An accountability model for initial teacher education

  • Published on
    11-Apr-2017

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 10 December 2014, At: 07:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20</p><p>An accountability model for initialteacher educationLarry Ludlow a , Emilie Mitescu a , Joseph Pedulla a , MarilynCochranSmith a , Mac Cannady a , Sarah Enterline a &amp; StephanieChappe aa Department of Educational Research, Measurement, andEvaluation , Lynch School of Education, Boston College , ChestnutHill, MA, USAPublished online: 27 Sep 2010.</p><p>To cite this article: Larry Ludlow , Emilie Mitescu , Joseph Pedulla , Marilyn CochranSmith , MacCannady , Sarah Enterline &amp; Stephanie Chappe (2010) An accountability model for initial teachereducation, Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 36:4, 353-368</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.513843</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp;</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.513843</p></li><li><p>Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Nor</p><p>th D</p><p>akot</p><p>a St</p><p>ate </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity] </p><p>at 0</p><p>7:46</p><p> 10 </p><p>Dec</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>Journal of Education for TeachingVol. 36, No. 4, November 2010, 353368</p><p>ISSN 0260-7476 print/ISSN 1360-0540 online 2010 Taylor &amp; FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02607476.2010.513843http://www.informaworld.com</p><p>An accountability model for initial teacher education</p><p>Larry Ludlow*, Emilie Mitescu, Joseph Pedulla, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Mac Cannady, Sarah Enterline and Stephanie Chappe</p><p>Department of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA</p><p>Taylor and FrancisCJET_A_513843.sgm(Received 19 March 2010; final version received 16 June 2010)10.1080/02607476.2010.513843Journal of Education for Teaching0260-7476 (print)/1360-0540 (online)Original Article2010Taylor &amp; Francis364000000November 2010LarryLudlowludlow@bc.edu</p><p>The pressure for accountability in higher education is extremely high. Someadvocate accountability systems that use standardised measures of studentlearning and non-cognitive outcomes; others argue that locally developedmeasures provide a better fit with the unique mission of institutions. We firstdescribe a general proof of possibility accountability model for initial teachereducation that relies upon locally developed, programme-specific assessments.We then illustrate how such a model may respond to claims made by an institution,demonstrate student learning, and inform programmatic changes.</p><p>Keywords: accountability; longitudinal; teacher education; surveys</p><p>In the USA, accountability has been a buzzword for more than 30 years both in thehigher education policy discourse at the national level as well as the institutional andprogramme-specific levels. Most recently at the national level, there have been callsfor institutions of higher education to provide evidence of student learning as well asnon-cognitive outcomes in the form of standardised assessments of student achieve-ment and cross-institutional surveys of student engagement (US Department ofEducation 2006). In addition, at the higher education programme level, particularly inuniversity-based teacher preparation, there have been calls for greater emphasis onoutcomes, improved data-systems, and increased use of evidence to support claimsand guide policy decisions (Allen 2003; Cochran-Smith 2005; Wineburg 2006). At alllevels, this has led to a continuing debate about who should take control of account-ability in higher education, what kinds of evidence are appropriate for accountabilitypurposes, how different forms of evidence should be used, and how the competingpurposes of internal and external accountability can be reconciled.</p><p>This article analyses efforts at one institution to respond to demands for highereducation accountability through the development and implementation of an institu-tion-specific, programme-level model of assessment and accountability. We beginwith a discussion of the larger debate about higher education accountability in theUSA, including critique of the federally-recommended use of standardised assess-ments for accountability purposes and consideration of accountability issues in initialteacher education specifically. Based on this critique, and on our own efforts over sixyears to develop an accountability and assessment system, we propose a model withfour key elements. We show how these four elements formed the basis of the account-ability system employed at the Boston College Lynch School of Education to support</p><p>*Corresponding author. Email: ludlow@bc.edu</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Nor</p><p>th D</p><p>akot</p><p>a St</p><p>ate </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity] </p><p>at 0</p><p>7:46</p><p> 10 </p><p>Dec</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>354 L. Ludlow et al.</p><p>claims made by the institution, demonstrate student learning, and inform program-matic changes. Finally, we discuss how local accountability systems can inform largerdebates about higher education accountability and how other institutions of highereducation can use the model described here to develop their own accountability/assessment systems and meet their specific goals.</p><p>The debate about higher education accountability in the USA</p><p>In the context of the larger test-based accountability movement in the USA (e.g.,Elmore 2002; Linn 2003; Sirotnik 2004), the then US Secretary of Education, Marg-aret Spellings, released the 2006 report of the Spellings Commission on HigherEducation, titled, A test of leadership: Charting the future of US higher education (USDepartment of Education 2006). Signalling a turning point in the discourse aboutaccountability at the level of higher education (Malandra 2008), the SpellingsCommission argued that due in part to its remarkable absence of accountabilitymechanisms (US Department of Education 2006, x), US higher education needed toimprove in dramatic ways (ix). The Commission framed accountability in terms ofmeasuring meaningful learning outcomes, and proposed that institutions use metricsthat lead to the improvement of teaching and learning and that have the capacity tocompare the outcomes of one institution with those of the next. To meet these ends,the Commission recommended the use of standardised assessments, such as theCollegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), which measures student learning outcomesacross post-secondary institutions, and the National Survey of Student Engagement(NSSE), which serves as a proxy for the value and quality of [students] undergrad-uate experience (23).