Exhibit 3.11 Data Report to Unit Assessment Committee Spring 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Writing an NCATE/IRA Program Report
Advertisements

Sue Sears Sally Spencer Nancy Burstein OSEP Directors’ Conference 2013
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education February 2006 image files formats.
PREPARING FOR NCATE May 19, 2008 Teacher Education Retreat.
SEED MAT Mentor Training MAT Overview Roles and Responsibilities Internship Realities Internship Rotation Cycles Danielson Frameworks.
Section 4 Coursework Requirements 1.State federal laws, regulations and case law affecting Illinois public schools; 2. State and federal laws, regulations.
FAMU ASSESSMENT PLAN PhD Degree Program in Entomology Dr. Lambert Kanga / CESTA.
The Program Review Process: NCATE and the State of Indiana Richard Frisbie and T. J. Oakes March 8, 2007 (source:NCATE, February 2007)
Unit Assessment Plan Weber State University’s Teacher Preparation Program.
Good teaching, good teachers and comparative analysis Fernando Reimers.
Program Evaluation Data Department of Education SUNY Cortland.
ACCREDITATION SITE VISITS.  DIVISION 010 – SITE VISIT PROCESS  DIVISION 017 – UNIT STANDARDS  DIVISION 065 – CONTENT STANDARDS.
Office of Research, Evaluation, and Assessment April 19, 2008.
1 NCATE Standards. 2  Candidate Performance  Candidate Knowledge, Skills, & Dispositions  Assessment System and Unit Evaluation  Unit Capacity Field.
Unit Assessment Plan Weber State University’s Teacher Preparation Program.
Assessing Candidates’ Impact on Student Learning The Don of the Georgia Teacher Preparation Family.
Catherine Wehlburg, Ph.D. Assistant Provost for Institutional Effectiveness Texas Christian University TAMU Assessment Conference 2011.
How the Social Studies Interns are Viewed by their Mentors Going Public Presentation Mike Broda, Mark Helmsing, Chris Kaiser, and Claire Yates.
Meeting SB 290 District Evaluation Requirements
 Description  The unit has a conceptual framework that defines how our programs prepare candidates to be well-rounded educators. Every course in the.
Education Department M. Ed. in Reading CIP Code: Program Code: Program Quality Improvement Report Fall 2010.
BY Karen Liu, Ph. D. Indiana State University August 18,
Measuring Dispositions Dr. Sallie Averitt Miller, Associate Dean Office for Assessment and Accreditation Columbus State University GaPSC Regional Assessment.
Standard 5 - Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Kate Steffens St. Cloud State University.
Bayh College of Education September 23, 2011 The Educator as Mediator of Learning Assessment Day 2011.
ACCREDITATION SITE VISITS.  DIVISION 010 – SITE VISIT PROCESS  DIVISION 017 – UNIT STANDARDS  DIVISION 065 – CONTENT STANDARDS.
Policymakers/The Field of Education focused on educators ability to impact P12 student learning All program areas are tasked with providing evidence our.
NCATE STANDARD I REVIEW Hyacinth E. Findlay Carol Dawson Gwendolyn V. King.
 This prepares educators to work in P-12 schools (1)  It provides direction (1)  It is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with.
Survey Data Executive Summary Fall 2008.
NCATE Standard 3: Field Experiences & Clinical Practice Monica Y. Minor, NCATE Jeri A. Carroll, BOE Chair Professor, Wichita State University.
PTEU Conceptual Framework Overview. Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership Conceptual Framework Theme:
Graduate Portfolio to Document Impact on Student Learning CEC-TED 2004 Albuquerque, New Mexico Deborah S. Wallace, Ph.D. Susan B. Brown, Ph.D.
Assessing Candidates’ Impact on Student Learning The Don of the Georgia Educator Preparation Family.
Department of Secondary Education Program Assessment Report What We Assessed: Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and CA State Teaching Performance.
NCATE for Dummies AKA: Everything You Wanted to Know About NCATE, But Didn’t Want to Ask.
 Field Experience Evaluations PSU Special Educator Programs Confidence... thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful.
NCATE Vocabulary Candidates--university/college students
The Conceptual Framework: What It Is and How It Works Linda Bradley, James Madison University Monica Minor, NCATE April 2008.
Education Unit The Practicum Experience Session Two.
NCATE STANDARD I STATUS REPORT  Hyacinth E. Findlay  March 1, 2007.
Preparing Your ELCC Assessments for NCATE Accreditation Missouri Professors of Educational Administration Conference October 10, 2008.
Assessment System Overview Center for Education Overview for the NCATE BOE Team April 18-22, 2009.
STANDARD 4 & DIVERSITY in the NCATE Standards Boyce C. Williams, NCATE John M. Johnston, University of Memphis Institutional Orientation, Spring 2008.
Continuous Improvement. Focus of the Review: Continuous Improvement The unit will engage in continuous improvement between on-site visits. Submit annual.
Columbus State University C ollege of Education and Health Professions PSC Program Review February 14-17, 2010.
Candidate Assessment of Performance CAP The Evidence Binder.
Valley City State University School of Education and Graduate Studies Aggregate Assessment Data Please click on the action boxes to navigate your way through.
6 Standards: Governance, Curriculum, Diversity, Assessment, Faculty, and Clinical  Spring Self Study Completed  June Submit Report  Fall.
Candidate Assessment of Performance CAP The Evidence Binder.
Stetson University welcomes: NCATE Board of Examiners.
NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. COMMON.
SEED MAT Mentor Training Fall 2015 MAT Overview Roles and Responsibilities Internship Realities Internship Rotation Cycles Assessment Changes.
Candidate Assessment of Performance (CAP): an Overview CAP Practicum Workshop for AIC Teacher Candidates Practicum Workshop Pt.2.
Performance-Based Accreditation
Data Conventions and Analysis: Focus on the CAEP Self-Study
NCATE Unit Standards 1 and 2
NASP Program Review and Approval Eric Robinson, PhD
They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge, he said. They came.
Partnership for Practice
Town Hall Meeting November 4, 2013
Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
NCATE Standard 3: Field Experiences & Clinical Practice
NCATE 2000 Unit Standards Overview.
PPMES-UPRM Methodology & Practice Working Retreat
Standard 3 Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity
They said: We are afraid. Come to the edge, he said. They came.
NJCU College of Education
Deborah Anne Banker Committee Chair
Marilyn Eisenwine Committee Chair
Presentation transcript:

