Linking Principal Preparation Experiences to Initial Licensure Elementary Experiences: Implementing Change in Practica Joy Stapleton, Kristen Cuthrell, Marjorie Ringler College of Education Jason Brinkley Department of Biostatistics Introduction This project offers an innovative and systemic way of providing comprehensive feedback to large numbers of practicum students where the parties involved are mutually benefitted. Principal candidates engage in observation, feedback and reflection activities. This intensive coaching is a proactive way to help preservice teachers develop. It also helps to develop principals as instructional leaders. Preliminary Pilots: Lessons Learned The first pilot was spring It involved 3 principal candidates who were participating in their internship and 9 Junior 2 teaching candidates. Each principal candidate had one group of 3 Junior 2 teaching candidates to observe and give feedback once a week during their 6 week practicum. Lessons learned from this pilot: Principal candidates in their internship are too busy for an additional assignment that carries no weight in their internship. Junior 2 teaching candidates enjoy the feedback they receive from the principal candidates but panic when the “Assistant Principal” walks in the room to observe them teaching. Overall candidates shared potential benefits and suggested continuing to refine the process. The second pilot, spring 2013, involved 5 principal candidates and 28 Junior 2 teaching candidates. This time the principal candidates were paid a stipend for conducting the observations on their own time. The principal candidates participated in a training session in which they were introduced to the process and the observation documents. The principal candidates practiced observing and providing feedback by reviewing videos of teaching episodes. Each principal candidate observed at the school site 3 times. Lessons learned from this pilot: Principal candidates valued the experience and suggested following the same Junior 2 teaching candidate or group throughout the practicum so they could see the impact of their coaching on the students over time. Junior 2 teaching candidates valued the fact that the principal candidates saw their entire lesson and were able to give them comprehensive feedback. Previously the instructors were only able to give feedback on short sections of each Junior 2 candidate’s lesson. Principal candidates suggested that the coaching project would be a beneficial assignment in the Instructional Leadership course. Principal candidates suggested offering the Instructional Leadership class prior to starting the internship Summer Refinements Planned for the implementation of a full pilot in fall Revisions included: Moving the Instructional Leadership class to year 1 fall semester Revising the Instructional Leadership class assignment to require coaching at the Junior 2 practicum site (Treatment Group 1) Revising the Instructional Leadership class assignment to require online coaching of Junior 2 practicum students (Treatment Group 2) Creating a pre/post assessment for coaching in all sections of the Instructional Leadership class that requires the principal candidates to observe a video of a teaching episode, evaluate the teaching episode, and give feedback in written form Creating a common syllabus for the Instructional Leadership course (Control Group) Moving Treatment 1 Course class to Tuesday/Thursday so the practicum experience is part of their class time Junior 2 teaching candidates will submit their lesson plans to TaskStream so the principal candidates can give feedback before they observe Changing the observation rubric to the newly formed Instructional Observation Evaluation Rubric Significance The addition of the principal candidates as instructional coaches reduces the observer to observee ratio from 1/10 to 1/1. This intensive coaching is an innovative and proactive way to help preservice teachers become more effective teachers. It also helps to develop principals as instructional leaders. Interdepartmental collaboration between Educational Leadership and Elementary Education breaks silos between faculty that would not typically work together. Proposals describing this innovative model have been submitted to AACTE, 2014 AERA, 2014 NCPEA, 2014 Chapter proposals Next Steps An IRB has been completed for this project. The next steps include: Analysis of the data Revisions to documents as needed Revisions to process as needed Publication of article based on results of data 2013 Fall Implementation Participants PC Control Group (n= 50) / JR 2 Control Group (n=25) PC Treatment Group 1 (n= 8) /JR2 Treatment Group 1 (n=24) PC Treatment Group 2 (n=14) / JR2 Treatment Group 2 (n=27) Data Collection PC Control Group: a) pre/post assessment for coaching; b) observation assignment with 3 different self-selected volunteers PC Treatment Group 1: a) pre/post assessment for coaching; b) observation assignment with JR2’s at Sugg/Bundy in Farmville. They will be following the same JR2 teaching group throughout the semester; c) coaching survey PC Treatment Group 2: a) pre/post assessment for coaching; b) observation assignment with JR2’s online videos. They will be following the same JR2 throughout the semester; c) coaching survey JR2 Control Group: a) lesson plans uploaded and graded in Taskstream; b) each teaching episode scored with an Instructional Observation Evaluation Rubric, completed by the instructor and the student JR2 Treatment Group 1: a) lesson plans uploaded and graded in Taskstream; b) each teaching episode scored with an Instructional Observation Evaluation Rubric, completed by the instructor and the student; c) coaching survey JR2 Treatment Group 2: a) lesson plans uploaded and graded in Taskstream; b) each video teaching episode scored with Instructional Observation Evaluation Rubric completed by the instructor and the student; c) coaching survey