</p><p>Meanwhile some higher education spokespersons argued that rather than allowingfederal and other governing bodies to dictate which evidence should be used, account-ability should be left to the higher education community itself. For example, in itsprinciples of educational accountability, the Association of American Colleges andUniversities (AACU) along with the Council for Higher Education Accreditation(2008) argued that it is the responsibility of individual institutions to achieve excel-lence and collect evidence relevant to the outcomes that are meaningful to that insti-tution. Along similar lines, Lee Shulman (2007), then President of the CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching, called for the higher education commu-nity to take control of the narrative of accountability.</p><p>Some universities and associations have taken pro-active measures. For example,in 2005, the Council of Independent Colleges Collegiate Learning AssessmentConsortium (CIC/CLA Consortium) began administering the CLA to freshmen andseniors at 33 liberal arts colleges (Ekman and Pelletier 2008). This had some success,such as increased use of empirical evidence in making policy decisions, but alsocreated challenges, such as obtaining full student cooperation and participation in theassessments on a voluntary basis and involvement of faculty who were initially waryof using standardised assessment results to inform programmatic decisions.</p><p>Furthermore, some scholars questioned whether the implementation of standard-ised assessments in institutions of higher education aligns with, or contradicts, thegoals of improving student learning (e.g., Education Commission of the States 1998;Frye 1999; Labi 2007). Others were concerned about whether standardised assess-ments can measure learning across institutions that have different missions, different</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Nor</p><p>th D</p><p>akot</p><p>a St</p><p>ate </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity] </p><p>at 0</p><p>7:46</p><p> 10 </p><p>Dec</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Journal of Education for Teaching 355</p><p>student populations, and different resources (e.g., Bollag 2006; Eubanks 2006; Garciaand Pacheco 1992; Schagen and Hutchinson 2007). It is clear that differing studentpopulations, resources, missions and themes could make comparisons across highereducation institutions problematic, with the potential for distorted inferences aboutparticular institutions. At the same time, a one-size-fits-all approach could reducethe scope of what is taught across institutions each with diverse missions and goals.As noted by Richard Shavelson (2007, 28), one of the developers of the CLA: </p><p>If the learning outcomes of higher education are narrowly measured, as cost, capacity,and convenience would dictate, we risk narrowing the missions, subject matter taught,and diversity of the American system of higher education.</p><p>In contrast to standardised assessments, which may be distant from the missions,goals, and objectives of individual institutions, some proponents have advocatedlocally developed measures with the potential to more accurately represent thespecific institutional outcomes of higher education given their proximity to what isassessed (Allen and Bresciani 2003). Despite recommendations for local measures,there has been almost no discussion about what such measures would look like inpractice, how they would be analysed, or how analyses could be used to reconcile thecompeting needs of external and internal accountability.</p><p>Accountability in US teacher education</p><p>Within the larger context of the accountability movement and the debates about highereducation accountability described above, there has been great emphasis on account-ability regarding university-based initial teacher education in particular. A strongemphasis on accountability is part of what Cochran-Smith (2005; Cochran-Smith andthe Boston College Evidence Team 2009) called the new teacher education, whichhas emerged in the USA since the late 1990s. Cochran-Smith (2005) points out thatprior to the mid 1990s, the emphasis in initial teacher education was not on evidenceor outcomes, but on process, particularly how teacher candidates learned to teach, howtheir beliefs and attitudes changed over time, what the knowledge base for effectiveteaching was, and what social and organisational contexts supported their learning.The shift in initial teacher education was part of a much larger sea change in how wethink about educational accountability (Cuban 2004).</p><p>With regard to initial teacher education, there is now heavy emphasis in the USAon both external and internal accountability. The clearest examples of the push forexternal accountability are the federal reporting requirements that went into effect in1998 following the re-authorisation of the Higher Education Act. There are also manystate-wide data systems either under construction or in effect that link student data withdata about teacher effectiveness and initial teacher education programmes. In terms ofinternal accountability, the accreditation process of the National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accredita-tion Council (TEAC) now require that institutions provide evidence (Williams,Mitchell, and Leibbrand 2003, xiii) of teachers knowledge and performance.</p><p>In a way that is parallel to the calls for change in higher education more generally,the point of shifting accountability from external policy to internal practice ininitial teacher education is to build the capacity within programmes to assess progressand effectiveness and also to generate knowledge that can be used both in local</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Nor</p><p>th D</p><p>akot</p><p>a St</p><p>ate </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity] </p><p>at 0</p><p>7:46</p><p> 10 </p><p>Dec</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>356 L. Ludlow et al.</p><p>programmes and more broadly. What this has meant in the USA is that, across thecountry, more and more of the people engaged in initial teacher education are alsoengaged in assembling evidence about their practices and their graduates. This ispartly to satisfy their evaluators, but it is also to see whether programmes are measur-ing up to their own standards for excellent teaching. However, as Wineburg (2006)argued based on a survey about general evidence gathering practices among the highereducation institutions that prepare most of the nations teachers in the USA, manyinstitutions appear[ed] to be unable to organise and interpret data in ways that wouldprovide an effective response to outside mandates (56).</p><p>This article sets out to respond to many of the issues raised in discussions abouthigher education accountability in general and initial teacher education accountabilityin particular. In the next section of this article, we present an accountability model forinitial teacher education.</p><p>An institution-specific, programme-level accountability model for initial teacher education</p><p>Boston College (BC) has approximately 15,000 undergraduate and graduate students,with the Lynch School of Education preparing 250270 undergraduate and graduateteacher candidates per year. Its m...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >