipline in
the classroom
Understand how students
learn
Impact my students' ability to
learn
Implement state/district
curriculum & standards
Use student performance
assessment techniques
Address needs of students
with disabilities
Address needs of students
with limited English
proficiency
Address needs of students
from diverse cultures
Work with parents
Work collaboratively with
teachers, admins., &
personnel
Identify & use resources
within the community where
you teach
Participate as a stakeholder in
the community where you
teach
Integrate technology into the
grade level or subject taught
Sum 1&2
<.01
Source: First-Year Feedback Survey of spring 2007 NYU Teacher Education Graduates
NA = Skill/knowledge not included in the Levine study survey
NS = Not statistically significant
11
New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE)
Table 4 reports the scores of NYU teacher education graduates for the classes of
2006 – 2009 on the NYSTCE exams that teacher candidates must pass in order to be
eligible to teach in New York State public schools. The table reports mean scaled scores,
effect sizes, which are defined as the number of standard deviations (SDs) above the
passing score of 220, and pass rates for the three sets of exams required of candidates.
The passing rates remain around 100% for the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test and the
Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written (ATS-W) tests, similar to the values reported in
the initial Inquiry Brief for the Classes of 2004 and 2005. However, the passing rates for
the Content Specialty Tests (CSTs) during the total period increased by 2.7 percentage
points for BS students and 3.8 percentage points for MA students. Moreover, the effect
sizes for the CSTs increased by one-half SD for BS students and one-third SD for MA
students. In addition, the effect sizes for the ATS-W increased by 0.44 SD and 0.55 SD
for BS and MA students, respectively. New data released by the Teacher Quality
Research Consortium, a pilot project funded by the New York State Education
Department (NYSED) designed to link data from the NYSED with data from institutions
of higher education (IHE) in NYS, indicate that the CST mean scaled scores of NYU
graduates exceed those of all IHEs combined by 0.40 SD for BS students; they are about
equal for MA students. Since NYU’s BS students study their content area subject matter
in NYU’s College of Arts and Sciences while MA students take these courses at their
respective undergraduate institutions, these findings reflect positively on the quality of
NYU’s content major courses. Similarly, the comparative advantage for NYU graduates
on the ATS-W is evidence of the quality of the Steinhardt School’s pedagogical courses
and seminars. Disaggregated analysis of the CST data by subject area indicate that NYU
BS math graduates showed especially high scores on the math CST compared to their
state-wide peers, with a mean scaled score 0.75 SD higher. Effect sizes for state-wide
comparisons in English and Social Studies were also positive but much smaller at 0.20
SD for both.
The improvement in CST scores is partially attributable to greater coordination
and communication between Steinhardt and the College of Arts and Sciences. The Deans
and program directors of the two schools meet and confer about policy and programs at
the Teacher Education Council and faculty of the two schools take actions to implement
policy at the Teacher Education Working Group. The particularly strong gains in math
are evidence of the effectiveness of recent programs aimed at upgrading math education
including the Partnership for Teaching Excellence and the Gateways program.
12
Table 4
Mean Scaled Scores, Pass Rates, and Effect Sizes for Steinhardt Teacher Education Graduates
on the New York State Teacher Certification Exams: Classes of 2006-2009
Class of 2006
BS
MA
Class of 2007
BS
MA
Class of 2008
BS
MA
Class of 2009
BS
Totals
MA
BS
MA
Liberal Arts & Sciences Test (LAST)
N Tested
92
254
78
311
89
312
89
302
348
1179
Mean
Scaled
Score
268.7
270.5
268.1
267.4
268.1
268.0
268.0
270.7
267.7
269.2
15.1
18.0
16.0
17.6
18.7
17.5
33.3
16.0
22.1
17.3
3.23
2.80
3.01
2.69
2,47
2.78
1.44
3.17
2.54
2.86
100%
99.6%
100.0%
99.0%
98.9%
