


































Microsoft Word - Tracz-Vol1Num2.docx


Vol. 1, No. 2, January 2013, pp. 63-82   
 

 

 
 
 
 
Effectiveness of Teacher Education Programs: 
A Descriptive Aggregation of Supervisor Ratings of Teachers  
Trained by The Renaissance Group (TRG) and the Teacher Education Council of  
State Colleges and Universities (TECSCU) Institutions 
 
Susan M. Tracz, Ph.D. 
California State University, Fresno 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract 
 

This study aggregated supervisor’s ratings of teachers trained at The Renaissance Group 

(TRG) and the Teacher Education Council of State Colleges and Universities (TECSCU) 

institutions. Fourteen studies conducted by 12 universities or states were gathered, and 12 

that met inclusion criteria were included in this analysis.  The total number of survey 

items in all studies (N = 374) was coded into 13 variables.  Frequencies of the 

percentages of ratings falling into below average, average, and above average for those 

variables were tabled.  Supervisors consistently gave teachers very high ratings. 

  



64     S. Tracz 

 

Background 
 

Of paramount importance to P-12 education in this country is the quality of its 
teachers.  Not only are public and private schools concerned with hiring the best teachers 
available, but schools and departments of education at universities are fully cognizant 
that their own credibility rests on the performance of the teachers they train.  Research 
has demonstrated over and again that teachers do have a great impact on the education of 
the students they teach.  The ratings supervisors give teachers about their knowledge and 
skills have often been used as indicators of teaching effectiveness, and by extension, of 
the effectiveness of university education programs.   

Although numerous universities routinely conduct internal studies by surveying 
principals or other teacher supervisors, these studies are not well disseminated, and the 
results are largely unknown.  In contrast, a conservative group is currently using a single 
study which purportedly found that a large proportion of teacher supervisors are highly 
unsatisfied with their teachers because their university training was lacking.  The overt 
agenda of this message is that university education programs are ineffective. 

 
Purpose 

 
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to aggregate the results of studies 

conducted by The Renaissance Group and TECSCU university education programs to 
determine how supervisors rate the teachers trained at these universities.  
  

Methods 
 

Study Design.  Typically, when researchers want to determine the global effect of 
a phenomenon, they combine individual studies that examined the topic of concern.  This 
type of design is called meta-analysis, which is generally presents effect sizes in terms of 
a standardized difference between the means for two groups or correlation coefficients.   

The data that is available for aggregation does not conform to the requirements 
for a meta-analysis.  However, it was possible to combine this data in with descriptive 
aggregation technique that is described below. 

Studies Included.  The Director of The Renaissance Group solicited studies and 
reports of supervisor ratings of teachers and teacher ratings of their training.  Fourteen 
studies were submitted in a timeframe that enabled them to be included in this 
aggregation study.  Each study was considered a separate study if it was send as a 
separate file, although some studies have multiple parts and some universities send 
separate files for their various studies.  Ultimately, the aggregation of the data will make 
these distinctions irrelevant.  The universities and states represented in this sample of 
studies follow: 
 



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     65 

Table 1 
Description of the studies available for this descriptive aggregation report  
 
 
University  

 
Study Components 
 

 
N 

 
Rating Scale 

 
N of 
Items 
 

 
Study 
Included 

1 Eastern 
Kentucky Univ 

Principals eval teachers, 
Superintendents eval 
principals, Graduates 
eval education program 
 

193 5 pt scale: Poor, Below 
aver, Aver, Above aver, 
Outstanding  

27 Yes 

2 Montana State 
Univ Billings 
 

Employers eval teachers 85 5 pt scale: Strongly 
disagree, Disagree, 
Neutral, Agree, 
Strongly agree 
 

11 Yes 

3 Montana State 
Univ Billings  

Teachers eval education 
program 

Not 
available 

3 pt scale: Low 
preparation, Moderate 
preparation, High 
preparation 
 

6 No 

4 Ball State 
Univ 
 

Employers eval teachers 29 3 pt scale: Disagree, 
Agree, Strongly Agree 

4 Yes 

5Emporia State 
Univ 
 

Administrators eval 
teachers, Graduates eval 
education program 
 

Not 
available 

2 pt scale: Need help or 
not prepared, 
Acceptable level of 
preparation 

1 Yes 

6California State 
Univ System 

Supervisors eval 
teachers, Graduates eval 
education program 
 

3781 1 pt scale: Well or 
adequately prepared 

15 Yes 

7Kean Univ Employers eval teachers Not 
available 

5 pt scale:  Insufficient, 
Beginning, Adequate, 
Competent, Strong 
 

72 Yes 

8Univ of Mary 
Washington 
 

Employers eval teachers 75 5 pt scale:  Not 
satisfactory, Needs 
improvement, 
Satisfactory, Good, 
Excellent 
 

