Delta state university



Download 419.56 Kb.
Page1/5
Date conversion18.07.2018
Size419.56 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5
DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY

Unit Strategic Plan and Annual Report -- Academic Year 2009-2010

__X__Academic Unit ____ Administrative/Support Unit


  1. Unit Title: Division of Teacher Education


School/College or University Division: College of Education
Unit Administrator: Jenetta Waddell, Ed.D.
Program Mission: To prepare capable and confident teacher candidates who can positively affect learning outcomes of students in the P-12 school setting. Such preparation focuses on the development of appropriate content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions. The Division of Teacher Education prepares teacher candidates in the areas of Elementary Education (B.S.E., M.Ed., Ed.S.), Special Education (M.Ed.), and the Master of Arts in Teaching alternate route program.
II. Educational Program Learning Outcome Assessment Plan (Academics)/User Outcomes Assessment Plan (Non-Academics)



Learner Outcomes are identified for each major. Learning outcomes are based on candidate performance assessments from spring, summer, and fall 2009.
Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education Degree Program


TABLE I.A – Student Learning Outcomes


A. Learner Outcome

What should a graduate in the
B.S.E. in Elementary Education
major know, value, or be able to do at graduation and beyond?

B. Data Collection & Analysis

1. What assessment tools and/or methods will you use to determine achievement of the learning outcome? 2. Describe how the data from these tools and/or methods will be/have been collected.

3.Explain the procedure to analyze the data.


C. Results of Evaluation

What were the findings of the analysis?

D. Use of Evaluation Results

1.List any specific recommendations.

2. Describe changes in curriculum, courses, or procedures that are proposed or were made/ are being made as a result of the program learning outcome assessment process.

# 1 Demonstrate mastery of the appropriate content and skills.
GE 1



1. Institutional reports and individual score reports for PRAXIS II Content: Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, K-5, and Grade K - 6 PRAXIS II: Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) will be the assessment tools used. In addition, beginning with the Fall 2009 Semester, data are being collected in TaskStream, the online information technology used by the College of Education Unit, to provide for more detailed analyses. Beginning in the Fall 2009 Semester, GPA and Teaching Internship pass rates are being tracked in TaskStream.

2. These assessments are norm-referenced measures, the passage of which is required to receive a teaching license in Mississippi. The assessments are taken by all candidates prior to admission to the teaching internship.

3. The assessment results will be analyzed in the aggregate. Data results will be compared with those of past years to identify trends in strengths and weaknesses in candidates’ knowledge of content and pedagogy.


All candidates (N = 46) in the Spring and Fall 2009 Semesters passed the Praxis II Content and the PLT prior to beginning the teaching internship.
For the 2009 calendar year, a minority of students (66%) failed the Praxis II Content assessment on the first attempt. In fall 2009, (N = 24) Taskstream reports indicated a first attempt mean of 169 and a median of 166 out of a possible 200, which is above the minimum score of 158 required to receive a Mississippi teaching license.
On the PLT, the first time pass rate was 95%. In fall 2009, Taskstream reports indicated a first attempt mean and median of 169 out of 200, which is above the minimum score of 152 required to receive a Mississippi teaching license.
For fall 2009, all candidates successfully completed the internship and all met the minimum GPA requirement for admission to Teacher Education and admission to the teaching internship.


1. Use of the analysis provided by TaskStream reports will allow more detailed tracking of trends in Praxis results, GPA, and internship completion. During the 2010-2011 academic year, faculty will consider the possible tracking of Praxis I data, as well as the provision of intervention activities focused on the Praxis II assessment.

2. First time pass rates on the Praxis II Content assessment have dropped in the past three calendar years, with the implementation of a new version of the assessment. In fall 2009, changes were made to course requirements in the first semester of the senior year. Several courses were blocked to provide more opportunity for a variety of extended field experiences. The more detailed analysis provided by TaskStream reports will be useful in continuing to track the impact of these changes on candidate performance on the Praxis assessments, GPA, and internship completion.