99.7%
98.9%
100.0%
99.4%
99.6%
Standard
Deviation
SDs
Above
Passing *
Percent
Passing
Assessment of Teaching Skills: Written (ATS-W)
N Tested
92
254
78
311
89
312
83
322
337
1262
Mean
Scaled
Score
267.3
268.0
266.7
269.1
269.8
268.3
272.9
268.0
269.0
268.4
13.0
14.8
15.3
15.2
13.4
15.7
13.4
13.6
13.9
14.9
3.64
3.23
3.05
3.23
3.73
3.07
3.93
3.56
3.59
3.27
100.0%
99.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.8%
N Tested
81
316
75
351
86
320
77
305
319
1292
Mean
Scaled
Score
249.4
251.5
244.1
255.5
250.3
256.0
254.9
257.6
249.7
255.1
19.2
21.5
34.0
19.6
17.6
19.4
16.3
21.6
22.9
20.6
1.53
1.46
0.71
1.81
1.72
1,85
2.14
1.74
1.52
1.72
92.6%
95.6%
93.3%
97.7%
98.8%
9.1%
100.0%
97.1%
96.2%
97.4%
Standard
Deviation
SDs
Above
Passing*
Percent
Passing
Content Specialty Tests
Standard
Deviation
SDs
Above
Passing*
Percent
Passing
*Effect Sizes
13
Student Teacher End-of-Term Feedback Surveys
NYU uses the on-line End-of-Term Feedback Questionnaire (ETFQ) to assess the
quality and effectiveness of each term’s student teaching experience. The survey asks
student teachers to rate the effectiveness of their cooperating teachers and field
supervisors in helping them to develop their expertise in specific aspects of teaching
using a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Very Poorly to (5) Very Well. The
program target is a mean score of 4.0 for each area. For subject matter knowledge,
student teachers are asked how well cooperating teachers and field supervisors helped
them to develop the content knowledge specific to their field and age group; for
pedagogical knowledge they were asked how well their mentors’ provided assistance in
furthering their organizational teaching skills; and for teaching skill and caring they were
asked about the assistance they received in enhancing their teaching practice and
developing classroom management skills.
Table 5 displays the mean ETFQ scores and effect sizes for the items related to
each of the three claims. The effect sizes represent the difference between the criterion of
4.0 and the mean scores in standard deviation units. The total means for all three claims
meet or exceed the criterion of 4.0 for both BS and MA students. All three means for
MA students are higher than the respective values reported in the initial Inquiry Brief for
the classes of 2004 and 2005, which were below 4.0 for two of the three claims, subject
matter knowledge and teaching skill and caring. All three effect sizes for MA students
increased, with gains of 0.12 SD. for both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge and 0.23 SD for teaching skill and caring. Moreover, mean ratings for MA
students were higher in 2007 than in 2006, gains that coincided with enhancements in the
field component that accompanied the implementation of the Partnership for Teaching
Excellence.
14
Table 5
Mean Scores for Claim Scales on the End of Term
Feedback Questionnaire
Classes of 2006 and 2007
Class of 2006
BS
MA
Class of 2007
BS
Totals
MA
BS
MA
Claim 1 Scale: Subject Matter Knowledge
N
Respondents
Mean Score
150
192
150
215
300
407
3.93
3.96
4.11
4.03
4.02
4.00
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
0.84
0.86
0.75
0.81
0.80
0.83
Effect Size
(ES)
-0.08
-0.05
0.14
0.03
0.03
0.00
Claim 2 Scale: Pedagogical Knowledge
N
Respondents
Mean Score
150
192
151
216
301
408
4.04
4.07
4.26
4.17
4.15
4.12
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
0.82
0.79
0.68
0.76
0.75
0.77
Effect Size
(ES)
-0.05
0.09
0.38
0.22
0.20
0.16
Claim 3 Scale: Teaching Skill and Caring
N
Respondents
Mean Score
150
192
151
216
301
408
4.09
4.06
4.22
4.18
4.16
4.12
Standard
Deviation
(SD)
0.71
0.8
0.7
0.72
0.70
0.76
Effect Size
(ES)
0.13
0.08
0.31
0.24
0.22
0.16
Notes: Claim 1 scale items are Items 9 and 18; Claim 2 scale items are Items 7 and 15; and Claim 3 scale
items are Items 8, 11, 16, and 19. Items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale with scale values of (1)
“Very Poorly”, (2) “Poorly”, (3) “Average”, (4) “Well”, and (5) “Very Well”. The criterion for each claim is a
mean score of at least 4.0. The formula for effect size is as follows:
ES = (Mean Score – 4.0)/SD. Students left some items blank, resulting in different numbers of respondents
for the claim scales.