35 Yes 

9Radford Univ Principals eval teachers 25 5 pt scale: Poor, Below 
aver, Aver, Above aver, 
Outstanding 
 

23 Yes 

10 Public & 
Private Univ, 
State of Illinois 

Supervising employers 
eval teachers 

8144 2 pt scale:  Other, 
Mostly or extremely 
prepared by teacher 
education program to be 
a successful teacher 
 

108 Yes 

      



66     S. Tracz 

 

 
University  

 
Study Components 
 

 
N 

 
Rating Scale 

 
N of 
Items 
 

 
Study 
Included 

11 Lamar Univ 
at Beaumont 

Supervisors eval 
teachers 

28 4 pt scale: Not at all 
prepared, Not 
sufficiently prepared, 
Sufficiently prepared, 
Well prepared 
 

30 Yes 

12 Lamar Univ 
at Beaumont 

Teachers eval education 
program 

4484 4 pt scale: Not at all 
prepared, Not 
sufficiently prepared, 
Sufficiently prepared, 
Well prepared 
 

30 No 

13 Longwood 
Univ 

Supervisors eval 
teachers 

201 5 pt scale: 1 Not 
prepared at all, 2, 3, 4,  
5 Outstanding 
 

15 Yes 

14 Longwood 
Univ 

Supervisors eval 
teachers 

58 3 pt scale: Below aver, 
Aver, Above aver 
 

39 Yes 

 
 
The majority of these studies report supervisor ratings of teachers after their initial 
teacher training, and only those study results are combined here.  Some studies report 
teacher ratings of their teacher education programs or supervisor ratings of teachers 
receiving graduate training in counseling, leadership, special education, and those results 
are not combined here.  Of the 14 studies, 2 studies and parts of other studies were not 
included, and 12 studies are combined. 
 

Variables Coded.  A wide variety of survey items examining teacher competence 
were included in these 12 studies, and no two surveys were even closely similar in these 
items.  The number of items per survey ranged from 1 to 108.  In an effort to code survey 
items into consistent variables, the following 13 items were developed: 

1. Dispositions – personal characteristics or tendencies of teachers, not necessarily 
affected by teacher education programs, 

2. Knowledge Base – Content knowledge demonstrated by teachers, 
3. Pedagogy – Knowledge of and ability to apply the methods and principles of 

teaching, 
4. Classroom Management/Environment – Knowledge of students and ability to 

effectively manage classroom environment and activities, 
5. Technology – Knowledge of and ability to teach effectively using technology, 
6. Assessment – Ability to correctly ascertain student knowledge and learning, 
7. Reflective Practice – Continuous self-examination of one’s teaching practices in 

an effort to improve, 
8. Diversity/Equity – Cultural competence and ability to teach so all students are 

treated in an equitable manner, 



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     67 

9. Disabilities – Knowledge of and ability to teach students with disabilities 
effectively, 

10. Professional Workplace/Relations – Ability to act in a professional manner and to 
have good relationships with co-workers, 

11. Parents/Guardians/Community – Ability to have good relationships with parents 
and the community, 

12. Enhancing teacher quality – Processes that encourage and support teacher quality, 
13. Overall Effectiveness – Comprehensive evaluation of teaching effectiveness. 
 
Reliability.  The author coded all items into the variables described above.  In an 

effort to ascertain reliability, the Director of The Renaissance Group, the dean and 
associate dean from CSU Fresno, were also asked to rate 2 to 5 studies.  After discussion 
of the meanings of the 13 variables, the inter-rater reliability as a percent of agreement of 
93% was achieved.  This was deemed to be acceptable for this aggregation study. 
 

Rating Scales.  As can be seen in Table 1, a wide variety of rating scales were chosen 
in the individual studies.  Reported scales ranged from 1 to 5 points.  In many studies, 
only part of the entire scale was reported.  One study did not report a below average 
rating, one study did not report an average or midpoint rating, and one did not report a 
high rating.  Another reported a combined the midpoint and high rating, while still 
another reported only an “other” rating in addition to the high rating.  The only 
commonality is that most studies reported at least one above average point and most 
studies reported a midpoint rating, so those will be reported in the summary over all 
studies.  Finally, the graph only reports the high ratings. 