Exhibit 3.11 Data Report to Unit Assessment Committee Spring 2008

AGENDA UAS Document Update Review Data Trends and Patterns –Candidate Proficiencies SPA Data (Marge) and Survey Data –Ratings (Marge) –Open-ended comments (Molly) Trends in SPA Recognition Reports (Molly) –Unit Operations Survey Data –Ratings (Marge) –Open-ended comments (Molly) AACTE Professional Data Systems (PEDS) (Molly) Title II (Marge) US News and World Report (Marge) Discussion and Recommendations (Marge and UAC)

UAS DOCUMENT Candidate Proficiencies – Table 1 Internal - Focal Assessments Table 2 - Internal – Surveys Unit Operations – Table 2 Internal External Table 3 – to be completed by UAC subcommittee for Fall 2008

FA Data Trends - Content Candidate Proficiencies MTEL Pass Rates – Table 1.3 –Consistent within the 95% - 100% range over time. Additional Content Knowledge – Table 1.4 –Overall FA #2 data Most teaching candidates – –proficiency at target or acceptable levels Aavanced teacher education candidates, a –average cumulative undergraduate GPAs clustered around 3.28 level for candidates accepted into M.Ed and 3.49 for CAGS programs. 99% of advanced candidates earned grades in the range of which is the equivalent of acceptable and target. –Thus, the majority of advanced candidates either meet or exceed standard.

Survey Data Trends – Content Tables 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 –79% (F07) candidates report being very well or well prepared –81% (F07) supervising practitioners report high ratings in preparation –61% (F07) alumni themselves as having been very well or well prepared –Combined with the SPA data, the unit’s candidates meet or exceed subject matter standards

FA Data Trends – PCK FA #3 and FA#4 – Table 1.8 –Majority of programs report candidates scoring at the Target level on FA#3 demonstrating that candidates have knowledge of instructional strategies that draw upon content. FA#3 coupled with FA#4 (also high percentages of candidates at the Target level) –demonstrates that candidates have PCK and skills that help all students learn. Advanced candidates grades in the coursework designated for field experiences 99% of candidates earned grades in the range of which is the equivalent of acceptable and target. The majority of candidates meet or exceed standard

Survey Data Trends – PCK Table 1.9 Candidates believe they are very well or well prepared in the utilization of a broad range of content related instructional strategies and meet standards for PCK (F07=63% & 78%) (F07=70% & 74%) of supervising practitioners rated candidates very well or well prepared in PCK Alumni respondents rated themselves as very well or well prepared in PCK (F07=61% & 53%) There is a trend of improvement in respondents’ assessments of quality in pedagogical content knowledge preparation over time. Overall, the survey results support the FA#3 and FA#4 results.

FA and Survey Data Trends – Technology FA - Candidates cannot be recommended for licensure without receiving acceptable or target ratings on technology related standards - 100% meet technology requirements Table 1.10 – Surveys show a trend of increased preparation over time. –In 2002, only 35% of candidates reported themselves as very well/well prepared in the use of technology in teaching. By 2007, that increased to 57% of candidates. –The percentage of supervising practitioners who are in a position to observe candidate use of technology during practicum has also increased from 52% in 2002 to 63% in Fall –Forty-six percent of 2007 alumni compared to 28% of 2002 alumni also indicated a trend of improvement in the preparation to use technology in teaching.