15
Grade Point Averages (GPAs)
Among the measures that NYU uses as evidence to assess its claims are GPAs for
subsets of courses related to each of the claims. The initial Inquiry Brief included
separate GPAs for the content cores courses to assess subject matter knowledge,
pedagogical core courses to assess pedagogical knowledge, student teaching and student
teaching seminars to assess teaching skill and caring, and Morse Academic Plan courses
to assess the cross-cutting theme of liberal arts knowledge. This annual report includes
total mean GPAs for BS and MA students for the graduates of the classes of 2006 –
September 2010 (see Table 6.) Mean GPAs for these classes combined are 3.51 (SD =
0.29) for BS students and 3.79 (SD = 0.25) for MA students with little year-to-year
variation in means and dispersion. CRTL is currently performing the data management
work required to prepare these data for disaggregation and analysis by claim. These
results will be presented in the fourth annual report.
Table 6
Mean Total NYU GPA for BS and MA Graduates by Class (Classes of 2006 –
September 2009)
Class
Degree
Program
BS
MA
Total
2006
3.48
131
2007
3.53
117
2008
3.51
126
2009
3.53
133
2010 *
3.33
5
Total
3.51
512
0.28
0.33
0.30
0.27
0.28
0.29
Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
3.85
451
3.86
513
3.86
490
3.85
513
3.84
93
3.86
2060
0.17
0.17
0.23
0.15
0.20
0.18
Mean
3.77
3.80
3.79
3.78
3.81
3.79
N
582
630
616
646
98
2572
Std.
Deviation
0.25
0.25
0.28
0.22
0.23
0.25
Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
* September 2009 graduates
16
USE OF DATA FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT
Steinhardt deans, chairs, program directors, and faculty have been making
increased use of the performance data to inform program planning and improvement. As
described above, data are analyzed and reviewed at meetings of the Teacher Education
Council, the Teacher Education Working Group, and meetings of the teacher education
program directors. They are also reviewed by the Office of Field Services to assess the
effectiveness of field services, including the quality of the environment for pre-service
training at specific school sites and the ability of individual cooperating teachers and field
supervisors to provide high-quality mentoring to student teachers. Overall trends in the
data are analyzed as well as disaggregated outcomes for specific certification areas.
Where possible, data are analyzed longitudinally and historically to identify trends over
time and comparisons are made to program standards and published data from other
institutions of higher education, as well as available normative data.
There has been a cultural shift in the use of data for program decision-making by
the Department of Teaching and Learning. Review of the data from the evidence base
has become a regular part of the monthly program directors’ meetings. The data are
disaggregated by program and used in a needs-assessment process to identify areas for
institutional reform. Reciprocally, perceptions of problems in curricula and field work
are validated and illuminated by analyses of the data, often leading to revisions and
expansion of data collection and analysis. The development of rapid feedback systems
has increased our capacity to identify and deal with problems quickly. This includes
quality-control systems that process data from course evaluations and student teacher
feedback questionnaires in ways that allow for rapid identification of problems and quick
corrective actions.
In the past few years, this process of data review and planning has resulted in
many actions that have changed Steinhardt’s teacher education programs, several of
which are already yielding improved outcomes as described in the section above. Some
of these key actions are summarized below.
•
•
In recognition of the need to strengthen the content knowledge of teacher
education students, structures and processes have been developed to foster closer
collaboration and communication between Steinhardt and the College of Arts and
Sciences. As a result, curricula have been modified in the areas of social studies
and science and courses in these areas are now co-taught by Steinhardt and Arts
and Sciences faculty. Increases in NYSTCE CST scores may be tied to these
changes.
In order to strengthen the field component, partnerships were forged between
NYU and New York City public schools. These partnerships are designed to be
of mutual benefit to the public schools and NYU’s teacher education program.
For NYU’s student teachers, the partnerships have changed the focus of the field
experience from isolated mentorship by a single cooperating teacher to greater
integration of student teachers in the school community. Surveys used in the
evaluation of these partnerships have found that student teachers in partnership
17
•
•
•
•
•
schools report a broader and richer range of field experiences, including
participation in professional development activities, parent events, and school
functions, as well as inter-class visitations. These experiences may be linked to
the higher ETFQ ratings described in the section above.
To address the need to better connect theory to practice, the foundational core
course for teacher education students, Inquiries, was moved off campus and is
currently conducted in partnership schools and co-taught by Steinhardt faculty
and public school teachers. On-site course delivery provides students
opportunities to experience and observe the application of educational principles
and theories in situ. Analysis of recent course evaluation data provides some
evidence in support of the perceived effectiveness of this model.