 
Data Collection Procedures 

 
The following procedures were done for each individual study.  Each survey item 

was coded into one of the 13 variables listed above.  A data set consisting of each survey 
item, the rating scale for that study, and the variable code was developed. Also input into 
that data set were the sample sizes, the frequencies of all responses, the percentages of all 
responses, and means as were available.  Studies rarely had all that information reported.   

 
Analysis 

 
After the data set was compiled, it needed to be put into a format that allowed for 

aggregation.  A set of consistent collapsing of ratings was developed.  Each study’s 
ratings were combined into below average, average and above average categories.  AS 
discussed in the Ratings section, not all studies had all these categories, so only the ones 
that were available were compiled.  When only frequencies were available, percentages 
were calculated.   
 

Once each study had a percentage of responses for each item in below average, 
average and above average categories, those percentages were tallied for each of the 13 
variables.  The aggregate ranges of those percentages were reported by study for each of 
the variables when the number of studies combined was 1 to 5.  When more than 5 



68     S. Tracz 

 

studies were aggregated per variable, the lowest and highest percentages were eliminated 
and the resulting ranges were reported.  The reason for this is that a percentage can be 
calculated on a very few number of supervisor ratings so it is possible to greatly skew the 
results with only a few items. 

 
Results 

 
Tables 2 through 13 present the ranges of percentages of variables in rating 

categories over the individual studies.  Table 14 presents the ranges of percentages for the 
average and the above average categories aggregated over all studies.  The number of 
items combined to produce these results was 374.   

Figure 1 presents a graph of the above average categories aggregated over all 
studies.  Except for the Disability variable, the ranges of above average percentages for 
all other variables have a low of 49.3% to 100.0% indicating substantial percentages of 
supervisors believe that their teachers are highly competent.  The ranges for the average 
or competent category are also high, and the vast majority of ratings fall into those two 
categories.  The range for the Disability variable is 21.4% to 87.0%.  

 

!
Figure 1. Ranges of Percentages for Above Average Supervisor Ratings of Teachers on 
Items from 12 Studies from TRG and TECSCU Institutions.   

 



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     69 

 
Conclusions 

 
In general, supervisors give their teachers high marks.  Most of teachers are rated as 
either average or above average.  Only a small percentage of teachers are not considered 
to be competent.   
 

Recommendations 
 

The value of aggregating the evaluations supervisors give teachers over teacher 
education institutions cannot be overemphasized.  This information would allow the 
public, school districts and researchers to assess the institutions that train the teachers 
their schools hire.  In order to accomplish this goal, some recommendations follow.  
These recommendations are not meant as criticism of the studies whose results are 
reported here.  Although many education programs at universities conduct their own 
research studies, combining their studies is difficult due to the plethora of methods and 
instruments used.   

1. A common instrument should be developed.  Such an instrument could have some 
questions that are the same for all institutions and also allow for institutions to ask 
additional questions to address their individual research interests. 

2. A common rating scale should be agreed upon.  This scale should have at least 3 
ratings:  below expectation, meets expectation, and above expectation.   

3. Common definitions or rubrics for the ratings should be written so evaluating 
supervisors can approach a common understanding of what the ratings mean.  
Most notably, what is truly considered above average is often defined in 
numerous ways: some believing that a teacher has to reach an outstanding level of 
performance much like that of a veteran teacher to be considered above average, 
while others view anything above the minimal acceptable level of performance to 
be above average. 

4. Instruments should be administered at a similar time during the academic year. 
5. Supervisors, principals or other persons who rate teachers should be very familiar 

with their teaching practices. 
6. Data should be input into a common data template that asks for items, codes, 

frequencies, and percentages. 
7. A format for presenting the aggregation of the results should be agreed upon. 

 
  



70     S. Tracz 

 

Table 2 
Results for Eastern Kentucky University (Study #1) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

 N of Items 
Combined Poor or 

Below 
Average 

 

Average 

Outstanding 
or Above 
Average 

1 Dispositions 
 -- -- -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 2.6 21.2 76.2 1 

3 Pedagogy 
 2.6-11.5 24.1-34.7 55.5-72.3 9 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 2.6-5.1 23.8-31.3 63.6-73 3 

5 Technology 
 3.6-5.3 32.5-34.7 60.0-63.9 2 

6 Assessment 
 3.1-6.2 26.6-41.9 52.3-69.7 5 

7 Reflective Practice 
 3.8-6.8 33.5-38.6 57.6-59.7 2 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 5.9 33.9 60.2 1 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 1-2 23.4-28.5 69.5-75.5 3 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 2.6 32.8 64.6 1 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- -- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Principals’ Perceptions of Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) Teacher  



