1. Scottish Teachers for a New Era (STNE) is a collaborative six-year pilot project which
seeks to prepare ‘teachers for a new era’ able to face up to the challenges of knowledge
and learning in the twenty-first century. The programme’s aims include the creation of
an extended professional culture, the broadening of learning experiences, opportunities to
develop new and personal approaches to teaching and a broader conceptualisation of
pupil gains leading to improved teacher and pupil learning.
Common Course Evaluation
May 2010
Introduction
The design of STNE initiative incorporates common course evaluation as part of collaborative
evidence gathering and decision making tool. The evaluation process is an effective means of
building confidence in the teachers graduating from the programme in the face of the challenges
and needs of learners and society in the 21st century. Within STNE, improvement and
modification is habitually anticipated based on various forms of reviews.
The common course evaluation involves course teams, student teachers and evaluation
researchers. The main function of the evaluation researchers is to facilitate data gathering and
evidence-based decisions. Other functions of the common course evaluation are: creating an
institutional culture which values decision-making based on evidence; encouraging
communication, cooperation and collaboration of staff; facilitating joint ownership of evaluation;
and facilitating professional growth; and translating evaluation outcomes into practice and policy
on the programme.
2. Common Course Evaluation
Method
The mixed-method (quantitative-qualitative) design was adopted on STNE for the common course
evaluation. This involves collecting data using a questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale of items
ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and open-ended items. This design is
considered appropriate because a combination of qualitative and quantitative design helps to
predict the likely impact various courses have on student teachers’ professional growth
(Grammatikopoulos et al. 2008). By combining quantitative and qualitative data, it is possible to
obtain insights that neither of the methodologies yields in isolation (Towns and Serpell, 2004).
Quantitative information such as ratings of various aspects of the courses may help identify areas
that need revision. Qualitative information, such as responses to open-ended questions about a
programme provides feedback which may not have been anticipated.
The procedure of data collection was led by both course teams and evaluation researchers.
The student teachers were involved in the process of generating aspects of the programme which
they considered essential for their growth. They were also involved in the piloting of the
questionnaires. Tutors on the programme provided further directions and insight on the design of
the questionnaire in terms of aspects of focus. Course co-ordinators and researchers administered
the questionnaires to the student teachers after a lecture, tutorial or workshop.
The student teachers were informed of the purpose of the common course evaluation. They
were also assured that the information they provide would be treated in confidence and analysed
anonymously. Student teachers were encouraged to participate in the exercise as a way of
providing feedback and contributing to further improvement that they saw necessary on the
programme.
The participants in the common course evaluation were student teachers cohorts on the
STNE programme. The average student teacher participation rates per semester were 64 out of
114 (first year), 68 out of 100 (second year), 65 out of 117 (third year), and 77 out of 91 (fourth
year) student teachers.
Data analysis involved using SPSS descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of
qualitative data. The data reported here was collected in the 2008/2009 academic year.
3. Common Course Evaluation
Results
First year student teachers felt they were able to identify the social-constructivist orientation of the
programme, they indicated being effective in applying collaborative skills and implementing
professional enquiry. They had started to develop values and commitment to social justice and
inclusion. Student teachers also noted they were beginning to engage and act upon personal and
professional reflection. The most significant learning experiences on the course were the serial day
placements and the personal-professional development. They pointed to the following as requiring
further consideration: field placement, and tutorial/workshops.
Second year student teachers felt they had developed an understanding of curriculum in its
broadest sense, they felt paired field placement promoted personal and professional learning and
skills which enable them to work effectively in co-operation with peers and other professionals.
They stated being more interested in becoming teachers and were becoming more capable of being
effective teachers. They perceived the following as the most significant learning experiences on the
course: serial day placement, lesson implementation on placement, creativity days, and tutorial
support. The areas requiring further considerations were: communication and field placement.
Third year student teachers felt they developed research skills and knowledge for use in
future for evidence gathering in the classroom, they had developed appropriate assessment
approaches to support pupil learning, they had developed skills in embedding their knowledge of the
local context of the school in supporting children’s learning, they had developed knowledge and
understanding of how to contribute to the processes of curriculum development, and through field
experience, they were able to develop skills in demonstrating positive and professional interaction
and relationships with children. They viewed workshops, field placement, personal and professional
advisory, planning teaching and learning as the most significant experiences. They considered field
experience, support for research, input on planning and assessment as areas for further
consideration.
Fourth year student teachers felt action research project enhanced their knowledge and
understanding of educational theory and practice, deepened and broadened their understanding of
Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), extended their understanding of the necessity for children’s
learning of integrating literacy across all curricular areas. They perceived field experience, curricular
areas, and subject knowledge as the most significant experiences. They perceived planning, ICT,
research activities, curricular, and assessment practices as areas for further improvement.
4. Common Course Evaluation
Discussion/Conclusion
Engaging in common course evaluation and evidence-informed decision making is very crucial.
Staff members on STNE are engaging in more systematic inquiry by constantly improving the
design and delivery of teacher education programmes based on evidence. The findings here indicate
that the student teachers on the STNE programme are part of the process of further programme
improvement and evidence gathering strategies. The findings demonstrate that the programme has
made significant strides in using common course evaluation as a tool for dialogue and co-inquiry.
They demonstrate that the student teachers were developing appropriately and that the various components,
such as field experience, were critical in advancing the aims of the programme. At the same time, the
findings also indicate areas for further improvement in a bid to make the programme more responsive to the
needs of the student teachers. Such further improvements underline the significant place that common
course evaluation has in generating ideas for programme consideration. As such, it is imperative that a
culture of systematic and robust common course evaluation is sustainably embedded as part of the
teacher education curriculum on initial teacher education such as the STNE programme.
References
Grammatikopoulos, V., Zachopoulos, E., Tsangaridou, N., Liukkonen, J., & Pickup, I. (2008).
Applying a mixed method design to evaluate training seminars within an early childhood
education project. Evaluation and research in education 21 (1), 4-17.
Mertens, D.M. 2005. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: integrating diversity
with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Towns D.P., & Serpell, Z. (2004). Successes and challenges in triangulating methodologies in
evaluations of exemplary urban schools. In Thomas, V.G., & Steven, F.I., eds. Co-
constructing a contextually responsive evaluation framework (pp.49-62). San Franscisco:
Jossey-Bass.