To address the need for increased coherence and consistency between courses and
field work that merged from analyses of program exit surveys, the BS dual
certification program in childhood and special education is piloting a new model
of student teaching for juniors in four cohorts at four public schools during the
2009-10 academic year. Student teachers in the pilot spend full days in their
schools supervised by a methods instructor who is responsible for the full cohort
in the school. This pilot is being evaluated and, if successful, will be expanded in
the next academic year.
To increase the educational relevance of the course in adolescent development, a
need identified through course evaluations, the curriculum was redesigned.
Comparative analyses of course evaluation data are being conducted to assess the
success of the redesigned course.
To address the need for more instruction in assessment, especially in the area of
literacy at the secondary level, a team of faculty has undertaken the adoption and
adaptation of on-line modules that demonstrate assessment techniques and ways
to identify and teach pupils with problems in literacy. These modules are also
designed to ensure that there is consistency across the programs in the coverage of
the topics of assessment and literacy.
In response to the need for mentorship during induction that was identified
through one-year follow-up surveys, the Department of Teaching and Learning is
designing a program that incorporates post-graduate, in-service mentorship into
its pre-service teacher education programs. This program, tentatively entitled InTouch, will include a planned mentorship component during the graduates’
induction year as part of its curriculum.
NYU is using its evidence base to evaluate the impact of the above program
reforms and to continue to identify areas in need of improvement.
18
TEACHER EDUCATION RESEARCH BIBILIOGRAPHY
Consistent with its culture of self inquiry, Steinhardt research centers, faculty, and
invited external researchers conduct ongoing research on Steinhardt’s teacher education
programs. Below is a list of reports and papers produced form this research.
Alter, M., Rust, F., Jeffery, J. & Keane, A. Closing the teacher preparation gap:
gathering evidence of student learning. A paper funded through a Petrie Foundation
grant, July 2008.
Hummel-Rossi, B., Tobias, R., & Ashdown, J. Creating usable to improve teacher
education programs serving urban public schools. A paper delivered at the annual
meeting of the AERA, San Diego, April 2009. CRTL research report series RR-0409-1
Hummel-Rossi, B. Tobias, R., Ashdown, J., & Smith, A. Teacher education’s
responsibility to its metropolitan constituents: A longitudinal value-added study. A paper
presented at the annual meeting of AERA, New York City, March 2008. CRTL research
report series RR-0308-1.
Jeffery, J. & Tobias, R. Circle of inquiry: partnership researchers’ perspectives on
school-university collaborative processes. A paper delivered at the annual meeting of the
AERA, San Diego, April 2009. CRTL research report series RR-0409-1.
Meier, J. & Crowe. Evaluation of partnership for teacher excellence. An evaluation
report prepared by Arete Consulting for the Petrie Foundation, April 2009.
Sirin, S. & Collins, B. Graduate teacher education at New York University: An
exploration of backgrounds, perceptions, and expectations. New York University: New
York, 2009.
Taub, A., Tobias, R. & Mayher, J. Inquiry brief: a self-study of NYU’s teacher education
programs. A report to TEAC for initial accreditation, November 2005.
Tobias, R. & Tian, J. & Woo, K. First-year feedback survey of spring 2008 NYU teacher
education graduates. CRTL research report series RR-0909-1, September 2009.
Tobias, R., Woo, K. & Pignatosi, F. Are we developing high quality teachers and can we
prove it? A study of the validity and utility of a pre-service teacher assessment system.
A paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, San Diego, April 2009. CRTL
research report series RR-0409-2.
Tobias, R. & Bang, H. First-year feedback survey of spring 2007 NYU teacher education
graduates. CRTL research report series RR-0608-1, June 2008.
19
Tobias R., Fan, B., & Bang, H. Measuring the developing dispositions of pre-service and
beginning teachers. A paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, New York City,
March 2008. CRTL research report series RR-0308-2.
Tobias, R. & Robin, J. The effects of multiple-perspective assessment upon student
teachers and their pupils. Final report for TNE mini-grant 3571-00/EOC 6820. CRTL
research report series RR-0707-1, July 2007.
Tobias, R. & Barrett, T. Graduating students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their
teacher preparation programs: Steinhardt Graduating class of May 2006. CRTL research
paper series RR-0307-1, March 2007.
Tobias R. & Robin, J. Analysis of the Fast Track Learning Partners Survey, Summer
2007, CRTL research report series PE-0307-1, March 2007.
