Assessment System Overview Center for Education Overview for the NCATE BOE Team April 18-22, 2009

Assessment concerns Does the assessment system provide information about Aggregated evidence about candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions? Disaggregated evidence about areas of strength and weakness in individual programs? Formative,on-going feedback to candidates, faculty, administrators and PK-12 partners? Summative feedback about program outcomes? Benchmarked information about candidate proficiency and progress linked to transition points?

Characteristics of the current assessment system Assessments are aligned with the conceptual framework professional standards of PDE or specialized professional associations Assessments are tied to transition points. The content of instruction is aligned with assessments. Multiple methods and multiple evaluators are used.

Challenges in AY 2006 Integrating information that we already had in order to have a “system” Refining data collection Acquiring new skills (rethinking rubrics, achieving alignment) Creating new assessments for national program recognition Implementing TaskStream at all levels Creating a collective assessment culture by through collaboration and cross-disciplinary participation Understanding that assessment is everyone’s job and everyone has to be involved

What are the broad elements of the assessment system? Assessment tools and strategies used to evaluate candidate proficiencies and faculty performance Evaluators, including faculty, administrators, school partners, and candidates, as well as other members of the professional educational community The proficiencies that are evaluated Procedures and time-tables for collecting evidence at each level of the assessment system

Organization of the assessment system See next slide

Databases ACCESS Database ( , transiting to a revised database in 2007) ACCESS Database (2007- present) PRAXIS Database Enrollment/Completion Database Databooks (collections of required course assessments for key courses in all programs) TaskStream DRF’s Mobile clinical evaluations using PDA’s & ACCESS Miscellaneous databases needed to answer specific questions

ACCESS Databases relevant evidence linked to transition points 2003 ACCESS database (candidates for initial teaching licenses only) Admission to Widener Admission to teacher certification PPST scores Writing samples (yearly) Academic progress Student teacher placements PRAXIS scores FBI/Criminal history compliance 2007 ACCESS database (all candidates including candidates for graduate level certificates and degrees) Admission to Widener Admission to certification PPST scores Writing samples Academic progress Student teaching/clinical practice placements Proficiency in student teaching/clinical practice PRAXIS scores FBI/Criminal history compliance (as relevant)

PRAXIS database Pass rates by programs (Title II - HEA reports) Total scaled scores disaggregated by program and by level –Initial teaching license baccalaureate level –Initial teaching license post baccalaureate level –Specialist certificates –Advanced certificates for other school personnel (principals and supervisors) Category scores also disaggregated by program and program level

Enrollment/Completer Database Headcounts of candidates Undergraduate degrees and certificates 5-year program candidates Master degree candidates Initial teaching, specialist and other school personnel in graduate level certification programs Doctoral degree programs School Psychology candidates

Databooks: Evidence and indicators Assessment narratives Directions to students Rubrics and scoring guides for every student This data is compiled for each course by the NCATE office on EXCEL spreadsheets. Data is then reported at semester assessment meetings to all unit faculty as a comprehensive set of data that indicates the percentages of candidates who scored each level of proficiency in each key course.

TaskStream: Evidence and indicators Candidate work samples Rubrics aligned with standards or the unit conceptual framework Evidence of candidate proficiency Evaluator feedback This evidence is assessed on a continuing basis by students and faculty. Candidate performance is aligned with professional standards, PDE standards and the unit conceptual framework, according to relation to proficiency levels. The evidence can be aggregated to study program outcomes.

Miscellaneous Databases These are individual collections of data that address specific questions.

Who are the evaluators? Administrators Advisory Boards Cooperating faculty in PK-12 schools Faculty committees Center for Education Faculty Arts and Sciences Faculty Faculty who supervise candidates in student teaching, practica and internshipsFaculty who supervise candidates in student teaching, practica and internships Candidates

Administrators assess Faculty proficiency in teaching, scholarship and service to their professions Graduate/alumni satisfaction Employer perceptions

Advisory boards assess Knowledge of content Knowledge of pedagogy Pedagogical skill Dispositions Employer perceptions

Cooperating faculty assess Knowledge of content Knowledge of pedagogy Pedagogical skill Dispositions

Faculty committees assess Knowledge of content Knowledge of pedagogy Pedagogical skill Dispositions Readiness for next steps in licensure or degrees Candidate work samples Student learning Faculty proficiency in teaching, scholarship and service to their professions

Arts and Sciences faculty assess Knowledge of content

Center for Education faculty assess Knowledge of content Knowledge of pedagogy Pedagogical skill Dispositions Readiness for next steps in licensure or degrees Candidate work samples Student learning Faculty proficiency in teaching, scholarship and service to their professions Graduate/alumni satisfaction Employer perceptions

Faculty who supervise candidates assess Knowledge of content Knowledge of pedagogy Pedagogical skill Dispositions Readiness for next steps in licensure or degrees Candidate work samples

Candidates assess Student learning Faculty proficiency in teaching Graduate/alumni satisfaction

Has the unit benefited from continuous assessment? Faculty as a unit are aware of candidate proficiencies and program content. Assessment is now a unit-wide enterprise because all faculty attend all assessment workshops and share assessment information. Skills, assessment language, and enthusiasm for assessment has increased. Time has been created to have cross-disciplinary discussions for the first time. Faculty in Higher Education and Human Sexuality Education are using the NCATE model to develop standards and assessment for their programs.

What are the next steps? Embedding large parts of the system within the Office of Certification Sustaining gains in collaboration throughout the unit and the PEU Refining our tools Modifying assessments in line with recent changes in PDE accountability mandates at all levels of certification Continuing the integration of the assessment of non- licensure programs Adapting our methods to the proposed Widener assessment database