#2 Demonstrate mastery of content knowledge.
GE 2, 3, 8



1. College BASE (C-Base), a criterion-referenced academic achievement exam (covering mathematics, social studies, science, and English) will be administered. The C-Base was developed at the University of Missouri and is used across the U.S. as an assessment of content knowledge for pre-service elementary education teacher candidates. Scores range from 40 – 560, with a mean score of 300. Reports provide mean scores and standard deviations for each tested group.
2. The assessment will be administered to all candidates in CEL 301/CUR 302, Introduction to Education, as a measure of students’ content knowledge.
3. An institutional summary and individual score reports provide descriptive data. Data results will be compared with those of past years to identify trends in strengths and weaknesses in candidates’ knowledge of content.



Three groups of candidates were assessed during the 2009 calendar year. Group one consists of on-campus students taking the C-Base test in March 2009 (N = 27). Group two consists of on-campus candidates taking the C-Base test in October 2009 (N = 43). Group three consists of candidates enrolled in the Hinds 2 + 2 Program (N = 29) who took the test in October 2009. This was the first administration of the C-Base test to Hinds 2 + 2 candidates.

In the spring testing of on-campus candidates (N = 27), averages and standard deviations respectively were English, 258 and 45; mathematics, 246 and 38; science 214 and 36; and social studies, 215 and 41. The composite score for candidates was 231, 69 points below the mean of 300. The highest average performance was in the area of English (Average = 258). The English score is 27 points higher than the composite score of 231, indicating a meaningful difference between these candidates’ performance in English and their overall performance on the C-Base. Because this group of candidates’ English score exceeds the composite score, they have demonstrated a relative strength in English as compared to other areas in which they were tested. The standard deviation for this group in English is 45, which is the largest standard deviation for the group on the administration of the C-Base test. While the English scores are the highest of this group of candidates, the standard deviation indicates that this is the area where the greatest variance of student scores lies. Science scores were the lowest at an average of 214, which is 17 points lower than the group composite score of 231. Seventeen points represents a meaningful difference, thus this group of candidates shows a minor weakness in science as compared to other tested areas. The standard deviation for science scores is 36, the lowest for this group. It indicates the smallest variance for this group is in the area of science.

In the fall testing of on-campus candidates (N = 43), averages and standard deviations respectively were English, 234 and 44; mathematics, 246 and 39; science 194 and 37; and social studies, 197 and 45. The composite score for candidates was 220, 80 points below the mean of 300. The highest average performance was in the area of mathematics (Average = 246). The mathematics score is 26 points higher than the composite score of 220, indicating a meaningful difference between these candidates’ performance in mathematics and their overall performance on the C-Base. Because this group of candidates’ mathematics score exceeds the composite score, they have demonstrated a relative strength in mathematics as compared to other areas in which they were tested. The standard deviation for this group in mathematics is 39. Science scores were the lowest at an average of 194, which is 26 points lower than the group composite score of 220. This represents a meaningful difference and indicates a weakness in science as compared to other tested areas. The standard deviation for science scores is 37, the lowest for this group. It indicates the smallest variance for this group is in the area of science.

In the fall testing of Hinds 2 + 2 candidates (N = 29), averages and standard deviations respectively were English, 246 and 42; mathematics, 246 and 40; science 183 and 43; and social studies, 189 and 47. The composite score for candidates was 210, 90 points below the mean of 300. The highest average performance for these candidates was in the area of mathematics and English (Average = 246 for both areas). Both areas have a score that is 36 points higher than the composite score of 210, indicating a meaningful difference between these candidates’ performance in mathematics and English and their overall performance on the C-Base. Because this group of candidates’ mathematics and English scores exceeds the composite score, they have demonstrated a relative strength in these areas as compared to other areas in which they were tested. The standard deviation for this group in mathematics is 40 and the standard deviation in English is 42. Science scores were the lowest at an average of 183, which is 27 points lower than the group composite score of 210. This represents a meaningful difference and indicates a weakness in science as compared to other tested areas. The standard deviation for science scores is 37, the lowest for this group. It indicates the smallest variance for this group is in the area of science.

In summary, when compared to the national norms, the candidates demonstrated low to marginal content knowledge of science, social studies, English, and math; this trend has continued since 2006 when the first administration was conducted. Science was identified as a relative weakness for all groups tested in 2009. When comparing 2009 subject area scores to past administrations, a continuing trend of relative strength in mathematics was identified; scores of the fall 2009 on- campus and Hinds groups followed this trend.


1. Instructors who teach the introductory courses (CEL 301 & CUR 302) will continue to conference with the candidates regarding their C-Base scores and to advise them to take additional courses, complete tutorials, or work with tutors in any areas of low performance. A list of specific Internet sites for assistance in various subject areas has been developed and disseminated. In addition, candidates are advised to use the writing lab and the Office of Academic Support Services.
2. Arts and Sciences faculty in Science Education and Social Studies Education are working with Elementary Education faculty to develop tutorial for candidates who score low in these areas.



#3 Demonstrate the ability to plan an integrated unit of instruction for a diverse student population.
GE 1, 9

1.a. The Integrated Units are scored with grading rubrics, developed by the faculty; the grading rubrics are linked to the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) standards, the international professional association that guides Elementary Education teacher preparation programs. The grading rubrics contain the following components: Contextual Factors and Class Description; Learning Goals: Objectives, Concepts, and Skills; Lesson Planning Structure and Content; Assessment Plan; Subject Area Integration; Assessment Plan; Home/School/Community Connection; and Reflection and Self-Evaluation.

2.a. Candidates in CEL 317, Principles and Techniques for Teaching in the Primary Grades, and CEL 318, Principles and Techniques for Teaching in the Middle Grade will work in groups to develop and implement two, multifaceted units (one for CEL 317 & one for CEL 318). The instructor for each courses will rate candidate performance using the grading rubrics. CEL 317 and 318 are taken the first semester of the senior year.
3.a. SPSS will be used to analyze means, frequencies, and

percentages. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 1 for the Integrated Lesson Plan scoring guide.)


1.b. The STAI Indicators 1 – 8 (for spring 2009) and the TIAI Indicators 1 – 9 (for fall 2009) will be used to assess the candidates’ ability to plan instruction.


2.b. Data will be collected during CEL 317, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in Early Childhood, and CEL 318, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in the Middle Grades, as well as in the student teaching experience.
3.b. A 4-point rubric will be used. TaskStream reports provided descriptive data. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI and Instrument 2 for the TIAI.)


CEL 317 - In the aggregate overall results showed that candidates demonstrated their ability to plan at or above the acceptable levels in most categories of the Integrated Unit. One area of concern is that of differentiated instruction (Lesson Planning rubric). In spring 2009, 95.5% of the candidates (N = 20) scored at the acceptable level in this category, while in fall 2009 (N = 21), only 38% scored in the acceptable category. In 2008, candidates in CEL 317 scored 100% acceptable in the area of differentiated instruction. In 2009, candidates’ performance in differentiating instruction showed a decrease from spring to fall.

CEL 318 - In the aggregate overall results showed that candidates demonstrated their ability to plan at or above the acceptable levels in most categories of the Integrated Unit. Nevertheless, candidates in the fall semester scored lower in several categories. In the fall semester, 50% of the candidates scored at the acceptable level in the area of knowledge of community, school, and classroom factors (Contextual Factors and Classroom Description rubric) while 100% of the spring candidates scored at the acceptable level. In the area of lesson planning, 65% of the fall candidates scored at the acceptable level in the category of instructional activities (Lesson Planning rubric) while 95% of the spring candidates scored at the acceptable level. In the area of Reflection and Self-Evaluation, 65% fall candidates scored at the acceptable level in implications for future teaching (Reflection and Self-Evaluation rubric), while 95.2% of the spring candidates scored at the acceptable level.
When comparing the 2009 results with those of past years, weaknesses were noted across the years on indicators, such as differentiating instruction, that focus on effective planning for a diverse population of students.

Methods Course


  • Spring 2009 (N = 21) – Domain I of the STAI was used, with a ratings scale of 1 - 4. Mean ratings ranged from 3.76/4 on “Specifies and selects content materials and media for lessons” to 4/4 on “Specifies or selects learner objectives for lessons” and “Uses knowledge of students’ needs, interest, and experiences.” The overall mean was 3.91/4.
  • Fall 2009 (N = 19) – In Fall 2009, the instrument changed to the TIAI Domain I, with a rating scale of 0 - 3. Mean ratings ranged from 1.95/3 on “Plans appropriate teaching procedures” to 2.63/3 on “Selects developmentally appropriate objectives for lessons based on state frameworks and best practices.”



Internship

  • Spring 2009 (N = 21)On the STAI, Cooperating Teacher mean ratings ranged from 3.29/4 on “Incorporates multiculturalism and diversity in lessons” to 3.81/4 on “Specifies or selects learner objectives for lessons” and “Specifies or selects procedures for lessons.” On the final observation, DSU Supervisor mean ratings ranged from 3.29/4 on “Plans lessons that integrate knowledge from several subject areas” to 3.38/4 on “Specifies or selects procedures for lessons.”

  • Fall 2009 (N = 24) – On the STAI, Cooperating Teacher mean ratings ranged from 3.63/4 on “Specifies or selects materials and procedures for assessing learner progress” and “Uses information about students to plan and organize instruction to accommodate differences in developmental and individual needs” to 3.92/4 on “Plans lessons that integrate knowledge from several subject areas.” DSU Supervisor mean ratings on the final observation ranged from 3.64/4 on “Plans lessons that integrate knowledge from several subject areas” to 3.88/4 on “Uses information about students to plan and organize instruction to accommodate differences in developmental and individual needs.”

For the methods course, 2009 data identified strengths in developing appropriate objectives. A 2009 weakness was identified in planning appropriate procedures, including content and media. For the internship, Spring 2009 data identified a strength in selection procedures for lessons by the Cooperating Teachers and the DSU Supervisors. For Fall 2009, an interesting phenomenon occurred. Cooperating Teacher strengths and weaknesses were the inverse of those identified by DSU Supervisors. Cooperating Teachers identified integrating knowledge across several subject areas as a strength, which DSU Supervisors identified it as a weakness. Cooperating Teachers identified accommodating for developmental and individual needs as a weakness, while the DSU Supervisor identified it as a strength. It should be noted that all indicators were in the Acceptable range.



1. Faculty teaching earlier classes that require candidates to plan lessons will continue to emphasize each component of the planning process. Special emphasis will be placed on teaching candidates methods of understanding students’ characteristics, creating effective instructional activities appropriate for the middle school student, and differentiating instruction for a diverse student population. It is recommended that future data be collected and analyzed in TaskStream, which will provide easy-to-read reports, as well as secure storage.

2. It is proposed that the effectiveness of enhanced field experiences begun in fall 2009 be evaluated to determine whether these experiences are providing candidates with opportunities to plan for diverse student populations.



1. None at this time.
2. Methods course data from 2008 identified planning and adapting instruction to accommodate student needs as a weakness. A similar weakness was identified by Cooperating Teachers in 2009. Faculty will review this area to determine if instruction needs to be strengthened.


#4 Demonstrate the pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to successfully complete the teaching internship and be deemed safe to practice.
GE 1, 2, 3, 4, 9

1. During the teaching internship that comprises the candidate’s final semester in the program, the Student Teacher Assessment Instrument (STAI) will be used to assess pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The STAI, cross-referenced to Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Standards, is an instrument used statewide to measure teacher candidates’ abilities within the following domains: planning and preparation, communication and interaction, teaching and learning, managing the learning environment, assessment of student learning, and professionalism and partnerships. The instrument contains 42 indicators and has a 4-point scale (1 - 4) with a rating of 3 deemed Acceptable and safe to practice.

2. Observation data from the candidate’s cooperating teacher and Delta State Supervisor will be collected.
3. Data are collected and analyzed in TaskStream. Analysis reports contain means, medians, and distribution of scores for each indicator. Aggregate ratings of cooperating teachers and DSU supervisors are studied by the faculty to identify strengths and weaknesses in the performance of the curriculum interns and the results are compared with those of past years to identify trends. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI.)


Domain I focuses on Planning and Preparation

  • Spring 2009 (N = 21) – Cooperating Teacher mean ratings ranged from 3.29/4 on “Incorporates multiculturalism and diversity in lessons” to 3.81/4 on “Specifies or selects learner objectives for lessons” and “Specifies or selects procedures for lessons.” On the final observation, DSU Supervisor mean ratings ranged from 3.29/4 on “Plans lessons that integrate knowledge from several subject areas” to 3.38/4 on “Specifies or selects procedures for lessons.”

  • Fall 2009 (N = 24) – Cooperating Teacher mean ratings ranged from 3.63/4 on “Specifies or selects materials and procedures for assessing learner progress” and “Uses information about students to plan and organize instruction to accommodate differences in developmental and individual needs” to 3.92/4 on “Plans lessons that integrate knowledge from several subject areas.” DSU Supervisor mean ratings on the final observation ranged from 3.64/4 on “Plans lessons that integrate knowledge from several subject areas” to 3.88/4 on “Uses information about students to plan and organize instruction to accommodate differences in developmental and individual needs.”

Domain II focuses on Communication and Interaction


  • Spring 2009 – Cooperating Teachers identified a weakness in sensitivity for diversity, establishing relationships with parents, and appropriate classroom climate (3.29/4) and a strength in providing opportunities for cooperating and interaction (3.71/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors also identified a weakness in establishing relationships with parents (3.38/4); a strength was identified in appropriate classroom climate.


  • Fall 2009 - Cooperating Teachers identified a weakness in establishing relationships with parents (3.42/4) and a strength in listening and responding to students (3.96/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors also identified a weakness in establishing relationships with parents (3.46/4) and strengths in sensitivity to diversity, communicating high expectations, and listening and responding to students, which was also identified by Cooperating Teachers (3.88/4)

Domain III focuses on Teaching for Learning



  • Spring 2009 – Cooperating Teachers identified a weakness in using community resources to enhance learning (3.19/4) and a strength in knowledge of subject matter (3.90/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors also identified a weakness in using community resources to enhance learning (3.38/4) and also identified a strength in knowledge of subject matter (3.62/4). Supervisors identified an additional strength in using a variety of teaching methods (3.62/4).

  • Fall 2009 - Cooperating Teachers identified weaknesses in accommodating differences and using community resources (3.63/4) and a strength in using understandable language (3.92/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors also identified a weakness in using community resources (3.33/4); strengths were identified in knowledge of subject matter, enthusiasm, and using student prior understanding and experience (3.83/4).

Domain IV focuses on Managing the Learning Environment
  • Spring 2009 - Cooperating Teachers identified a weakness in using responses to pace lessons (3.48/4) and a strength in monitoring student participation (3.71/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors identified a weakness in establishing routines (3.43/4). As with Cooperating Teachers, DSU Supervisors identified a strength in monitoring student participation (3.62/4).


  • Fall 2009 - Cooperating Teachers identified a weakness in promoting cooperation and learning (3.58/4) and a strength in fairness and supportiveness (3.88/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors identified weaknesses in making adjustments to enhance relationships and motivation and using responses to pace lessons (3.71/4). As with Cooperating Teachers, a strength was identified in fairness and supportiveness (3.88/4); a strength was also identified in effective use of instructional time (3.88/4).

Domain V focuses on Assessment for Learning



  • Spring 2009 – Cooperating Teachers identified a weakness in maintaining records (3.43/4) and a strength in communicating assessment and performance standards (3.62/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors identified a weakness in developing and using performance assessments (3.33/4) and a strength in encouraging students to self-evaluate (3.43/4).

  • Fall 2009 - Cooperating Teachers identified a weakness in encouraging student self-evaluation (3.75/4) and a strength in communicating assessment and performance standards (3.88/4). On the final observation, DSU Supervisors identified weaknesses in communicating assessment and performance standards and maintaining records (3.42/4) and strengths in developing and using performance assessments and encouraging student self-evaluation (3.42/4).

In summary, all ratings were in the Acceptable range. When compared with results from previous years, no trends were identified in Domain I, II, IV, or V; in Domain III a relative weakness was identified in using community resources to enhance learning.




1. Faculty will review how candidates are prepared to effectively use community resources to enhance instruction.

Use the results of the review mentioned in #1 to determine if curriculum changes are needed.


#5 Demonstrate the ability to positively impact student learning.
GE 1, 2, 3, 4


1. The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Folio is a performance-based assessment that requires teacher candidates to assess their impact on student learning while simultaneously improving their ability to reflect upon practice and make needed improvements. In CEL 497, Diagnosis and Evaluation of Student Achievement in the Elementary School, taught the first semester of the senior year, candidates will be required to complete the TWS. In the teaching internship, candidates develop and implement a TWS in their internship classroom.
2. For each experience, the candidate will complete a seven-day unit of integrated study and develop a corresponding TWS. In completing the TWS, candidates gather data, assess, and reflect upon the following eight dimensions related to teaching and learning: Contextual Information, Learning Goals, Assessment Plan, Design for Instruction, Instructional Decision Making, Analysis of Student Learning, Reflection and Self-Evaluation, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education.
3. Each component of the TWS will be graded with its respective rubric. TaskStream reports provided means, medians, and distributions of scores for each indicator. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 for the TWS rubric.)


Methods Courses
  • Spring 2009 (N = 21) - Overall mean ratings by component were as follows: Contextual Factors 2.90/3, Learning Goals 2.80/3, Assessment Plan 2.85/3, Design for Instruction 2.84/3, Instructional Decision Making 2.98/3, Analysis of Student Learning 2.73/3, Reflection and Self Evaluation 2.77/3, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education 2.85/3.


  • Fall 2009 (N = 16) - Overall mean ratings by component were as follows: Contextual Factors 2.90/3, Learning Goals 2.92/3, Assessment Plan 2.93/3, Design for Instruction 2.86/3, Instructional Decision Making 3/3, Analysis of Student Learning 2.75/3, Reflection and Self Evaluation 2.79/3, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education 2.87/3.

Internship



  • Spring 2009 (N = 21) - Overall mean ratings by component were as follows: Contextual Factors 2.99/3, Learning Goals 3/3, Assessment Plan 2.99/3, Design for Instruction 2.99/3, Instructional Decision Making 2.98/3, Analysis of Student Learning 3/3, Reflection and Self Evaluation 2.99/3, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education 2.99/3.

  • Fall 2009 (N = 24) - Overall mean ratings by component were as follows: Contextual Factors 2.97/3, Learning Goals 2.98/3, Assessment Plan 2.98/3, Design for Instruction 2.90/3, Instructional Decision Making 2.93/3, Analysis of Student Learning 2.93/3, Reflection and Self Evaluation 2.96/3, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education 2.91/3.

In Methods Courses, a weakness was identified in Analysis of Student Learning. Particular weaknesses were noted in Interpretation of Data, which requires candidates to analyze pre- and post-test data in aggregated and disaggregated forms. A strength was noted in Instructional Decision Making. In internships, mean ratings were at 2.90 – 3.00, with no obvious weaknesses noted. When compared with results from previous years, no trends were noted.




  1. None at this time




  1. None at this time


#6 Demonstrate the ability to diagnose and remediate deficits in reading skills.
GE 1, 2


1. A Reading Case Study (RCS) will be used to collect data during CRD 326, Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Difficulties. The grading rubric is aligned with ACEI standards and contains components that cover the areas of background information, general observations of the elementary student with whom the candidate is working, accurate test administration, analysis of testing results, recommendations for remediation, and development and implementation of needs-based instruction. The grading rubric uses a 3-point scale (Unacceptable, Acceptable, Target).
2. Each candidate in CRD 326 will complete the RCS while working with an assigned student in a local school.
3. The scores will be analyzed in SPSS, with means, frequencies, and percentages. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 3 for the RCS scoring guide.)


In the spring semester of 2009, candidates scored 100% (target) in both describing background information and general observations. For this group, 96% were at the target level and 4% were at an acceptable level for student data. In the area of field experiences, 52% were at the target level and 48% were at the acceptable level. In the area of test administration/results, 84% were at the target level and 16% were at the acceptable level. For the area of analysis, no candidate scored at the target level while 72% scored at the acceptable level and 28% scored at the unacceptable level.

In the fall semester of 2009, 90% of the candidates scored at the target level for student data, background information, and test administration/results. The remaining 10% of the candidates scored at the acceptable level in those areas. For general observations, 55% of the candidates scored at the target level, 40% scored at the acceptable level, and 5% scored at the unacceptable level. In the area of analysis, 85% of the candidates scored at the target level, 5% scored at the acceptable level, and 10% scored at the unacceptable level. For summary/recommendations, 85% of the candidates scored target, 10% scored acceptable, and 5% scored at the unacceptable level.

In summary, the candidates demonstrated that they were able to impact student learning through the gathering and interpretation of student data. One area of weakness is that of analysis of test results. In spring 2009, 28% of the students and in fall 2009, 5% scored unacceptable in this area. When compared with data results from past years, background information continues to be a strength; a continuing weakness was noted in analysis of test results.



1. Continue to emphasis analysis of test results. It is recommended that future data be collected and analyzed in TaskStream, which will provide easy-to-read reports, as well as secure storage.
2. The course instructor will continue to emphasize presentation of test data, summarizing case study findings, and making appropriate recommendations for further instruction.


#7 Exhibit professional dispositions associated with successful teaching.
GE 10


1. & 2. The undergraduate version of the Dispositions Rating Scale (DRS) was developed by the College of Education faculty and is correlated with the STAI and will be used to assess students’ dispositions in CEL 301/ CUR 302, Introduction to Teaching, and the teaching internship. The scale is also used throughout the program to document dispositional concerns and exemplary dispositions. The instrument uses a 4-point scale and assessment these professional dispositions: Fairness, Belief That All Students Can Learn, Professionalism, Resourcefulness, and Dependability.
3. Each disposition will be analyzed for means, medians, and score distributions using TaskStream. (See Appendix A, Instrument 3 for the Dispositions Rating Scale.)

CEL 301


  • Spring 2009 (N = 25) - Instructor mean ratings ranged from 2.68/4 on Fairness to 3.16/4 on Resourcefulness and Dependability. The overall mean score was 2.98/4.

  • Fall 2009 (N = 43) – Instructor mean ratings ranged from 2.91 on Dependability to 3.14/4 on Professionalism and Fairness. The overall mean score was 3.05/4.

Internship



  • Spring 2009 (N = 21) - Cooperating Teacher mean ratings ranged from 3.48/4 on The Belief That All Children Can Learn to 3.67/4 on Dependability, with an overall mean of 3.55/4. DSY Supervisor mean ratings ranged from 3.14/4 on The Belief That All Children Can Learn, Professionalism, and Dependability to 3.19/4 on Resourcefulness and Fairness, with an overall mean of 3.16/4.

  • Fall 2009 (N = 24) – Cooperating Teacher mean ratings ranged from 3.58/4 on The Belief That All Children Can Learn to 3.96/4 on Dependability, with an overall mean for 3.77. DSU Supervisor mean ratings ranged from 3.46/4 on Professionalism to 3.71/4 on Dependability, with an overall mean of 3.58/4.

In CEL 301 there were no noticeable themes; overall mean scores were close to a 3 rating, which meets expectations. In internship, The Belief That All Children Can Learn was identified as a weakness by Cooperating Teachers for Spring and Fall 2009 and by DSU Supervisors for Spring 2009. In internship, Dependability was identified as strength by Cooperating Teachers for Spring 2009 and DSU Supervisors for Spring and Fall 2009. Overall means for interns were higher than those for students in CEL 301, with meeting expectations. In comparing current ratings to those from past semesters, one trend was noted: For interns, Dependability was also identified as a strength in the 2008 data.




  1. None at this time.




  1. None at this time.




#8 Demonstrate ability to synthesize views of education that are commensurate of best practices and professionalism.
GE 1, 5, 10


1. Each semester, all teacher candidates in CEL 301/CUR 302, Introduction to Elementary Education, will develop a brief position paper that synthesizes the candidate’s views of education, providing rationale related to beliefs about the purposes of and influences upon education, personal goals, factors associated with the teaching/learning climate, content to be taught and influences upon it, and professional growth expectations and responsibilities. Candidates will also refine their philosophies during the teaching internship semester. The grading rubric contains a 4-point scale (Unacceptable, Emerging, Acceptable, Target).
2. Both philosophies will be graded with the same grading rubric. However, scores assigned to candidates in CEL 301/CUR 302 are given with the consideration that they are novices to education and have not yet had an opportunity to attain much of the knowledge and engage in key experiences that are necessary for synthesizing an appropriate view of the teaching/learning interaction.
3. Scores for each indicator will be entered into TaskStream and analyzed for means, medians, and score distributions. (The Philosophy of Education rubric is found in Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 4.)


CEL 301

For both semesters, means for all areas were at the Acceptable level, with the exception of Composition/Mechanics for spring 2009. The weakness in Composition/Mechanics has been noted for the past several years.


Internship

For both semesters, means for all areas were at the Acceptable or Target levels.



1. Consider tracking Praxis I scores to identify first-attempt pass rates, as the writing subtest particularly links to the weakness in Composition/Mechanics.


2. None at this time.



  1   2   3   4   5


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page