Tobias, R. Results of the first follow-up study on graduates of NYU’s Steinhardt School
of Education’s teacher education programs: graduates from the Classes of 2001 – January
2005 teaching in New York State. CRTL research report series RR-0705-01, July 2005.
Tobias, R. Analysis of student course reaction forms for Department of Teaching and
Learning courses during the period spring 2003 – summer 2004. CRTL research report
series RR-0904-1, September 2004.
Tobias, R. & Fan, B. Fast track evaluation report: analysis of student perceptions of the
effectiveness of the Fast Track summer session 2003. CRTL research report series PE1203-01, December 2003
20
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A
NYU Steinhardt’s Third Annual TEAC Report: Appendix E (TEAC Inquiry Brief): Evidence
January 2010
Type of Evidence
Note: items under each category
are examples. Program may
have more or different evidence
Available*
In the Brief
Reasons for including the results
in the Brief
(Location in Brief)
Not Available
Not in the Brief
Not for future use
For future use
Reasons for not
including the results in
Reasons for including in future Briefs Reasons for not including in future Briefs
the Brief
Grades
1. Student grades and grade
point averages
Content area GPA, pedagogical
course GPA, and student
teaching GPA continue to be
used as valid and reliable
measures of all three claims.
(File 1 in Appendix B.)**
Scores on standardized tests
2. Student scores on
standardized license or board
examinations
Scaled scores on the NYSTCE
content area and Assessment of
Teaching Skills exams continue
to be used as valid, reliable, and
sensitive measures of content
knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge, while scaled scores
on the Liberal Arts and Sciences
Test continue to be used to assess
the cross-cutting theme of
general academic knowledge.
(File 4 in Appendix B.)**
3. Student scores on admission
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
Standardized admissions exams,
21
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
tests of subject matter
knowledge for graduate study
such as the SAT and GRE are
optional for admission to the
graduate teacher education program.
To the extent that these scores are
available, they will be reported as
ancillary data in future briefs.
4.Standardized scores and gains
of the program graduates own
students
Standardized test score gains for the
pupils of program graduates were not
available for NYU’s initial Inquiry
Brief. However, these data are
currently being collected and
analyzed for the pupils of program
graduates who are teaching in grades
4 thru 8 in New York City public
schools (the majority of program
graduates) and will be presented in
the Fourth Annual Report and next
Inquiry Brief using value-added
analytic methods. NYU is exploring
the possibility of obtaining and using
standardized test scores for the pupils
of graduates who are teaching high
school students. The data file was
constructed in December, 2008 and
includes the value-added test data of
150 graduates. It was augmented
with the data for 190 graduates in
2009.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
22
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ratings
5. Ratings of portfolios of
academic and clinical
accomplishment
Portfolio data were not
included in the original
Brief and will not be
used in future Briefs.
Attempts to develop a
standard rubric to score
portfolios proved
unsuccessful due to
insufficient inter-rater
agreement.
6. Third-party rating of
program's students
7. Ratings of in-service,
clinical, and PDS teaching
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
NYU considered using third-party ratings
of program students but determined the
procedures to be not feasible logistically.
NYU did not have access to inservice ratings of program graduates
for the first Brief. We are in
discussion with the NYC Department
of Education (NYCDOE) to try to
obtain these ratings for future Briefs.
The success of these efforts will be
largely contingent upon the adoption
of new teacher performance
standards and rating systems by the
NYCDOE, which is currently being
negotiated.
23
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Ratings by cooperating
NYU continues to expand the
teacher and college/
use of the DRSTOS-R, a protocol
university supervisors, of
practice teachers' work samples used to assess the developing
proficiency of student teachers.
Data from the assessment of a
sample of DRSTOS-R ratings by
student-teacher supervisors were
submitted in the first Brief. Data
for a much larger sample will be
included in future Briefs. Plans
for augmenting the data with the
DRSTOS-R ratings of
cooperating teachers are
contingent upon NYCDOE
decisions about the adoption of
new performance standards and
assessments for teachers. (See
Item 7 above.) (File 2 in
Appendix B.)**
Rates
9. Rates of completion of
courses and program
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
These data were not included in the
initial Brief because the teacher
education programs were in
transition to conform to new state
certification requirements and
historical completion data were
deemed obsolete. Program
completion rates will be included in
the Fourth Annual Report and next
Inquiry Brief. (File is under
construction.)