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     71 

Table 3 
Results for University Montana State University Billings (Study #2) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

N of Items 
Combined 

 
Disagree or 

Strongly 
Disagree 

 

Neutral 
Agree or 
Strongly 

Agree 

1 Dispositions 
 -- -- -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 7.0 14.0 79.0 1 

3 Pedagogy 
 6.0-9.0 16.0-18.0 74.0-76.0 3 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 4.0 26.0 69.0 1 

5 Technology 
 7.0 18.0 75.0 1 

6 Assessment 
 -- -- -- 1 

7 Reflective Practice 
 8.0 23.0 69.0 1 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 8.0-12.0 20.0-42.0 50.0-69.0 2 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 -- -- -- 0 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 5.0 29.0 66.0 1 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- -- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Follow-Up Studies of Graduates and Employers 
Comments:  * Data entered incorrectly for this item.  Only beginning teachers evaluated 
by supervisors are reported.  Evaluations for teachers and counselors who received 
advanced degrees are not reported here. 
 
 



72     S. Tracz 

 

Table 4 
Results for Ball State University (Study #4) 
 

Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

N of Items 
Combined Disagree 

 
Agree or  

Strongly Agree  
 

1 Dispositions 
 -- -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 0.0 100.0 1 

3 Pedagogy 
 3.6 96.4 1 

4 Classroom 
Mgt/Environment 
 

-- -- 0 

5 Technology 
 0.0 100.0 1 

6 Assessment 
 -- -- 0 

7 Reflective Practice 
 -- -- 0 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 3.4 96.6 1 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 -- -- 0 

11 
Parents/Guardians/Community 
 

-- -- 0 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Ball State University Teacher Fair Survey Summary 
 
  



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     73 

Table 5 
Results for University Emporia State University (Study #5) 
 

Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

 N of Items 
Combined Need Help or 

Not Prepared 
 

Acceptable Level 
of Preparation 

 
1 Dispositions 
 -- -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 -- -- 0 

3 Pedagogy 
 -- -- 0 

4 Classroom 
Mgt/Environment 
 

-- -- 0 

5 Technology 
 -- -- 0 

6 Assessment 
 -- -- 0 

7 Reflective Practice 
 -- -- 0 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 -- -- 0 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 -- -- 0 

11 Parents/Guardians/ 
Community -- -- 0 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 3.8-5.0 96.2-95.0 3 

 
Study Citation:  Follow-up Study of Graduates and Employers, Emporia State 
University 
Comments:  Data presented for 6 years from 2000 to 2006 
 



74     S. Tracz 

 

Table 6 
Results for California State University System (Study #6) 
 

Variables 

 
Range of % for Items N of Items 

Combined  
Adequately and Well Prepared 

 
1 Dispositions 
 -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 81.5-85.0 3 

3 Pedagogy 
 81.5-84.3 5 

4 Classroom 
Mgt/Environment 
 

84.2 1 

5 Technology 
 81.4 1 

6 Assessment 
 81.1 1 

7 Reflective Practice 
 -- 0 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 78.6-80.5 2 

9 Disabilities 
 78.6 1 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 -- 0 

11 
Parents/Guardians/Community 
 

-- 0 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 81.3 1 

 
Study Citation:  Learning to Teach:  Comparing the effectiveness of three pathways 
Comments:  Data presented for 6 years from 2006 to 2011 
 
 



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     75 

Table 7 
Results for Kean University (Study #7) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

N of Items 
Combined 

 
Insufficient 

or 
Beginning 

 

Adequate 

 
Competent 

or  
Strong 

1 Dispositions 
 0 0-20 80-100 9 

2 Knowledge Base 
 0 7.7-20 80-92.3 3 

3 Pedagogy 
 0.0-20.0 0.0-20.0 69.3-100.0 21 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 0.0-10.0 0.0-20.0 70.0-100.0 6 

5 Technology 
 0.0-10.0 15.4-20.0 70.0-84.6 3 

6 Assessment 
 0.0-10.0 10.0-30.8 60.0-90.0 9 

7 Reflective Practice 
 0.0 7.7-30.0 70.0-92.3 3 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 0.0-10.0 10.0-30.8 69.3-80.0 3 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 0.0 0.0 100.0 3 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 00.0-200. 0.0-30.0 50.0-100.0 9 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- -- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 0.0 0.0 100.0 3 

 
Study Citation:  Survey of Employers 
Comments:  Just tables are provided for this study. 



