This presentation focuses on the descriptive analysis of the Development, Research and Improvement (DRI) Model

1. METZLER, M. W., & TJEERDSMA, B. L. (1998).
PETE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT WITHIN A
DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH, AND
IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK. JOURNAL OF
TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 17(4), 468-
492.
Renee’ Brown
Adam Keath

2. Type of, purpose of study/paper,
theoretical framework/background
• The purpose of this article is to describe a
development, research and improvement
(DRI) framework for conducting
comprehensive program assessment in PETE
programs.
• Type of paper—Descriptive analysis of the
improvement and assessing the DRI model.
• Examination of multiple frameworks, within
the context of program evaluation.

3. Background
• The neo reform movement began since the publication of A Nation
at Risk.
– Perceptions of relationships between the quality of teachers and
conditions of public school
• Whose to blame for the inadequacies of American schools?
– What is the major force in current reform efforts?
– Reform efforts occurred everywhere
• Driven by NCATE, Holmes group and State legislators
• Successful to make teacher education different, but little evidence
to make pre service teachers effective

4. Definitions
• Program
– meant to be inclusive
– Goodland's 7 General teacher education program areas
– Most programs are completed at the end of student teaching, or
graduation. Few programs extend into the induction years.
• Degree
• Program Assessments
– Orphan of teacher education
– It includes any regular systematic process by which a faculty
designs.
• Assessment Vs. Evaluation
– Usage of Stufflbeam’s definition

5. Program Assessment Practices in PETE

6. DRI Process
• Developmental stage
– Thorough and honest description
• Research stage
– Driven by decisions
• Decision making & improvement Stage
– Combination of developmental and research stage
– Determines the effectiveness of each component in promoting
student acquisition of stated programmatic goals and outcomes
– Making informed and systematic decisions to maintain or
improve program components

7. Developmental Stage
• What are the main programmatic goals and philosophies?
– Philosophy of the PETE faculty at the institution.
• What is the scope of the program’s jurisdiction and
accountability?
– Regulations set by external groups and agencies.
• Departments, colleges and Universities
• State certification, national accreditation
• What is the programs knowledge base?
– PETE programs should strive to teach pedagogical skills
– Shulmans (1987)7 categories of knowledge base for teaching
– NASPE developed standards for the knowledge dispositions and
performance abilities teachers should possess

8. Developmental Stage
• How are knowledge bases interpreted?
– Knowledge bases are derived, combined, adapted or adopted
from various sources
– PETE faculty need to review each construct and each item in the
knowledge base to arrive at a consensus of interpretation.
• How do students acquire the programs knowledge base?
– A variety of learning experiences within the planned curriculum
• Student courses, field experiences, interactions with other
students/faculty
• What is the program structure?
– What is structure?
– Program structures that received much attention and been
adopted in part or wholly by PETE faculty

9. Research Stage
• What evidence demonstrates that students have learned
the knowledge base?
– There can be many kinds of evidence that knowledge base has
been acquired
• Ex. Observation of behavior or skills, examine written documents,
student lesson plans, course paper, assignments, etc.
– PETE faculty will use evidence that is directly related to the
goals set for their program.
• What data collections techniques are available and
congruent with assessment questions
– Teaching and Learning Behaviors
– Teacher beliefs and attitudes
– Teachers motor skills, tactical knowledge, and fitness
– Teachers thoughts and decision-making knowledge structures

10. Research Stage
• How and when is the needed evidence
obtained?
– Once PETE decides what evidence is needed, they
design a plan to collect data.
• evidence collection depends on stated programmatic
outcomes and which of the data collection techniques
will be used
• PETE decides which type of program assessment is
needed to be collected
– Formative vs. summative

11. Decision Making Stage
• How is the gathered evidence organized and used
for assessment
– Recommendation develop a data base, which allow
faculty to analyze individual students, subgroups,
cohorts, and all students who have been in the
program since data has been collected.
– Not all collected samples will be useable (e.g.
videotaped session—interruptions)
– Checking procedure can help the data analysis process

12. Decision Making Questions
• Maintain, adjust, revise or restructure the program
– Maintain
– Adjust
• Ex. Change a course book, add or delete small parts of course
content, fine tuning schedule.
– Revise
• Ex. Instructional models, implement skill proficiency testing, re-sequence
pedagogy courses, change graduation requirements
– Restructure
• Ex. Move to a professional development school model, hire new
program leadership or faculty, develop a new strategic plan,
change to a post- Baccalaureate degree program

13. Conclusions
• In order to maintain a systematic program
assessment, you need collaboration,
commitment and cooperation.
• Systematic program assessment can only
occur when conditions are in place and
maintained

14. What did this paper mean to me?
• Renee- With systematic programming, there
may be false starts, but persistence and
dedication to the task at hand is key.
• Adam-It provided me with a base to look
programing evaluation from a PETE
standpoint.

15. Questions?
• Have these new reforms improved the quality
of initially certified teachers?