24
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. Graduates' career retention
rates
11. Graduates' job placement
rates
Some data on career retention
rates were included in the initial
Brief. NYU has expanded its
capability for tracking career data
for program graduates through
partnerships with the New York
State and New York City DOEs.
Accordingly, the Fourth Annual
Report and future Inquiry Briefs
will include richer and more
complete career retention data.
(File 8 in Appendix B.)**
Same as Item 10 above.
12. Rates of graduates'
professional advanced study
13. Rates of graduates'
leadership roles
Since submission of the initial Brief,
NYU has initiated a follow-up study
to assess the professional success and
career progress of its teacher
education graduates. The follow-up
study includes a survey of graduates
who are working in NYC public
schools, the primary employer of
NYU graduates. These data will be
analyzed and reported in the Fourth
Annual Report and next Inquiry
Brief.
See Item 12 above.
14. Rates of graduates'
professional service activities
See Item 12 above.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
25
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Case studies and alumni competence
15. Evaluations of graduates by
their own pupils
NYU believes that the questionable
reliability and validity of these data render
the high resource expenditures required to
collect them unwarranted.
16. Alumni self-assessment of
their accomplishments
See Item 12 above.
17. Third-party professional
recognition of graduates (e.g.
NPTS)
See Item 12 above.
18. Employers' evaluations of
the program's graduates
See Item 7 above.
19. Graduates' authoring of
textbooks, curriculum materials,
etc.
See Item 12 above.
20. Graduates own pupils'
learning and accomplishment
See Item 4 above.
Other Data
21. Students’ self-ratings of
growth in pedagogical
knowledge and teaching skills.
NYU continues to collect,
analyze and report data from the
ETFQ, a questionnaire
administered to student teachers
at the end of each field
placement. The ETFQ asks
students to assess the extent to
which the field experience has
contributed to their professional
growth as teachers. The
questionnaire is being updated to
provide more valid data on
students’ professional growth.
Data from the updated ETFQ will
be reported in future Briefs. (File
6 in Appendix B.)**
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
26
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
22. Students’ dispositions to
teaching.
Data from the Educational
Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ)
were reported in the initial Brief
and continue to be collected.
CRTL has replaced the EBQ with
a new dispositions survey that it
designed and pilot tested in 2009.
The new survey is entitled the
Educational Beliefs and
Multicultural Awareness Survey
(EBMAS). The new survey
assesses more constructs than the
EBQ and has stronger
psychometric properties. The
next Inquiry Brief will contain
EBMAS data for the Classes of
2010 and 2011.
23. Graduates ratings of the
effectiveness of NYU’s teacher
education programs.
The initial Brief reported results from
a survey of Fast Track graduate
students at the end of the program’s
summer component. NYU has
replaced this survey with two surveys
of program graduates: an exit survey
and a one-year follow-up survey.
These surveys assess the extent to
which graduates feel that the
program has prepared them to be
successful teachers. NYU faculty
believes the graduates are better
positioned to provide useful
information about the effectiveness
of the programs than the mid-course
Fast-Track students. Some results
from these surveys were used in the
Third Annual Report and will be
reported in more detail in the Fourth
Annual Report and future Inquiry
Briefs. (File 10 in Appendix B.)**
** File numbers refer to the data files listed in Appendix B, Summary of CRTL Data Files.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
27
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix B
NYU Steinhardt’s Second Annual Report: Summary of CRTL Data Files
January 20010
Data File
1. Teacher Education
graduate file
2. Domain-Referenced
Student Teacher
Observation Scale
(DRSTOS-R)
3. Educational Beliefs
Questionnaire (EBQ)
Description
Extent of Data
Descriptive data for all graduates of Steinhardt teacher
education programs, including date of graduation, degree,
certification area, GPA, identification data, and contact
information. This file can be linked to a course transcript
file.
Scores from this 21-item protocol for rating the teaching
performance of student teachers, which was adapted by
CRTL from the work of Charlotte Danielson. The
DRSTOS-R is designed to assess the ability of teacher
education students to understand and integrate their
classroom experiences and apply that learning to their own
practice as student teachers.
An assessment tool that provides insight into the beliefs
held by our pre-service teachers at various points in their
programs. Students respond to the survey’s 26 items using a
6-point Likert scale. The EBQ yields two scores: Teaching
Efficacy and Caring. The former is defined as belief in the
effectiveness of teaching to promote the learning of students
from diverse backgrounds while the latter taps concern for
the education of all children.