76     S. Tracz 

 

Table 8 
Results for University of Mary Washington (Study #8) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

N of Items 
Combined 

 
Needs 

Improvement 
or Not 

Satisfactorya 

  

Satisfactoryb Excellent 
or Goodc 

1 Dispositions 
 3.57-4.65 4.3-14.3 82.1-95.5 2 

2 Knowledge Base 
 0.0 13.0-24.1 75.9-

100.0 3 

3 Pedagogy 
 0.0-3.57 8.7-17.9 82.1-

100.0 6 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 3.6-8.3 4.3-17.9 78.6-95.8 6 

5 Technology 
 0.0-10.7 13.0-14.3 75.0-

100.0 3 

6 Assessment 
 0.0-4.2 17.4-17.9 78.6-95.8 3 

7 Reflective Practice 
 -- -- -- 0 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 0.0-7.1 13.0-21.4 75.0-

100.0 6 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 

11 
Parents/Guardians/Community 
 

0.0-4.3 8.7-10.7 85.7-
100.0 3 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 0.0-7.4 7.4-13.0 85.2-87.0 2 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  University of Mary Washington, Mary Washington College, Education 
Department, Employer Satisfaction Survey 
Comments:  Data for this study was collected between 2009 and 2011.  
a for part of this study, this category was labeled Not Very Effective or Ineffective. 
b for part of this study, there was no middle category. 
c for part of this study, this category was labeled Effective or Highly Effective. 



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     77 

Table 9 
Results for Radford University (Study #9) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

N of Items 
Combined 

 
Poor or 
Below 

Average 
 

Average 

 
Above 

Average or 
Outstanding 

 
1 Dispositions 
 -- -- -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 -- -- -- 0 

3 Pedagogy 
 0.0-4.2 24.0-50.0 50.0-76.0 8 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 0.0 20.0-40.0 60.0-80.0 5 

5 Technology 
 0.0 8.0 92.0 1 

6 Assessment 
 0.0 25.0-41.7 58.3-75.0 3 

7 Reflective Practice 
 -- -- -- 0 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 0.0 23.8-41.7 58.3-76.2 2 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 0.0-4.0 12.0-20.0 80.0-84.0 2 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 9.1 36.4 54.6 1 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 0.0 15.0 85.0 1 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Radford University Survey of Program Graduates and Principals 
Comments:  Data for this study was collected in 2010. 



78     S. Tracz 

 

Table 10 
Results for 12 Public and 3 Private Universities in Illinois (Study #10) 
 

Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

N of Items 
Combined Other* 

 
“Mostly” / “Extremely” 
prepared by teacher educ 
prog to be successful new 

teacher 
 

1 Dispositions 
 -- -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 -- -- 0 

3 Pedagogy 
 4-20 80-96 18 

4 Classroom 
Mgt/Environment 14-20 80-86 12 

5 Technology 
 10-19 81-90 6 

6 Assessment 
 10-14 86-90 6 

7 Reflective Practice 
 -- -- 0 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 9-32 68-91 18 

9 Disabilities 
 13-17 83-87 6 

10 Prof Workplace/ 
Relations 7-15 85-93 24 

11 Parents/Guardians/ 
Community 11-32 68-89 18 

12 Enhancing Teacher 
Quality 
 

-- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Teacher Graduate Assessment:  A Statewide Assessment of 
Professional Teacher Education Programs in Illinois.  Illinois Association of Deans of 
Public Colleges of Education 
Comments: *Categories for responses other than “Mostly” or “Extremely” prepared by 
teacher education program to be a successful new teacher are not reported. 
N2006 = 1454, N2007 = 1501, N2008 = 1564, N2009 = 1433, N2010 = 1352, N2011 = 840 
 



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     79 

Table 11 
Results for Lamar University at Beaumont (Study #11) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

N of Items 
Combined 

 
Not 

Sufficiently 
Prepared or 
Not At All 
Prepared 

 

Sufficiently 
Prepared 

Well 
Prepared 

1 Dispositions 
 -- -- -- 0 

2 Knowledge Base 
 -- -- -- 0 

3 Pedagogy 
 -- -- -- 0 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 3.6-7.1 28.6-46.4 46.4-67.9 4 

5 Technology 
 0.0-3.9 37.0-80.8 15.4-59.3 10 

6 Assessment 
 -- -- -- 0 

7 Reflective Practice 
 -- -- -- 0 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 10.7-36.4 50.0-63.6 13.6-30.4 7 

9 Disabilities 
 14.3-28.6 35.7-64.3 21.4-42.9 7 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 -- -- -- 0 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 7.1 42.9 50.0 1 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- -- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Texas Education Agency SB 174 Principal Pilot Survey  
Comments:  Data collected in 20010.  Unusual rating categories with 2 categories for 
below average with only 1 category for above average may possibly have skewed the 
results.  