FA and Survey Data Trends - PPKS Table 1.11 –100% of candidates score at acceptable or target levels on PPA (required for licensure recommendation), however, scores are lower in classroom climate and operation standards Table 1.12 and 1.13 – Survey data from supervising practitioners, candidates and alumni provide confirming evidence that candidates gain competency in the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills expected by the unit. Means for PPKS stay in the 3.5 – 4.5 range for most items. Consistently lower mean ratings occur across groups, across time on the item related to candidate’s abilities to deal effectively with classroom management and student behavior Paired with data the PPA data above, it is clear that there is room for growth in the area of classroom management.

FA Data Trends - Dispositions Tables 1.8 & 1.11 –99% to 100% of candidates meet or exceed dispositions standards. Ed Admin (71%) and School Psychology (100%) Unit-wide dispositions inventory in pilot round

Survey Data Trends - Dispositions Table 1.14 –Survey data support FA information. Candidate and alumni data on disposition related items are similar and both groups rate their preparation lower than supervising practitioners rate it. –Candidates (F07=57%, 88% & 55%) –Alumni (F07=56%, 73% % 49%) –Supervising Practitioners (F07=72%, 93%, 65%) The lowest ratings across all groups over time relate to the item “interacting positively with students’ families”. –This item aligns to MA Standards for Teachers E.5, Conceptual Framework.5 and INTASC.2, 3, and 8. 57% of Candidates and 56% of alumni report having been prepared in sensitivity to and preparation for integrating linguistic and cultural diversity into the curriculum. 72% of supervising practitioners see candidates as well or very well prepared in this area

FA and Survey Data Trends – Student Learning Table 1.15 The majority of the unit’s candidates meet the standards at either the target or acceptable levels. Table 1.16 Survey data match FA data. Majority of all groups rate preparation as well or very well in terms of assessment and facilitation of student learning Candidates (F07=70%,65%,& 80%) Supervising Practitioners (60%, 77%, & 91%) Alumni (F07=63%, 63%, & 68%) –Means over the past three years are rather consistent in this area, although the general trend is that ratings are improving each year. Table 1.17 –Advanced candidates’ grades in the range of which is the equivalent of acceptable and target. Table 1.18 OSP meets or exceeds standards –Table 1.18 – OSP meets or exceeds standards

Summary of Survey Open-Ended Comments Candidate Proficiencies Useful Aspects of Educator Licensure Program People: Students/cohort, faculty, university supervisors, supervising practitioners Other factors: courses, assessments, duration of practicum. Use of Technology in Instruction CategoryNumbersPercentage Teaching2865.1% Research716.3% Preparation614.0% Collaboration24.7% N = 43

SPA Recognition Reports – Trends Basic Stats SPA Recognition StatusPercentages Nationally Recognized20% Nationally Recognized with Conditions 46.67% Further Development Required33.33%

SPA Recognition Reports – Trends Common IssuesPercentages Insufficient data to substantiate claim of meeting standards40% Aligning rubrics to standards33% Duration of data collection too short26.67% Articulation of Scoring Guide unclear/lack specificity20% Articulation of indicators of candidate meeting criteria unclear20% Clear distinction between assessments (i.e. no overlap)20% Provide data for routes/strands within programs separately20% Candidates not completing assessments13.33% Lack of sufficient evidence to substantiate candidate impact on P-12 students learning 13.33% Aligning rubrics to appropriate standards and indicators13.33% Include internship evaluation to strengthen evidence13.33%

So What? Many strengths across programs Consistently weak items across programs –classroom management and dealing with student behavior –Interacting positively with students’ families Alumni ratings in all categories are lower than the other two groups What else? Break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unit Operations – Survey Data Advising – Candidates and Alumni –Means up and down over years –Dissatisfied with support in seeking employment Practicum –General satisfaction overall –Dissatisfied somewhat with pre-practicum arrangements Supervising Practitioners –Overall general satisfaction with arrangements, communication, meetings, evaluation –Continually somewhat dissatisfied with incentives/rewards received

Unit Operations – Survey Data Unit Operations Positive: Faculty, supervising practitioner, program administration, practicum, program length. Negative: Program administration, program information, advising, communication with faculty and administration.

Unit Operations Surveys –Dissatisfied with support in seeking employment –Dissatisfied somewhat with pre-practicum arrangements –Continually somewhat dissatisfied with incentives/rewards received (Sup Prac)

AACTE PEDS Trends Institutional Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment – on the rise between 2003 and Undergraduate students in Ed. Program: 0.22% of total institutional undergraduate enrollment. Graduate students in Ed. Program: 16.8% of total institutional graduate enrollment (average). Graduate students in Non Ed. Program: 0.44% of total institutional graduate enrollment (average).

AACTE PEDS Trends Averag e Men Total (Full, Part & Adjunct) Women Total (Full, Part & Adjunct) Faculty Total Professional Education Faculty

More External Data Title II –Numbers of takers and passers somewhat consistent – above the 80% cut off US News and World Report –Tied for 45th with 10 other universities (we moved up!)

Discussion and Recommendations What needs to be done about the lower ratings on some items? –Classroom management –Working with families –Support for employment –Prepracticum arrangements –Incentives for supervising practitioners –Others? How shall we handle the lower alumni ratings across items? What else? What next?