The database contains information on all
teacher education graduates from the classes
of 2001 – 2009.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
The database contains the ratings of 998
student teachers from the fall 2004 through
the spring 2009 semesters. The student
teachers vary by degree and certification
programs, as well as early and late
placements.
The database contains the ratings of
approximately 1,600 students from the fall
2004 through the spring 2008 semesters.
The students vary by degree, certification
programs, and total credits earned at time of
administration. Many of the assessments
are longitudinally linked to permit the
assessment of within-person trends over
time.
28
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. New York State
Teacher Certification
Exam Scores
(NYSTCE)
In order to receive New York State certification as a
teacher, graduates must pass the examinations administered
through the NYSTCE program. Tests include the Liberal
Arts and Science Test (LAST), the Assessment of Teaching
Skills-Written (ATS-W) and the Content Specialty Test for
the Core subjects they teach.
The database contains the NYSTCE scores
for all NYU students who have taken the
exams from April 2005 through the most
recent test administration in June, 2009.
There are a total of nearly 8,800 exam
scores for approximately 4,500 students.
5. Student Course
Reaction Forms
(SCRF)
CRTL processes student course evaluations and maintains
an historical database of the quantitative data.
6. End of Term Student
Teacher Feedback
Questionnaires
(ETFQ)
This is a questionnaire that was developed to elicit feedback
from teacher education students concerning the extent to
which they perceive that the student teaching experience
enhanced their professional knowledge and expertise. The
format includes a combination of forced-choice and openend items divided into three parts: feedback on the school,
cooperating teacher, and the supervisor. This questionnaire
is currently being revised.
This is an on-line exit survey that is periodically
administered to all teacher education program graduates.
Questions focus on the perceptions of graduates as to the
extent to which the programs have prepared them to begin
teaching, the most and least effective of the program, and
their plans for the future.
Data are maintained for all T&L courses
that submitted SCRFs beginning in fall 2002
through fall 2009. The database also has
course evaluation data for other Steinhardt
departments for spring 2007 through fall
2009. Data are available at both the course
level and student level.
The database contains the ratings of nearly
than 4,500 student teachers from the fall
2002 through the spring 2009 semesters.
The student teachers vary by degree and
certification programs, as well as early and
late placements
7. End of Program
Questionnaire
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
The survey was administered in May 2006,
May 2008, and May 2009. The next survey
will be administered in January 2010.
29
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. State/City Information System
Follow-Up Tracking Data
8. Partnership Survey
Data files
CRTL matches files of graduates to state and city human
resources files to locate the schools in which graduates are
teaching. The matched file contains all of the variables
from the graduate file (1 above), as well as the following
information from the teacher information systems: school,
including county and district, number of years teaching,
number of years in same school, subjects taught and grades
taught. This file can also be linked to school report cards,
school progress reports, and learning environment survey
files to pick up school demographic and performance data.
This file contains data from several surveys administered in
connection with the evaluation of the Partnership Initiative.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
CRTL has two separate follow-up files. The
first contains data on approximately 1,000
graduates from the classes of 2001 –
January 2005 who were employed in
schools in New York State, Connecticut or
Florida as of October 2004. The second has
approximately 1,500 graduates from the
classes of 2001 – May 2006 who were
employed in New York City schools as of
spring 2007; this file was updated for 2008
graduates in December 2008 and will be
updated again in January 2010 with
graduates from May 2009.
Data for the following surveys are available:
• Summer 2006 Learning Partners
• Fall 2006 Learning Partners
• Summer 2007 Learning Partners
• Summer 2008 Learning Partners
• Fall 2006 Student Teachers
• Fall 2006 Host School Liaisons
• Fall 2006 NYU Liaisons
• Fall 2007Student Teachers
• Fall 2007Host School Liaisons
• Fall 2007NYU Liaisons
These data are no longer collected since the
Partnership Initiative has ended.
30
Third Annual Report to TEAC, January 2010
________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Graduate Follow-Up
Survey
Data from a follow-up survey that was sent to all of the
teacher education graduates from the Class of 2007. The
survey asks graduates their current employment status, the
extent to which the NYU programs prepared them for
teaching, and the most and least effective aspects of the
teacher education programs. A revised survey will be sent
to the graduates of spring 2008 in January 2009.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series, PE-0110-01
An SPSS data file with data for 95 (30
percent response rate) respondents from the
spring 2007graduating class was constructed
and analyzed in spring 2008. New data
were collected for the graduates of 2008 and
2009.
31