80     S. Tracz 

 

Table 12 
Results for Longwood University (Study #13) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

 
N of Items 
Combined 

 
Insufficient 

or 
Beginning 

 

Adequate 

 
Competent 

or  
Strong 

1 Dispositions 
 15.9 0.0 84.8 1 

2 Knowledge Base 
 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 

3 Pedagogy 
 0.0 2.0-27.4 72.6-98.0 6 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 0.0-18.9 25.9-43.8 49.3-74.1 3 

5 Technology 
 0.0 23.4 76.6 1 

6 Assessment 
 0.0 25.9 74.1 1 

7 Reflective Practice 
 0.0 35.8 64.2 1 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 -- -- -- 0 

9 Disabilities 
 -- -- -- 0 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 -- -- -- 0 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 1.5 47.8 50.7 1 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 -- -- -- 0 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Longwood University Professional Educational Unit Employer Survey 
2010-2011 
Comments:  Data collected in 2009. 



 

 

Effectiveness of Teacher Education     81 

Table 13 
Results for Longwood University (Study #14) 
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

 N of Items 
Combined  

Below 
Averagea 

 

Averagea Above  
Averagea 

1 Dispositions 
 0.0-4.0 19.0-35.0 66.0-81.1 10 

2 Knowledge Base 
 -- -- -- 0 

3 Pedagogy 
 0.0 20.0-38.0 61.0-80.0 10 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 0.0 31.0-50.0 50.0-70.0 5 

5 Technology 
 0.0 27.0 73.0 1 

6 Assessment 
 0.0 27.0-31.0 69.0-73.0 3 

7 Reflective Practice 
 0.0 31.0 69.0 1 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 0.0 31.1-42.0 58.0-69.0 3 

9 Disabilities 
 0.0 35.0 65.0 1 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 0.0 31.0 69.0-70.0 2 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 0.0 38.0 62.0 1 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 0.0 27.0-31.0 70.0-74.0 2 

13 Overall Effectiveness 
 -- -- -- 0 

 
Study Citation:  Longwood University Professional Educational Unit Employer Survey 
2010-2011 
Comments:  Data collected in 2010-2011.   
a Ratings were reported on a 5 point scale, but descriptors for those numbers were not 
reported. 
 
 



82     S. Tracz 

 

Table 14 
Ranges of Average and Above Average Percentages for All Items and All Variables 
Aggregated Over 12 Studies  
 

Codes for Variables 

 
Range of % for Items 

 N of Items 
Combined  

Average  
Min – Max 

 

Above Average 
Min - Max 

1 Dispositions 
 0.0 - 35.0 66.0 - 100.0 22 

2 Knowledge Base 
 0.0 - 21.2 76.2 - 100.0 22 

3 Pedagogy 
 2.0 - 38.0 55.5 - 100.0 82 

4 Classroom Mgt/Environment 
 4.3 - 46.4 49.3 - 95.8 42 

5 Technology 
 13.0 - 34.2 60.0 - 100.0 32 

6 Assessment 
 17.4 - 41.7 58.3 - 90.0 20 

7 Reflective Practice 
 7.7 - 38.6 57.6 - 80.0 32 

8 Diversity/Equity 
 13.0 - 42.0 50.0 - 91.1 32 

9 Disabilities 
 35.0 - 64.3 21.4 - 87.0 32 

10 Prof Workplace/ Relations 
 0.0 - 31.0 69.5 - 100.0 28 

11 Parents/Guardians/Community 
 8.7 - 42.9 50.0 - 100.0 18 

12 Enhancing Teacher Quality 
 7.4 - 31.0 70.0 - 87.0 5 

13 Overall Effectiveness* 
 0.0 - 95.0 a 81.3b - 100.0 7 

 
*The interpretability of this item is difficult as only three studies had items in this 
category.  One of these studies had low, middle and high ratings, one only had one 
category of “adequately and well prepared,” and the last one only had two ratings “not 
prepared” and “acceptable level of preparation.” 
a Based on only one study which combined only had “acceptable level of preparation.” 
b Based on only one study which one category that combined adequately and well 
prepared.

 


